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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 17-30 in the reply filed on 7/14/2025 is acknowledged. Claims 31-36 are withdrawn.
Claim Objections
It is noted that throughout the claims, after the preamble of claim 17, the phrase “a previously deposited layer of powder material” is used. It is apparent that this is not a indefiniteness level antecedent basis issue, however, the phrase should be amended in the claims to say “the” or “said” instead of “a”.
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informality: “substantially not” in line 4 should be “not substantially”.
Claim 26 objected to because of the following informalities:
1) at the end of line 2, “comprises” should be “comprising”;
2) in line 3 “in connected” should be “in connection” or just “connected”; and
3) in line 7 “in connected” should be “in connection” or just “connected”.
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 18 and 20-30 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. Dependent claims not listed separately are rejected due to their dependency.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "to provide a layer of powder" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same layer of powder or a different layer of powder than that already created in claim 17?
Claim 20 is seen as vague and indefinite, since it is unclear which type of density is being claimed. Is it the bulk density of the volume of powder, or is it the material density of the type of material the powder is made from? The specification does not appear to alleviate this issue.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the first powder particles" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear whether the last three lines is a material property or a required method step.
Claim 21 is seen as vague and indefinite since it is unclear whether the last three lines is a material property or a required method step. Is the use of the three options a required step?
Claim 22 recites the limitation "the first powder particles" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 22 recites the limitation "an energy beam" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is this the same energy beam or a different energy beam of that of claim 17.
The term “large heat conductivity” in claim 23 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree (copper is used as an example but this does not give a standard for ascertaining), and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. What values are considered large? The problem is exacerbated by the statement in lines 3 and 4 where the two heat conductivities can be the same, thus negating altogether the concept of a large or high heat conductivity in line 2.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the second powder particles" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 is seen as vague and indefinite due to the phrase “increased contact angle”. What is the increase relative to?
Claim 26 is seen as vague and indefinite since one cannot have both “and/or” and “and” in the phrase of line 14:
“said first and/or second dispensing apertures for providing first and second powder”
The first dispenser is only for the first powder and the second dispenser is only for the second powder, thus the second “and” cannot be a true statement. It is suggested to amend the second “and” to be a second “and/or”.
Claim 27 recites the limitations "a first series of first dispensing apertures" and "a second series of second dispensing apertures" There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 26 (which claim 27 depends from) already states “first dispensing apertures” and “second dispensing apertures”. Is claim 27 trying to further limit the already claimed apertures from 26 or are these new apertures? For examination purposes they will be treated as a further limitation of those in claim 26.
Claim 30 recites the limitation "a desired pattern" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Is the desired pattern of claim 30 the same or different than the first and second patterns of claim 17?
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 22 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
In claim 17 the first powder is melted using the energy beam, while not melting the second powder. From this there is naturally a power density to the energy beam that is high enough to melt the first powder, but not high enough to melt the second powder. The energy beam from claim 17 has a power density, thus one can label that anything, such as a first power density, since at that point it is just a label. Claim 22 just restates this fact without any additional limiting statements. In claim 22 the energy beam has a power density high enough to melt the first powder but not high enough to melt the second powder. It is irrelevant what label the power density of the energy beam is given, since there no other beams or power densities claimed. Thus claim 22 does not further limit claim 17.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 17, 22, 26, and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dinardo (U.S. PGPub 2017/0165910). Regarding claim 17, Dinardo teaches:
A work surface for supporting a to be manufactured object (Figure 1, build platform 24/build plate 26), at least one material depositing device which is configured for depositing a layer of powder material onto the work surface or onto a previous deposited layer of powder material (Figure 1, powder deposition device 18), and an energy directing device which is configured to direct an energy beam towards the work surface (Figure 1, energy source 32)
Wherein the method comprises the steps of:
Depositing a first powder material in a first pattern onto the work surface or onto a previous deposited layer of powder material (paragraph 0029, build powder 14 is deposited by deposition device 18)
Wherein the first pattern substantially corresponds to a cross-section surface of the to be manufactured object (As seen in Figure 1-5, the build powder 14 is for the component 40, per paragraph 0029)
Depositing a second powder material in a second pattern onto the work surface or onto a previously deposited layer of powder material (paragraph 0029, surrogate powder 10 is deposited by deposition device 18)
Wherein the second pattern at least partially surrounds the first pattern such that the first and second powder material together provide a substantially continuous layer of powder material on said work surface or on said previous deposited layer of powder material (As seen in Figure 1-5, the surrogate powder 10 is deposited to surround the build powder 14 and support the component 40 during the build, per paragraph 0029)
Wherein the material of the second powder is different from the material of the first powder (paragraphs 0031-0032)
Irradiating said layer of powder material by the energy beam in order to selectively meld or sinter at least a part of the first powder material, and without melting or sintering said second powder material (paragraph 0032, the energy source 32 does not melt the surrogate powder 10)
Regarding claim 22:
See remarks regarding the 112d rejection and claim 17.
Regarding claims 26 and 30:
Dinardo teaches such a design as discussed in paragraph 0021 and Figures 4 and 5. There are two sets of nozzles for the two powders and are selectively dispensed as needed by a valve structure over the work surface or previous layer.
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.
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.
Claims 18-21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinardo, in view of Schwarze (U.S. PGPub 2019/0143411). Regarding claim 18, Dinardo teaches:
Wherein the first powder material comprises first powder particles and the second powder material comprises second powder particles (As previously discussed)
Wherein the method comprises the step of: depositing the first and second powder material to provide a layer of powder material with a substantially uniform thickness (As previously discussed)
Dinardo is silent to:
Wherein the second powder particles are larger than the first powder particles
In the same field of endeavor, Schwarze teaches that when one uses two different powders that the powders can be sized differently as needed for the user for the given print job (paragraphs 0020-0022)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second powder have a larger particle size than the first, since the prior art has shown that one can have any needed particle size difference for a desired print.
Regarding claim 19:
See remarks regarding Schwarze and claim 18.
Regarding claim 20, Dinardo is silent to:
Wherein the first powder material comprises a first density and the second powder material comprises a second density
Wherein the first density is different from the second density
Wherein the second density is configured with respect to the first density to remove the first powder particles from a mixture of first and second powder particles using the difference in density
In the same field of endeavor, Schwarze teaches using two different powders with different densities to allow for better separation in a post processing operation (paragraphs 0024 and 0025)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the powder densities difference, since it allows for separation of the powders for easy retrieval of powders.
Regarding claim 21:
See remarks regarding claim 20 and Schwarze.
Regarding claim 23, Dinardo is silent to:
Wherein the second powder material comprises a large heat conductivity, wherein the heat conductivity of the second powder material is substantially equal or larger than the heat conductivity of the first powder material
In the same field of endeavor, Schwarze teaches that the second supporting material has a higher thermal conductivity (paragraphs 0016-0022 and 0027-0029).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second powder as claimed, since the second material with a higher heat conduction prevents print defects from occurring.
Claims 24 and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinardo, in view of Moussa (U.S. PGPub 2016/0318250), and Haley et al (Modelling particle impact on the melt pool and wettability effects in laser directed energy deposition additive manufacturing; herein Haley).
Regarding claim 24, Dinardo is silent to:
Wherein the second powder particles are configured such that a contact angle between a surface of the second powder particles and molten first powder material, is larger than 90 degrees
In the same field of endeavor Moussa teaches low contact angles wet a surface, while contact angles greater than 90, will not spread or wet a surface (paragraph 0060). Also, in the same field of endeavor Haley teaches that when metal powders are on melt pools, low contact angles wet the powder and promote heat transfer, while higher contact angles can prevent contact between the melt and powder (page 4, section 3.2, first paragraph)
Based on the teachings of Moussa and Haley, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the second powder have a contact angle greater than 90 so that it does not bond to the molten first material.
Regarding claim 25:
See remarks regarding claim 20 and with respect to Moussa and Haley. An increase in contact angle would still have the same known effect, whether or not it is produced by the microstructure or some other aspect of the material.
Claims 27-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dinardo, in view of Zehavi et al (U.S. PGPub 2021/0154931; herein Zehavi). Regarding claim 27:
As previously discussed Dinardo teaches the first and second dispensing apertures of claim 26, but does not teach the arrangement thereof.
In the same field of endeavor Zehavi teaches rows of apertures for dispensing powder (paragraph 0010).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such a structure, since It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance Dinardo teaches dispensing apertures that stretch across the work surface, therefore having them specifically in rows is well within the ability of a skilled artisan, since the end result of a laid down powder pattern is achieved regardless.
Further regarding claim 27, Dinardo teaches the claimed movement as previously discussed and as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
Regarding claim 28:
See remarks regarding claims 26 and 27, the row of apertures would extend over the width as claimed.
Regarding claim 29:
Figure 4 of Dinardo shows a recoater, and since the apertures cover the width, logically they would be arranged long the length of the recoater.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-6pm. Direct Fax 571-270-8068.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743