Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 8 – 15 in the reply filed on 07/08/26 is acknowledged. Claims 16 – 23 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/08/26.
Claim Objections
Claims 13 – 15 are objected to because of the following informalities: the phrase “is embedded at least one of” should read “is embedded in at least one of”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 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 8 – 15 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.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase “such that a tip thereof is disposed” is indefinite. The phrase is indefinite because the language prior to the phrase appears to indicate that at least two probes (an adjustment probe and a measurement probe) are required. However, the reference of a “tip thereof” appears to indicate that the probes share a tip/body. Another interpretation is that “tip thereof” only refers to the temperature adjustment probe. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the language is unclear and indefinite. For purposes of examination, the phrase is interpreted as the tip referring to the tip of each of the adjustment probe and measurement probe.
Regarding claims 9 – 11, the claims/limitations are indefinite because the limitations do not make clear whether the limitations are optional or not. To be clear, in claim 8 three alternatives are presented using and/or (the alternatives are referred to as “extendably installed”, “exhaust line”, and “powder bed” for clarity/reference). In claim 9, the limitation further defines the “extendably installed” alternative but does not make clear whether this is merely narrowing the alternative or also positively requiring that the alternative be present in the structure of the device. Likewise, in claims 10 – 11 the limitation further defines the “exhaust line” alternative but does not make clearly whether this is merely narrowing the alternative or also positively requiring that the alternative structure be present. For purposes of examination, it is interpreted that the limitations are not positively requiring that the alternative is present and are merely narrowing the scope of the one or more options. This is because if the limitations were incorporated into the independent claim the alternatives would still be optional.
Regarding claims 13 – 15, the limitations of the claim are indefinite. The phrase “is in a direct energy deposition manner which manufactures a multilayer structure by layering multiple metal layers formed by supplying metal wire or metal powder to a part at which a direct energy is generated is indefinite”. In particular, the phrase creates a lack of clarity as to the metes and bound sought for the device. It’s not clear whether the phrase is requiring that the manufacturing device is a direct energy deposition device, a particular type of additive manufacturing known in the art, or whether the phrase is merely requiring that the device is capable of operating in such a manner. The examiner notes that the claims are directed to a device/apparatus which limited by what it is, not what it does.
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114 II)
Moreover, a review of the specification creates further lack of clarity to the intended meaning of the phrase because [0102] of US2024/0342798 states “The multilayer structure manufacturing device according to the present embodiments can employ any of the PBF method, DED method, and WAAM (Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing) method. No matter which of these methods is adopted, in the present embodiment, at least one of the plurality of temperature measurement probes and at least one of the plurality of temperature adjustment probes are embedded inside the powder bed of the build stage.”. However, DED methods and WAAM are additive manufacturing techniques which do not use a “powder bed” as opposed to PBF (known as powder bed fusion).
Therefore, the metes and bounds of the structure of the device sought in claims 13 – 15 is indefinite. For purposes of examination, the device structure required is interpreted as a metal powder/metal wire supply device, a direct energy device, and a temperature adjustment probe embedded in at least one of a supply device or supply line of the supply device.
Regarding claims 13 – 15, the limitations of the claim are indefinite. There is insufficient antecedent basis “the metal wire or the metal powder” in the claim.
Claim 12 is rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ouchi (JP2019/043069)
Regarding claim 8, Ouchi teaches a lamination molding apparatus [Title] for additive manufacturing [0010], meeting the claimed limitation of multilayer structure manufacturing device. The device comprises:
A laser beam for material curing [0039], meeting the claimed limitation of a heat source
A supply cylinder [0020] wherein the supply material can be metal [0022], meeting the claimed limitation of a mechanism which supplies metal material.
A chamber [Fig 2, 0039], meeting the claimed limitation
A manufacturing stage with a lifting and lower control unit [Fig 2, 0017], meeting the claimed limitation of a build stage moveable in a vertical direction
A temperature control rod for circulating a cooling refrigerant that also includes a temperature sensor for measuring the refrigerant temperature and material temperature [Fig 1 and 3; 0033]. The temperature control rod controls the temperature of the material [0026], meeting the claimed limitation of a temperature measurement probe to measure temperature and a temperature adjustment probe to adjust temperature.
The temperature control rod for controlling the temperature and containing the temperature sensor probe/instrument is embedded in powder bed of the build stage [Fig 1, 2], meeting the claimed limitation of the build stage comprising a powder bed and the probes being embedded therein. The rod is also detachably inserted which meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of being the probes being extendably installed [0015].
Wherein the refrigerant circulated within temperature control probe meets the broadest reasonable of the temperature probe adjusting temperature via a liquified gas because refrigerants operate by phase change between liquid and gas.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8 – 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieret (US2017/0266759) in view of Buller (US2015/0367446)
Regarding claim 8, Fieret teaches a device for additive manufacturing [Title], meeting the claimed limitation of multilayer structure manufacturing device. The device comprises:
A laser beam or heat source [0071], meeting the claimed limitation of a heat source
An application device for moving powder from the storage area to the build area [0070, Figure] wherein the supply material can be metal [0084], meeting the claimed limitation of a mechanism which supplies metal material.
A process chamber [0064, Figure], meeting the claimed limitation.
A construction platform that can raise or lower [0065, Figure] and powder bed [0086], meeting the claimed limitation of a build stage moveable in a vertical direction and a powder bed
A gas distribution device embedded in the platform [0073, Figure] which helps cool the component [0078]. Wherein the device is connected with a tempering device which cools the gas via a cryogenic medium [0077, 0078], meeting the claimed limitation of a temperature adjustment probe for adjusting the temperature of the metal layer or structure and wherein the temperature adjustment probe is embedded in a part constituting the powder bed.
Wherein the cryogenic medium cools the gas and therefore also the layer/structure. Fieret states the “Cryogenic medium can thus be supplied to the tempering chamber via the nozzle. The process gas and thus the component to be produced in the processing chamber, can thus be cooled in this manner” meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the temperature probe adjusting temperature via a liquified gas [0077, 0078].
Fieret teaches that at least one temperature sensor is provided with the device to measure the component temperature [0060, 0082], meeting the claimed limitation of a temperature measurement probe that measures the temperature of metal layer/structure. However, Fieret does not expressly disclose the location of the temperature sensor.
Buller teaches an additive manufacturing device for 3D printing material via a powder bed layout (i.e., same field of endeavor as Fieret) [Fig 1, 0221]. Buller teaches that the base of the powder bed area can be made thermally stable and that the walls of the base material can be provided with temperature sensors such as thermocouples [0223]. Buller teaches that the temperature sensors can monitor temperatures throughout the powder bed (which would include the component being built). Meeting the claimed limitation of a temperature measurement probe embedded in a part constituting the powder bed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the device of Fieret and included the temperatures sensors in the base/base walls, as described by Buller, to achieve predictable results. Fieret and Buller are directed to the same field of endeavor. Moreover, Fieret acknowledges that temperature sensors are included and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results when applying/combining Buller.
Regarding claim 9, Fieret in view of Buller teaches the invention as applied in claim 8. Fieret does not expressly teach providing one or more temperature measurement probes and temperature adjustment probes that are extendably installed. However, Fieret in view of Buller teaches an adjustment probe and measurement probe embedded in the powder bed (see 3rd option of claim 8), meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim limitation of claim 9 (i.e., the limitation is not required, see 112(b) discussion above).
For purposes of compact prosecution, Buller teaches providing a cooling member in the form of a heat sink [0248]. Buller teaches that the heat sink facilitates the removal of energy away from the powder [0249]. Buller teaches that the distance of the heat sink from the powder bed can be adjusted [0251] (meeting the limitation of extendably installed) and that heat from the powder bed (i.e., including the component) can be absorbed into the heat sink via both conduction by contact and/or convection [0249, 0251, 0253], meeting the claimed limitation of temperature adjustment probe extendably installed that contacts the metal layer/structure. Buller teaches that the cooling member can have a temperature sensor as well and can adjust the temperature according to preference [0249 – 0251], meeting the claimed limitation of extendably installed temperature measurement probe. Lastly, Buller teaches that the cooling member helps facilitate temperature control of the powder bed and/or 3D object [0250].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the device of Fieret and provided a heat sink/cooling member, as described by Buller. Fieret and Buller are directed to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing and Buller discloses a same type of device for powder bed additive manufacturing and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Buller to Fieret. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the heat sink/cooling member because Buller discloses that it facilitates control over the temperature of the powder bed and 3D object.
Regarding claims 10 – 11, Fieret in view of Buller teaches the invention as applied in claims 8 and 9. Fieret teaches that the device also contains a process gas supply device for the chamber [0072, 0086] and shows an inlet in the Figure. Fieret teaches that the gas used can be inert gas [0046]. Wherein the gas exhausted from the gas distribution device (i.e., temperature adjustment probe) is introduced via a line shared with the shield gas line (see figure below with arrow added by the examiner). That is, the arrow indicates the start of an “exhaust gas line” which introduces gas to the distribution device to exhaust gas, also introduces said gas to a shield gas line. This meets the claimed limitation of an exhaust line which flows gas exhausted from the temperature adjustment probe, introduces gas into the shield gas supply line.
PNG
media_image1.png
558
724
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 12, Fieret in view of Buller teaches the invention as applied in claim 8. Fieret discloses a powder storage container/area for storing metal powder [Figure, 0069, 00269], but does not expressly teach including a temperature adjusting probe in a part constituting the storage section.
Buller teaches that the additive manufacturing device has a powder reservoir [Fig 1, 103, 104]. Moreover, Buller discloses providing a cooling member [0248]. Buller teaches that the cooling member/heat sink facilitates the removal of energy away from the powder [0249]. Buller states that the cooling member can be embedded in the powder material [0254] and that the powder in the reservoir can be cooled [0277], reasonably suggesting that the cooling member is in a part of the reservoir. Lastly, the cooling member can be cooled via a refrigerant [0252]. Buller teaches that the cooling member helps facilitate temperature control of the powder bed and/or 3D object [0250]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the device of Fieret and provided a cooling member in the powder storage area, as described by Buller. Fieret and Buller are directed to the same field of endeavor. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Buller to Fieret because Fieret describes providing a storage container/area. Additionally, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to include the cooling member because Buller discloses that it facilitates control over the temperature of the powder bed and 3D object.
Claims 13 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fieret (US2017/0266759) in view of Buller (US2015/0367446), as applied to claims 8 – 10, in further view of Barnes (WO2021054965)
Regarding claims 13 – 15, Fieret in view of Buller teaches the invention as applied in claims 8 – 10. Fieret teaches that the device possesses a supply device [Figure, “8”] which supplies metal powder [0026] to an area/part (i.e., the powder bed/platform area) [Figure] where a laser is focused to melt/fuse the powder [0071] (i.e. a direct energy device). Meeting the structural limitation of a supply device for metal powder and a direct energy device.
Fieret in view of Buller does not expressly teach a temperature adjustment probe embedded in at least one of a supply device or a supply line of the supply device.
Barnes teaches a 3-D printing device [Abstract] for powder bed additive manufacturing (i.e., the same field of endeavor as Fieret and Buller). Barnes teaches providing a spreading device that is actively cooled in order to prevent the build material from sticking to it [0013]. Barnes shows that the powder spreader possesses a conduit in which cooling fluid is circulated [Fig 4, 0039]. Wherein the spreader passing cooled build material over the component would affect its temperature, meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of a temperature adjustment probe embedded in a supply device that adjusts the temperature of the metal layer/structure. Barnes teaches that the cooling fluid can be a refrigerant [0043].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the device of Fieret in view of Buller to possess a build material spreader device with a cooling conduit, as described by Barnes. Barnes, Fieret, and Buller are in the same field of endeavor. Moreover, Fieret describes that the additive manufacturing device possesses a build material spreader [Fieret, Figure] and as such, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings of Barnes to Fieret. Lastly, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because Barnes teaches that the active cooling conduit in the build material spreader helps prevent build material from sticking to the device, which provides more consistent and accurate printing performance [0012].
Relevant Prior Art
prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2017/0129185 – Cooling member situated over exposed powder bed surface and component
US2016/0326880 – Temperature controlled powder bed
US2016/0151840 – Additive manufacturing apparatus with cooling mechanisms placed in the powder reservoir and powder layer leveling devices along with temperature sensors
US2006/0118532 – Temperature control probes for circulating liquid cooling media distributed into a powder bed along with a temperature probe for measuring powder bed temperature
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights