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 § 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.
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.
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) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Beck et al (US 2004/0112280).
Beck et al teaches a single crystal (monocrystalline) structure of a superalloy by melting with a laser beam and scanning the laser beam and solidifying the melt to obtain a monocrystalline structure; and repeating to build up the next layer on top of the last layer (abstract; claim 1; [0040], [0060]-[0067], [0078]).
The limitations “produced by a means of layered construction, comprising combining a plurality of crystallites of a metallic material to form a single crystal, wherein the single crystal is formed by thermomechanically activated successive anisotropic plastic deformation, wherein the metallic material is heated during the construction of a new layer, with the result that the metallic material is melted in a linear region, wherein mechanical stresses occur during melting and subsequent cooling, in particular solidification, of the metallic material, wherein the plastic deformation of the metallic material is caused by these mechanical stresses, wherein the mechanical stresses have a preferred direction because of the linear design of the melted linear region, whereby the anisotropic plastic deformation results, and wherein the new layer is gradually constructed by being traversed by the melted linear region, wherein the component is constructed layer by layer in a construction direction, wherein the linear region has a length (L) along its extension direction and a width (B) and a depth (D) which are both perpendicular to the extension direction of the linear region, wherein the ratio of length (L) and width (B) is at least 5:1, wherein the ratio of width (B) and depth (D) lies in a range of from 1:2 to 10:1, wherein the linear region is moved in order to construct the new layer, and wherein the linear region is subjected to a lateral movement perpendicular to its extension direction with a lateral speed while maintaining its extension direction.” are process limitations. Claim 20 is a product-by-process claim. "Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. (MPEP 2113). Here, Beck et al teaches all of the claimed property limitations; therefore, reads on the claimed product. In the alternative, any differences from the process would be minor and would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing.
Claim(s) 1-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al (US 2004/0112280) in view of Yamazaki et al (US 2004/0121516) and Carter et al (US 2016/0158889).
Beck et al teaches a method for producing a component by means of layered construction, comprising combining a plurality of crystallites of a metallic material to form a single crystal, wherein the single crystal is formed by thermomechanically activated successive anisotropic plastic deformation, wherein the metallic material (substrate 18 and material feed 30) is heated during the construction of a new layer, with the result that the metallic material is melted in a linear region (focal spot 3 and consequently the melted area is formed in a way that is linear; and building up the next layer on top of the last layer produced) (Fig 1-5; [0028]-[0087] teaches melting a substrate and feed material using a laser or electron beam to form a linear melt pool; moving the laser beam; solidifying the melted powder to form a layer of monocrystalline structure and repeating the method to be up layer by layer until a desired thickness is obtained); wherein mechanical stresses occur during melting and subsequent cooling, in particular solidification, of the metallic material, wherein the plastic deformation of the metallic material is caused by these mechanical stresses), wherein the linear region has a length (L) along its extension direction and a width (B) and a depth (D) which are both perpendicular to the extension direction of the linear region ([0028]-[0057], [0078] and Fig 2 shows the laser beam and movement; and building up the next layer onto of the last layer by repeating the method a number of times).
Beck et al also teaches the linear region is moved in order to construct the new layer, and wherein the linear region is subjected to a lateral movement perpendicular to its extension direction with a lateral speed vlat while maintaining its extension direction (See claim 9 and [0040]-[0055], and Fig 1-5 which teaches the focal spot (3) is moved over the substrate (18) in a direction of advancement (4), in that the substrate (18) has an area to which material (13) is added, and The focal spot 3 is made to pass over the component 6 at a specific speed in the direction of advancement 4 (z direction) on a strip 5 ).
Applicant defines the term “thermomechanically activated successive anisotropic plastic deformation” is meant a plastic deformation of the metallic material which is caused by mechanical stresses occurring during heating, in particular melting, and subsequent cooling, in particular solidification, of the metallic material and an anisotropic plastic deformation thereby results, and this anisotropy preferably leads to the generation of a single crystal in paragraph [0010] of the published application. Therefore, Beck et al’s melting a substrate and feed material using a laser or electron beam to form a linear melt pool; moving the laser beam; solidifying the melted powder to form a layer of monocrystalline structure and repeating the method to be up layer by layer until a desired thickness is obtained, reads on the claimed anisotropic plastic deformation because Beck melts, solidifying the melt which causes mechanical stresses that results in formation of a single crystal.
Beck et al teaches focal spot 3, and consequently also the melted area, may similarly be formed in such a way that it is linear (i.e. very narrow when measured in the longitudinal extent) or elliptical or rectangular ([0053]; claim 4). Beck et al does not explicitly teach the ratio of length (L) and width (B) is at least 5:1, wherein the ratio of width (B) and depth (D) lies in a range of from 1:2 to 10:1.
