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 .
The amendment to the claims overcame the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112, made in the previous Office Action.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 22 – 28 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang).
Regarding claim 28, Huang teaches: a product, comprising:
a solid body delimited by an outer surface, the solid body including a first and a second inner portion with respect to the outer surface (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0055], [0056] - - fracture channels 412 is a first portion; non-channel portion 414 is a second portion);
wherein an entirety of the first portion is less densified than the second portion ([0036] - - the fracture channels are solidified to a lesser degree as compared to non-channel portions; “solidified to a lesser degree” maps “solidified to a lesser degree”);
wherein the first portion includes a part of the outer surface of the solid body (Fig. 4); and
wherein the first portion defines a continuous separation volume that divides the second portion into a first volume and a second volume that are entirely separated from each other by the first portion, such that the first volume and the second volume share no common boundary (Fig. 4 - - the left side of the fracture channel is a first volume; the right side of the fracture channel is a second volume) .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 22 – 27, 45 - 48 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang) in view of Revanur et al. EP3014369 (hereinafter Revanur).
Regarding claim 22, Huang teaches: an additive manufacturing process for manufacturing a solid body designed to be delimited by a predefined outer surface, the additive manufacturing process comprising:
selecting at least one volume portion of the solid body, the at least one volume portion having a position surrounded at least partially by a remaining part of the solid body (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0055], [0056] - - fracture channels 412 is selected volume portion; non-channel portion 414 is a remaining portion);
preparing a three-dimensional mathematical model of the solid body by a computer ([0012] - - CAD model);
setting the model in a data interface format readable by a processing unit of an additive manufacturing machine ([0039] - - manufacturing file is in a data interface format);
supplying the model in said data interface format to the processing unit ([0041] - - additive manufacturing controller is the processing unit);
selecting at least a process parameter of the additive manufacturing machine suitable for influencing the densification of the further body and of the remaining part ([0036] - - the fracture channels are solidified to a lesser degree as compared to non-channel portions; “solidified to a lesser degree” is influencing the densification);
applying differently the process parameter for production of the further solid body and the remaining part, such that the further solid body is less densified than the remaining part ([0044], [0045], [0047] - - adjusting a density of fusing agent, detailing agent or emitting energy in the fracture channel); and
operating the additive manufacturing machine according to application of the process parameter for producing the solid body according to the model, thus obtaining said predefined outer surface (Fig. 7 [0064]-[0068] - - build the object).
But Huang does not explicitly teach:
in which the selected volume portion is modelled in said position as a further solid body detached from and independent of said remaining part;
However, Revanur teaches:
in which the selected volume portion is modelled in said position as a further solid body detached from and independent of said remaining part ([0035] - - the object and supports is stored as separate data models);
Huang and Revanur are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by Huang, and incorporating separate data models, as taught by Revanur.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to provide flexibility to user without extra recalculation, as suggested by Revanur ([0086]).
Regarding claim 23, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: application of the selected process parameter influences a mechanical strength of the further solid body, such that the further solid body produced is weakened with respect to the remaining part produced ([0016] - - the fracture channels are weak enough to guide the cracks).
Regarding claim 24, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: application of the selected process parameter influences a treatment uniformity of the material of the further solid body, such that the further body produced has areas of material coupled with the remaining part and areas of material separated from the remaining part (Fig. 4A-4C, [0056]-[0057] - - the partially fused fracture channels, the fused areas are areas coupled with the remaining part; the not fused areas are areas separated from the remaining part).
Regarding claim 25, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Revanur further teaches: the additive manufacturing machine operates with an electron beam fusion technology ([0001] - - electron beam); a process parameter of the electron beam fusion technology being selected from at least one of: electron beam focus deviation; electron beam current; electron beam speed; or number of passages of the electron beam ([0016] - - electron beam power, scan speed, scan pattern).
Huang and Revanur are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 26, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the selected volume portion has a volume less than 1% of the volume of the solid body ([0043] - - adjusting a width of the fracture channels; thus the volume of the fracture channels is a design option of the user).
Claim 27 is substantially similar to claim 22 and is rejected for the same reasons and rationale as above.
Regarding claim 45, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the selected volume portion extends along a first direction, a second direction, and a third direction orthogonal to each other throughout the extension of the solid body, the selected volume portion has a thickness which extends along the first direction, the first direction corresponding to a construction direction of the additive manufacturing machine (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 46, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the selected volume portion has a uniform thickness which extends along a first direction (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 47, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the selected volume portion has a rectangular cross-section (Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 48, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the selected volume portion has an omega or wedge-shaped cross-section (Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B show omega shaped cross section).
Claims 44 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang) in view of Revanur et al. EP3014369 (hereinafter Revanur) and further in view of Huang et al. US 2023/0166453 (hereinafter Huang2).
Regarding claim 44, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Huang and Revanur does not explicitly teach:
selecting at least an addition process parameter of the additive manufacturing machine suitable for influencing at least one of a thermal conductivity or an electrical conductivity of the further solid body and of the remaining part; and
applying differently the additional process parameter for production of the further solid body and the remaining part, such that the further solid body exhibits at least one of a thermal conductivity or an electrical conductivity that is different than the remaining part.
However, Huang2 teaches:
selecting at least an addition process parameter of the additive manufacturing machine suitable for influencing at least one of a thermal conductivity or an electrical conductivity of the further solid body and of the remaining part ([0026], [0027] - - by controlling a porosity to control thermal conductivity; control porosity by controlling the application of fusing agents onto the build material); and
applying differently the additional process parameter for production of the further solid body and the remaining part, such that the further solid body exhibits at least one of a thermal conductivity or an electrical conductivity that is different than the remaining part ([0026], [0027] - - by controlling a porosity to control thermal conductivity; control porosity by controlling the application of fusing agents onto the build material).
Huang, Revanur and Huang2 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Huang and Revanur, and incorporating control thermal conductivity by selecting density , as taught by Huang2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to achieve a particular thermal transfer objective, as suggested by Huang2 ([0067]).
Claims 49 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang) in view of Revanur et al. EP3014369 (hereinafter Revanur) and further in view of VOEGEL et al. US 2022/0031963 (hereinafter VOEGEL).
Regarding claim 49, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the selected volume portion has a wedge-shaped cross-section (Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B show omega shaped cross section).
But the combination of Huang and Revanur does not explicitly teach:
the selected volume portion has a bevelled wedge-shaped cross-section.
However, VOEGEL teaches:
the selected volume portion has a bevelled wedge-shaped cross-section (Fig. 1, [0066] - - V-shaped edge is a bevelled edge).
Huang, Revanur and VOEGEL are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Huang and Revanur, and a bevelled edge, as taught by VOEGEL.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to create a predetermined breaking point, as suggested by VOEGEL ([0066]).
Claims 50 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang) in view of Revanur et al. EP3014369 (hereinafter Revanur) and further in view of SAJADI et al. US 2021/0354366 (hereinafter SAJADI).
Regarding claim 50, the combination of Huang and Revanur teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of Huang and Revanur does not explicitly teach:
the selected volume portion has a thickness which extends along a first direction, said thickness is between a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the additive manufacturing machine and 20 times said minimum thickness.
However, SAJADI teaches:
the selected volume portion has a thickness which extends along a first direction, said thickness is between a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the additive manufacturing machine and 20 times said minimum thickness ([0051] - - the printer resolution at Z direction is 20µm; 20µm is a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the machine; [0047] - - the thickness D2 is about 0.1mm which equals to 100µm; 100µm is 5 times 20µm).
Huang, Revanur and SAJADI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of Huang and Revanur, and incorporating thickness of a portion being between a minimum thickness and 20 times said minimum thickness, as taught by SAJADI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to making structural elements having controlled mechanical failure characteristics, as suggested by SAJADI ([0004]).
Claims 53 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang) in view of Huang et al. US 2023/0166453 (hereinafter Huang2).
Regarding claim 53, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Huang does not explicitly teach:
the first portion has at least one of a different thermal conductivity or a different electrical conductivity with respect to the second portion.
However, Huang2 teaches:
the first portion has at least one of a different thermal conductivity or a different electrical conductivity with respect to the second portion (Fig. 6A, [0066] - - using selectable parameter density to control thermal conductivity).
Huang and Huang2 are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above product, as taught by Huang, and incorporating control thermal conductivity by selecting density , as taught by Huang2.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to achieve a particular thermal transfer objective, as suggested by Huang2 ([0067]).
Claims 34 – 41, 51, 52 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIAL et al. US 2022/0112812 (hereinafter VIAL) in view of Hu et al. CN 108372297 (hereinafter Hu).
Regarding claim 34, VIAL teaches:
additive manufacturing process of a solid body designed to be delimited by a predefined outer surface (Fig. 1), the additive manufacturing process comprising:
selecting at least a volume portion of the solid body, the portion having a position surrounded at least partially by a remaining part of the solid body (Fig. 4, [0027] - - whole lattice structure is a volume portion or the breakable parts are volume portions);
setting the model in a data interface format readable by a processing unit of an additive manufacturing machine (Fig. 9, [0031]-[0034] - - 3D printing the design) ;
providing the model in said data interface format to the processing unit (Fig. 9, [0031]-[0034]); and
operating the additive manufacturing machine to produce the solid body according to the model, thus obtaining said predefined outer surface (Fig. 9).
But VIAL does not explicitly teach:
preparing a three-dimensional mathematical model of the solid body by a computer;
in which the selected volume portion is modelled in said position as an empty space and comprises a part of said predefined outer surface.
However, Hu teaches:
preparing a three-dimensional mathematical model of the solid body by a computer;
in which the selected volume portion is modelled in said position as an empty space and comprises a part of said predefined outer surface (Fig. 5, [0042] - - “Separate the lattice structure that fills the middle from the spatial lattice sandwich structure, that is, separate the overall structure into two three-dimensional models: an ordered lattice structure and a thin-walled plate-like skin structure, as shown in Figure 5”, the skin structure is a model which has an empty space for the lattice structure).
VIAL and Hu are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by VIAL, and incorporating a portion modeled as an empty space, as taught by Hu.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to improve internal structural quality, as suggested by Hu ([0011]).
Regarding claim 35, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
VIAL further teaches: modelling of the volume portion influences the production thereof in terms of mechanical strength, such that the volume portion produced is weakened with respect to the remaining part produced ([0026], [0027] - - breakable parts).
Regarding claim 36, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
VIAL further teaches: modelling of the volume portion influences the treatment uniformity of the material of the volume portion, such that the volume portion produced has areas of material coupled to the remaining part and areas of material separated from the remaining part ([0034] - - incomplete melting or no melting at the breakable parts, this is influencing the treatment uniformity; Fig. 4 shows lattice structure has areas coupled to the remaining part which is skin and areas separated from the skin).
Regarding claim 37, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
VIAL further teaches: the selected volume portion has a thickness which extends along a first direction (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 38, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
VIAL further teaches: the selected volume portion extends along a second and a third direction orthogonal to each other throughout the extension of the solid body; the first direction being orthogonal to the second and to the third direction and corresponding to a construction direction of the additive manufacturing machine (Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 39, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
VIAL further teaches: said thickness is uniform (Fig. 4, section 13; Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 40, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hu further teaches: the selected volume portion has a rectangular cross-section (Fig. 5).
VIAL and Hu are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 41, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
VIAL further teaches: the selected volume portion has an omega or wedge-shaped cross-section (Fig. 5, Fig. 8).
Regarding claim 51, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hu further teaches: the additive manufacturing machine operates with an electron beam fusion technology; a process parameter of the electron beam fusion technology being selected from at least one of:
" electron beam focus deviation;
" electron beam current;
" electron beam speed; or
" number of passages of the electron beam ([0006] - - electron beam selective melting).
VIAL and Hu are combinable for the same rationale as set forth.
Regarding claim 52, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Hu further teaches: the selected volume portion has a volume less than 1% of the volume of the solid body (Fig. 6 - - the volume containing breakable parts maps to selected volume, it can be less than 1% of the blade).
Claims 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIAL et al. US 2022/0112812 (hereinafter VIAL) in view of Hu et al. CN 108372297 (hereinafter Hu) and further in view of SAJADI et al. US 2021/0354366 (hereinafter SAJADI).
Regarding claim 42, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of VIAL and Hu does not explicitly teach:
said thickness is between a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the additive manufacturing process machine and 20 times said minimum thickness.
However, SAJADI teaches:
said thickness is between a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the additive manufacturing process machine and 20 times said minimum thickness ([0051] - - the printer resolution at Z direction is 20µm; 20µm is a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the machine; [0047] - - the thickness D2 is about 0.1mm which equals to 100µm; 100µm is 5 times 20µm).
VIAL, Hu and SAJADI are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above process, as taught by the combination of VIAL and Hu, and incorporating thickness of a portion being between a minimum thickness and 20 times said minimum thickness, as taught by SAJADI.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to making structural elements having controlled mechanical failure characteristics, as suggested by SAJADI ([0004]).
Claims 43 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over VIAL et al. US 2022/0112812 (hereinafter VIAL) in view of Hu et al. CN 108372297 (hereinafter Hu) and further in view of VOEGEL et al. US 2022/0031963 (hereinafter VOEGEL).
Regarding claim 43, the combination of VIAL and Hu teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But the combination of VIAL and Hu does not explicitly teach:
the selected volume portion has a bevelled wedge-shaped cross-section.
However, VOEGEL teaches:
the selected volume portion has a bevelled wedge-shaped cross-section (Fig. 1, [0066] - - V-shaped edge is a bevelled edge).
VIAL, Hu and VOEGEL are analogous art because they are from the same field of endeavor. They all relate to 3D printing system.
Therefore before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify the above method, as taught by the combination of VIAL and Hu, and a bevelled edge, as taught by VOEGEL.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to create a predetermined breaking point, as suggested by VOEGEL ([0066]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUHUI R PAN whose telephone number is (571)272-9872. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8AM-5PM EST.
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, Kenneth Lo can be reached at (571) 272-9774. 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.
/YUHUI R PAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights