DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
REQUIREMENT FOR UNITY OF INVENTION
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475(a), a national stage application shall relate to one invention only or to a group of inventions so linked as to form a single general inventive concept (“requirement of unity of invention”). Where a group of inventions is claimed in a national stage application, the requirement of unity of invention shall be fulfilled only when there is a technical relationship among those inventions involving one or more of the same or corresponding special technical features. The expression “special technical features” shall mean those technical features that define a contribution which each of the claimed inventions, considered as a whole, makes over the prior art.
The determination whether a group of inventions is so linked as to form a single general inventive concept shall be made without regard to whether the inventions are claimed in separate claims or as alternatives within a single claim. See 37 CFR 1.475(e).
When Claims Are Directed to Multiple Categories of Inventions:
As provided in 37 CFR 1.475 (b), a national stage application containing claims to different categories of invention will be considered to have unity of invention if the claims are drawn only to one of the following combinations of categories:
(1) A product and a process specially adapted for the manufacture of said product; or
(2) A product and a process of use of said product; or
(3) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and a use of the said product; or
(4) A process and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process; or
(5) A product, a process specially adapted for the manufacture of the said product, and an apparatus or means specifically designed for carrying out the said process.
Otherwise, unity of invention might not be present. See 37 CFR 1.475 (c).
Restriction is required under 35 U.S.C. 121 and 372.
This application contains the following inventions or groups of inventions which are not so linked as to form a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1.
In accordance with 37 CFR 1.499, applicant is required, in reply to this action, to elect a single invention to which the claims must be restricted.
Group I, claim(s) 1-6, drawn to a printer.
Group II, claim(s) 7-14, drawn to a method for manufacturing a part.
Group III, claim(s) 15-20, drawn to a manufacturing system.
The groups of inventions listed above do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1 because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical features for the following reasons:
Groups I and II lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require at most the technical feature of a printer, a platform having one or more conduits, and a laser, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0182708 A1).
Lin et al. teach a printer (printing system, Figs. 1-2), a platform (3D printing structure 140, [0034]) having one or more conduits (support members 212, 214 including wiring/rods, Fig. 2, [0041]), and a laser (light source 142 being a laser, [0040]).
Groups I and III lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require at most the technical feature of a conduit configured to be in communication with a cleaning device configured to clean residue, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Lin et al. (US 2017/0182708 A1).
Lin et al. teach one or more conduits (conduit 214, Fig. 2) in communication with a cleaning device configured to clean residue (cleaning device 206, Fig. 2, [0041], [0043]).
Groups II and III lack unity of invention because the groups do not share the same or corresponding technical feature.
During a telephone conversation with Rory Pheiffer on 12/19/2025 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-6. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 7-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1, in lines 5-6, should read “of the substance.” Claim 6, in lines 1-2, should read “the one or more melted or fused layers” for consistency with claim 1. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the one or more solidified layers" in lines 7-8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the residue of the irradiation" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 1 introduces “residue” but explicitly recites that the removed portion (of residue) is not necessarily the irradiated portion in the last line.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the cleaning system" in line 1. Claim 4 depends from claim 2 which positively recites that the printer includes “a cleaning system,” and claim 1 which also references “a cleaning system” in defining the configuration of “at least one conduit of the one or more conduits” (last paragraph). As such, recitation of “the cleaning system” in claim 4 is unclear as to which element is being referenced. For further examination, either would apply.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “or a system configured to wipe, sweep, or use adhesive tapes” in line 2. The limitation is unclear as to whether this “system” must be configured to perform each of the functions as alternatives or is only required to perform one of the listed functions. The specification does not provide clarification. For further examination, either interpretation would apply.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a diameter of the platform can be approximately in the range of…” in lines 1-2. The limitation is unclear as to whether a diameter is required to have the claimed size or is optionally sized in the recited range or something else. For further examination, the limitation is interpreted to mean a diameter of the platform is within the range.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the second energy source" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sealy et al., US 20210187832 A1, in view of Anderson, US 6923877 B1.
Regarding claim 1, Sealy discloses a printer (AM system 102, Fig. 1A – see below, [0019]) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
954
1542
media_image1.png
Greyscale
A vessel (powder distribution source 118, Fig. 1A, [0024]) configured to supply one or more layers of a substance onto a build plate (for dispensing powder to print bed on top of an underlying layer, Fig. 1A, [0024]), the substance comprising at least one of one or more powders or one or more wires (powder, [0022]);
A first energy source (sintering energy source 104, Fig. 1A, [0021]) configured to at least one of melt or fuse the one or more layers of substance to form a printed part (performs laser powder bed fusion by laser melting, [0021]);
One or more transparent materials (confining layer 132 being water or glass, Fig. 1A, [0029]) configured to be disposed above deposited opaque materials to form a transparent overlay (disposed above opaque ablative material 126, Fig. 1A, [0029]); and
A laser (surface treatment source 106 being a pulsed laser for laser peening, Fig. 1A, [0029]), the laser being configured to irradiate at least a portion of at least one of the one or more deposited opaque materials that form the opaque overlay or the one or more transparent materials that form the transparent overlay (Fig. 1A, [0029], these materials being irradiated by laser beam 107).
Sealy further discloses the laser sources may be moved by an automated system relative to the workpiece ([0033]) and the system can include a positioning apparatus for aligning the energy sources 104, 106 and powder distribution source with respect to the workpiece 110 ([0034]). Sealy is silent as to a platform, an applier for the opaque materials, and the conduit configuration as presently claimed.
In the analogous art of laser peening a workpiece (Abstract), Anderson discloses an apparatus for improving properties of a metallic workpiece by imparting stress to the material (col. 1, lines 5-10).
PNG
media_image2.png
982
1470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Anderson discloses a configuration including a platform (tool head 8, Fig. 1 above) having one or more conduits formed therein (hoses/guides 30, 32, 36, arrangement for attached modules including laser head 10, water nozzle 12, printer head 14, air nozzle 16, Fig. 1); an applier (print head 14, Fig. 1) configured to deposit one or more opaque materials on one or more solidified layers of the workpiece to form an opaque overlay (arranged to deposit a film of ink to provide an opaque overlay 18 on the surface 24 of the workpiece 2, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 56-62), the one or more opaque materials comprising energy-absorbing particles suspended in a liquid (note that a composition of the materials intended to be deposited by the applier is not limiting; still, Anderson discloses the ink readily absorbing energy of the laser beam and typically containing carbon black, col. 4, line 64 – col. 6, line 1); one or more transparent materials configured to be disposed above the deposited opaque materials to form a transparent overlay (film 20 providing a transparent overlay on top of the opaque overlay 18, Fig. 1, col. 6, lines 8-12); and a laser (laser oscillator 9, laser head 10, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 37-55) in communication with at least one conduit of the one or more conduits (Fig. 1), the laser being configured to irradiate at least a portion of at least one of the one or more deposited opaque materials that form the opaque overlay or the one or more transparent materials that form the transparent overlay (Fig. 1, configured to irradiate one or both of the materials 18, 20), wherein at least one conduit of the one or more conduits is configured to be in communication with a cleaning system (conduit 36 / head 8 is connected to air nozzle 16, Fig. 1) configured to remove at least a portion of residue from at least one of the one or more opaque materials or the one or more transparent materials, the removed portion not necessarily being the irradiated portion (the air nozzle 16 being for removing dirt or debris at the workpiece surface, col. 6, line 64 – col. 7, line 14). Anderson teaches the apparatus is more integrated than the conventional apparatus for laser shock peening by utilizing the common tool head/platform and is overall simpler and more efficient (col. 3, lines 12-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser peening configuration of Sealy to use the laser peening configuration of Anderson including the above elements in order to perform the laser peening surface treatment on the printed workpiece as desired by Sealy utilizing an integrated, simple, and efficient laser peening configuration as taught by Anderson.
Regarding claim 6, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1, and the combination discloses the platform is configured to translate relative to the one or more melted layers of the printed part (Sealy: translation relative to the workpiece, [0033]; Anderson: the tool head 8 is configured to move over the workpiece, Fig. 1, col. 4, lines 10-27) such that the second energy source (the claimed laser) is configured to irradiate at least a portion of at least one of the one or more deposited opaque materials that form the opaque overlay or the one or more transparent materials that form the transparent overlay at a plurality of positions (Sealy: laser movement across workpiece/layers, [0033]; Anderson: the laser is configured to irradiate the workpiece at a plurality of positions via the relative movement capability, col. 4, lines 10-27, 37-55).
Claim(s) 2-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sealy et al., US 20210187832 A1, in view of Anderson, US 6923877 B1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Clauer et al., US 20020008087 A1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1. The combination does not disclose a cleaning system in communication with at least one conduit of the one or more conduits, where the cleaning system is configured to collect the residue of the irradiation.
In the analogous art, Clauer discloses a system for providing a substantially debris-free laser beam path for laser shock processing (Abstract). Clauer discloses that laser shock processing can cause debris generated from transparent and opaque overlays to scatter around the workpiece and interfere with subsequent laser processing ([0006]-[0008], [0039], [0048]). Accordingly, Clauer teaches providing a means for clearing the laser beam pathway ([0041]) such as a gas knife that removes debris from the laser beam path, the gas knife including an exhaust port 16 connected to a vacuum source ([0049]-[0051]). Clauer therefore teaches a cleaning system configured to collect the residue of the irradiation.
Anderson as set forth above teaches mounting all of the tools involved in laser shock processing on the common tool head/platform in communication with corresponding conduits for the benefit of convenience, efficiency, and reduced complexity (col. 8, lines 15-42).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further modify the printer of Sealy to include a cleaning system in communication with a corresponding conduit of the platform, the cleaning system being configured to collect the residue of the irradiation in order to remove debris generated from the laser peening out of the laser beam pathway to thereby improve the laser processing as taught by Clauer while maintaining the simple and efficient platform mounting of the tools as taught by Anderson.
Regarding claim 3, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 2. A composition of the residue of irradiation produced during use of the laser does not further limit the structure of the printer. Still, Clauer discloses that debris caused by irradiation during laser peening typically includes constituents of the opaque layer and transparent layer (e.g., [0006], [0048]), in line with at least i), ii), iv), and v).
Regarding claim 4, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 2, and the combination discloses the cleaning system (the cleaning system recited in claim 2) further comprises one or more of a vacuum system, or a system configured to wipe, sweep, or use adhesive tapes to remove the residue (Clauer: at least a vacuum system, [0049]-[0051]; note that Clauer also describes a sweeper, e.g., [0058]).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sealy et al., US 20210187832 A1, in view of Anderson, US 6923877 B1, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Milshtein et al., US 20180154443 A1.
Regarding claim 5, modified Sealy discloses the printer of claim 1. The combination is silent as to a diameter of the platform can be approximately in the range of about 15 to about 150 millimeters.
In the analogous art of 3D printing (Abstract), Milshtein teaches a printer for powder bed fusion (Fig. 1) including a plurality of processing devices disposed within a processing chamber (e.g., material dispensing/leveling mechanisms 116-118, Fig. 1), wherein a typical processing chamber size ranges from about 50 mm to 5 m ([0113], the processing chamber corresponding to the interior of the chamber). Accordingly, any supporting device or movable platform supporting the processing devices would be sized less than or equal to the interior of the build chamber in which it is located, i.e., less than or equal to the range of 50 mm to 5 m. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the platform can be within at least the overlapping portion of the ranges in order to provide a suitably sized platform for the processing devices in accordance with known processing chamber sizes, as taught by Milshtein.
Note that it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A). In this case, the platform for supporting a number of processing devices involved in laser peening would not have been expected to perform differently based on a diameter.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20150266285 A1, James et al. disclose a 3D printer including a vessel, first energy source 12 for fusing, and a stress inducing unit 14 for performing laser peening (Fig. 4).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754