In a method of crystallization with a laser, Yamazaki et al teaches a film is crystallized by emitting a laser and a laser beam spot is processed into a rectangular or linear shape, wherein the shape having at least 2 aspect ratios (preferably, from 10 to 10000) is referred to as a linear shape, and an explicit example of a rectangular shape having a minor axis of 200 mm and a major axis of 3mm explicit examples of a ([0040]-[0080]), which clearly overlaps the claimed range of at least 5:1.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Beck et al by providing a beam having a length to width ratio of at least 5:1, as taught by Yamazaki et al, because Beck et al teaches forming a linear beam and the claimed ratio overlaps the known range taught by Yamazaki et al for rectangular beam shapes used for crystallization. Changes in shape are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.04) and overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
In a method of single crystal formation using a laser, Carter et al teaches producing a single crystal by directionally solidified superalloy by controlling parameters such as a laser spot diameter, laser power, laser on-time, laser efficiency (α), and a centerline spacing between laser beams; and the shape of a melt pool can be controlled to achieve a flat solidification front to provide a controlled DS solidification condition. Wherein the size, including the depth, of the melt pool may be dependent on the particle size of the powder, and a melt pool having a depth of 20 μm to 150 μm and a width from 3-100,000 times the depth may be formed using the diode laser fiber array ([0017]-[0040]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Beck et al and Yamazaki et al by controlling the melt pool to have the ratio of width (B) and depth (D) lies in a range of from 1:2 to 10:1, which overlaps the range taught by Carter et al, to control the DS solidification condition to produce a single crystal. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al to obtain the claimed ratio the optimizing melt pool width and depth by conducting routine experimentation to produce a single crystal.
Referring to claim 2, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches a film is crystallized by emitting a laser and a laser beam spot is processed into a rectangular or linear shape, wherein the shape having at least 2 aspect ratios (preferably, from 10 to 10000) is referred to as a linear shape (Yamazaki [0040]-[0080]), which clearly overlaps the claimed range of at least 20:1. Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 3, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches a width from 3-100,000 times the depth may be formed using the diode laser fiber array (Carter [0017]-[0040]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 4, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches a melt pool having a depth of 20 μm to 150 μm and a width from 3-100,000 times the depth may be formed using the diode laser fiber array (Carter [0017]-[0040]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
Referring to claim 5, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches adding a fed material 13/30 of a metallic powder and melting (Beck [0044]-[0066]).
Referring to claim 6, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches a laser and an electron beam for melting (Beck [0021], [0067]).
Referring to claim 7-8, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches the substrate is brought to a pre-heating temperature, by the laser or inductively, in the range of 600°C to 1100°C, and the surface 21 of the component 6 on which the material 13 is melted is at the same time heated (Beck [0025], [0050]).
Referring to claim 9, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches layer formed may be, for example, about 1 μm to about 1 mm thick, and an example wherein each layer may be formed, for example, about 100 μm thick (Carter [0023], claims 22-24).
Referring to claim 10, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches superalloys on a nickel (Ni), cobalt (Co) or iron (Fe) basis (Beck [0007]; Carter [0032]-[0036], claim 17).
Referring to claim 17, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches the linear region is only melted in subregions of the component (Beck Fig 1 shows the linear region melted where the laser is applied, which clearly suggests a subregion).
Referring to claim 18, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches forming a monocrystalline structure and fed material having a polycrystalline structure; and powder grains that are not melted completely for example form crystallization nuclei for dendrites and crystals, which disturb and destroy the monocrystalline growth of the structure (Beck [0045]-[0049], [0063]).
Referring to claim 19, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches the component is changed to have a single crystal orientation (Beck [0004], [0016]).
Referring to claim 20, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches the claimed component and the method, as discussed above.
Claim(s) 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Beck et al (US 2004/0112280) in view of Yamazaki et al (US 2004/0121516) and Carter et al (US 2016/0158889), as applied to claims 1-10 and 17-20 above, and further in view of Schwarze et al (US 2019/0255613).
The combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al teaches all of the limitations of claim 11, as discussed above, except the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al does not teach the claimed speed is 0.1-100 mm/s.
In a method of laser crystallization, Schwarze et al teaches a moving speed may be set under the control of the control unit to promote the occurrence of a low solidification or crystal growth velocity in combination with a high temperature gradient in the melt produced by irradiating the powder and to thus obtain a substantially single crystalline or directionally/dendritically solidified microstructure in the generated work piece by using a moving speed between 50-500 mm/s; and an energy input may further be selected so as to determine a desired melting speed, temperature distribution, solidification speed or other melting-related characteristics, so as to control the resulting microstructure of the produced work piece layer; and a speed may be less than 1 m/s. (Abstract; [0037], [0057]-[0063], [0069], [0083], [0107], [0111]-[0121]). Overlapping ranges are prima facie obvious (MPEP 2144.05).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al by optimizing the speed to obtain the claimed speed of 0.1-100 mm/s, by conducting routine experimentation of a result effective variable which overlap the known range taught by Schwarze et al, to obtain a single crystal.
Referring to claim 12-16, the combination of Beck et al, Yamazaki et al and Carter et al and Schwarze et al teaches the scan pattern may be twodirectional and the control unit may be further configured to orient the scan pattern with respect to a crystal orientation of the substrate in a predetermined manner, and an alternative embodiment, wherein the scan pattern is unidirectional and the scan pattern is rotated by an angle of 0°, 90°, 180° or 270° (Schwarze [0090]-[0092]; Fig 5)
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kruth et al (US 2009/0206065) teaches a selective laser powder processing process wherein "Measured process variables" are the variables that are determined by the behavior of the material in the melt zone and that are measured, and examples of measured process variables are the melt zone area, the melt zone length, the melt zone width, the melt zone length-to-width ratio, the number of distinct molten areas, etc. (abstract; [0089]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J SONG whose telephone number is (571)272-1468. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
MATTHEW J. SONG
Examiner
Art Unit 1714
/MATTHEW J SONG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights