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 .
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 31 and 41 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 31 recites the limitation "the machine”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 41 recites: “possibly bevelled”. The phrase "possibly" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
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 22 – 24, 26 – 30, 32 – 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (2) as being anticipated by Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang).
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 model of the solid body by a computer, in which the selected volume portion is modelled in said position as a further body detached from and independent of said remaining part ([0057] - - the fracture channels may break down under a particular stress);
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 body and the remaining part, such that the further 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).
Regarding claim 23, Huang 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 body, such that the further 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, Huang 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 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 26, Huang 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 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 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”).
Regarding claim 29, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the first portion has a relative density less than 1 with reference to the second portion ([0036] - - the fracture channels are solidified to a lesser degree as compared to non-channel portions; “solidified to a lesser degree” means has a less density, thus the relative density is less than 1).
Regarding claim 30, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the first 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).
Regarding claim 32, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the first portion includes areas of material coupled to 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 33, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the first portion is weakened with respect to the second portion ([0016] - - the fracture channels are weak enough to guide the cracks).
Regarding claim 34, Huang teaches: an additive manufacturing process of a solid body designed to be delimited by a predefined outer surface, 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. 3, Fig. 4, [0055], [0056] - - fracture channels 412 is selected volume portion; non-channel portion 414 is a remaining portion);
preparing a three-dimensional 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 ([0057] - - a gap that defines the path of the fracture channels);
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);
providing the model in said data interface format to the processing unit ([0041] - - additive manufacturing controller is the processing unit); and
operating the additive manufacturing machine to produce the solid body according to the model, thus obtaining said predefined outer surface (Fig. 7 [0064]-[0068] - - build the object including a surface layer to obscure the fracture channels).
Regarding claim 35, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang 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 ([0016] - - the fracture channels are weak enough to guide the cracks).
Regarding claim 36, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang 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 (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 37, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the selected volume portion has a thickness which extends along a first direction (Fig. 3, Fig. 4, [0056] - - width of the fracture channel is a thickness).
Regarding claim 38, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang 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. 3, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 39, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: said thickness is uniform (Fig. 4 - - width of the fracture channel is uniform).
Regarding claim 40, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
Huang further teaches: the selected volume portion has a rectangular cross-section (Fig. 3, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 41, 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, possibly bevelled (Fig. 5A, Fig. 5B show omega shaped cross section).
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 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang) in view of Bobel et al. US 2020/0130060 (hereinafter Bobel).
Regarding claim 25, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Huang does not explicitly teach:
the additive manufacturing machine operates with an electron beam fusion technology ([0023] - - laser fusion); 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.
However, Bobel teaches:
the additive manufacturing machine operates with an electron beam fusion technology ([0019] - - electron beam melting; [0025] - - laser beam or 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 ([0029] - - manipulating intensity or pattern);
electron beam speed; or number of passages of the electron beam ([0029] - - manipulating intensity or pattern).
Huang and Bobel 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 using electron beam, as taught by Bobel.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do this modification in order to perform additive manufacturing process, as suggested by Bobel ([0019]).
Claims 31 and 42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang et al. US 2022/0388248 (hereinafter Huang) in view of SAJADI et al. US 2021/0354366 (hereinafter SAJADI).
Regarding claim 31, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Huang does not explicitly teach:
the first portion has a thickness between a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the machine and 20 times said minimum thickness.
However, SAJADI teaches:
the first portion has a thickness between a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the 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 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 Huang, 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]).
Regarding claim 42, Huang teaches all the limitations of the base claims as outlined above.
But Huang does not explicitly teach:
said thickness is between a minimum thickness of a layer that can be manufactured by the 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 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 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 Huang, 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]).
Conclusion
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