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 Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4, line 2, “the first energy deliver device” should be “the first energy delivery device”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“first energy delivery device” in Claim 1 and 20
The generic placeholder is “energy delivery device” and the functional language attributed the “energy delivery device” includes: “configured to deliver energy to a build surface of a component”.
“second energy delivery device” in Claim 1 and 20
The generic placeholder is “energy delivery device” and the functional language attributed the “energy delivery device” includes: “configured to deliver energy to the build surface”.
“computing devices” in Claim 1
The generic placeholder is “computing devices” and the functional language attributed the “computing devices” includes: “configured to: receive data from the at least one heat sensor”.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 03/01/2024.
Regarding the first energy delivery device, on Para. 0027, “one energy delivery device (e.g., an on-axis laser, an off-axis laser, an induction heater, a microwave heater, a cooling device, or the like)”, where the energy delivery device is assumed to include an energy device similar to those listed
Regarding the second energy delivery device, on Para. 0027, “one energy delivery device (e.g., an on-axis laser, an off-axis laser, an induction heater, a microwave heater, a cooling device, or the like)”, where the energy delivery device is assumed to include an energy device similar to those listed
Regarding the computing devices, Para. 0058, “Computing device 12 is configured to control components of system 10 and may include, for example, a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a workstation, a server, a mainframe, a cloud computing system, or the like.”, where the computing device is assumed to include a device similar to those listed
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 11, line 2, the phrase “local area comprises about 20 percent or less”, it is unclear what constitutes the word “about”, can the local area be greater than 20 percent because that is also about 20 percent.
For the purposes of substantive examination, the local area will be construed to be an area that is less than a majority of the build surface.
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.
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 1-9, 11-12, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20240100600 A1, where the prior art date is the effective filing date or the filing date of 09/22/2022) in view of Nelson et al. (US 20210260701 A1, hereinafter Nelson) and Beckett et al. (CN 114302781 A, hereinafter Beckett).
Regarding claim 1, Thomas discloses an additive manufacturing system (Abstract, “An additive manufacturing system”) comprising:
a first energy delivery device configured to deliver energy to a build surface of a component to form a melt pool in the build surface of the component (Para. 0028, “The energy emitter 104, such as a laser emitter, emits the focused laser beam 108 into the material, thereby creating a melt pool 112.”);
a powder delivery device configured to direct a powder stream toward the melt pool (Para. 0027, “For example, the material 110 can be a powder or liquid, which can be deposited from the additive manufacturing head 102 through one or more nozzles.”);
a second energy delivery device configured to deliver energy to the build surface of the component (Para. 0030, “the ultrasonic laser emitter 106 emits ultrasonic laser energy 116 onto the solidified portion 114 behind the melt pool 112 (that is, behind the laser beam 108 forming the melt pool 112).”).
Thomas does not disclose:
a stage configured to support an additively-manufactured component;
at least one heat sensor configured to capture data indicative of a temperature of a portion of a component; and
one or more computing devices configured to: receive data from the at least one heat sensor; and
control the first or the second energy device based at least partially on the received data from the at least one heat sensor to provide functionally-graded characteristics to the additively-manufactured component, in-situ, through modification of an amount of thermal energy delivered by the first energy delivery device or the second energy delivery device.
However, Nelson discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing systems (Abstract, “additive manufacturing”), where a stage is configured to support an additively manufactured component (Para. 0026, “In other examples, substrate 26 may define a build plate on stage 18 on which component 22 is built.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system in Thomas to include a stage as taught by Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a stage allowing for the component to be moved, as stated by Nelson, Para. 0027, “For example, computing device 12 may control movement of stage 18 in one or more axes ( e.g., three orthogonal axes (e.g., the x, y, and/or z axes shown in FIG. lA) along which stage 18 can translate, five axes along which stage 18 can translate and rotate, six axes along which stage 18 can translate and rotate, or the like).”.
Further, Beckett discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing systems (Abstract, “An additive manufacturing system”), where a heat sensor is configured to capture data indicative of a temperature of the component (Page 17, Para. 3, “data generated by the optical sensor to determine the thermal energy density, but also can use the data generated by the sensor of other representation of the physical variable of the measuring process to implement the embodiment described herein. The sensor for measuring the performance of the process physical variable comprises: a force and vibration sensor, a contact-type heat sensor, a non-contact-type heat sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a vortex sensor.”, and Page 16, last Para., “data generated by the optical sensor 1650 on the axis can be used for determining the heat energy density and/or heat energy density during the construction process.”), where a computing device receives data from the heat sensor (Page 16, Para. 2 from end, “The data received by the computing system 1675 may include process original sensor data and/or down-sequence sensor data. One or more processors 1680 may use the process original sensor data and/or the down sensor data to determine the power and control information of the laser 1610”, where the sensor data includes data from the optical sensor that can be a heat sensor), and where the computing device controls an energy device based on the heat sensor data through in-situ modification of an amount of thermal energy delivered by the energy delivery device (Page 16, Para. 2, “In some embodiments, the third optical sensor is 1650c to measure the heat energy density. The thermal energy density is sensitive to changes in process parameters (e.g., energy source power, energy source velocity, and scan pitch, etc.).”, and Page 16, last Para., “the thermal energy density and/or other metric can be used by one or more processors 1680 to respond to the thermal energy density or other metric to generate a process parameter (e.g., laser power, laser speed, scanning distance and other process parameters) of the control signal. As described herein, one or more processors 1680 may use the one or more process parameters as input to one or more of the trained machine learning algorithm, in real time detecting and recognition in the component 1645. Through this way, it can avoid the problem of damaging the production component. In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system in modified Thomas to include the heat sensor and energy adjustment due to the heat sensor through a computing device as taught by Beckett.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that the correct amount of energy is delivered to the workpiece, as stated by Beckett, Page 16, last Para., “In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”.
Regarding claim 2, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses further comprising the additively-manufactured functionally-graded component, wherein the additively-manufactured functionally-graded component comprises a first portion and a second portion, wherein the first portion is different from the second portion in at least one of a strength, a hardness, a microstructure or a ductility (Thomas, Para .0030, “The ultrasonic laser energy 116 is configured generate ultrasonic waves 118 that refine the grains into smaller structure, in contrast to larger columnar grains. In at least one example, the ultrasonic laser emitter 106 is off-axis from the energy emitter 104. For example, the ultrasonic laser emitter 106 follows behind the energy emitter 104 and is not coaxial therewith.”, where the area around the melt pool that receives laser energy 104 is construed as a first portion and where the area trailing the melt pool that receives ultrasonic laser energy 106 is construed as the second portion, where the second portion has a different microstructure in that the grains are smaller and refined).
Regarding claim 3, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
wherein the one or more computing device is further configured to: determine an overall heat flux based on the data from the at least one heat sensor; and control the first energy delivery device and the second energy delivery device based on the overall heat flux.
However, Beckett discloses where the computing device can determine an overall heat flux based on the data from the heat sensor (Claim 4, “wherein the one or more parameters comprises determining a heat emission density (TED) and determining the area of the construction plane of one or more scanning period traversal The heat emission density includes measuring the amount of energy radiated from the build plane during the one or more scans.”, where heat emission density is equivalent to overall heat flux), where the energy delivery device is controlled based on the overall heat flux (Page 16, last Para., “the thermal energy density and/or other metric can be used by one or more processors 1680 to respond to the thermal energy density or other metric to generate a process parameter (e.g., laser power, laser speed, scanning distance and other process parameters) of the control signal. As described herein, one or more processors 1680 may use the one or more process parameters as input to one or more of the trained machine learning algorithm, in real time detecting and recognition in the component 1645. Through this way, it can avoid the problem of damaging the production component. In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”, and Page 6, last Para., “real-time metric of the process metric is thermal energy density (thermal energy density, TED), TED Sigma (TED Sigma). Thermal energy Planck, TEP and TEP sigma. TED is a heat energy density metric indicative of heat energy in a given area”, where process metrics can include heat emission density or TED, where the process metric influences the process parameter of laser power from the energy delivery device). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustment of energy in the energy delivery device from modified Thomas to include heat flux being an influence on the energy delivery device as taught by Beckett.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that the correct amount of energy is delivered to the workpiece, as stated by Beckett, Page 16, last Para., “In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”.
Regarding claim 4, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein: the first energy deliver device is coincident with a central longitudinal axis of a deposition head (Thomas, Fig. 2, where the first energy delivery device is 104, where it creates a laser beam 108, where this structure is coincident with a central longitudinal axis of the deposition head 102), and the second energy delivery device is not coincident with the central longitudinal axis of the deposition head (Thomas, Fig. 2, where the second energy delivery device is 106, which creates the laser beam 116, where this structure is no coincident with a central longitudinal axis of the deposition head).
Regarding claim 5, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 4, as set forth above, discloses wherein: the first energy delivery device comprises a laser (Thomas, Para. 0026, “the energy emitter 104 is a laser emitter, such as a laser scanner that emits one or more laser beams.”), and the second energy delivery device comprises a laser, an induction heater, an infrared heater, a gas impingement device, or a microwave heater (Thomas, Para. 0030, “the ultrasonic laser emitter 106 emits ultrasonic laser energy 116 onto the solidified portion 114 behind the melt pool 112”, where ultrasonic laser energy is a laser).
Regarding claim 6, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses further comprising a third energy delivery device (Thomas, Para. 0033, “The energy emitter 104 can be a laser emitter, which is configured to emit laser energy, such as one or more laser beams, to form the melt pool 112.”, where it has been held that mere duplication of parts is an obvious modification to make. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It is the Examiner’s position that Thomas already discloses that multiple laser beams can be formed, where the duplication of the energy emitter or energy delivery device would still achieve the same end result of creating multiple laser beams).
Regarding claim 7, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein, to control the first energy delivery device or the second energy delivery device to provide the functionally-graded characteristics to the additively-manufactured component, the computing device is configured to control the first energy delivery device by modifying at least one of a power, a travel speed, a spot size, or a power density of the first or the second energy delivery device (Teaching from Beckett, Page 16, last Para., “the thermal energy density and/or other metric can be used by one or more processors 1680 to respond to the thermal energy density or other metric to generate a process parameter (e.g., laser power, laser speed, scanning distance and other process parameters) of the control signal. As described herein, one or more processors 1680 may use the one or more process parameters as input to one or more of the trained machine learning algorithm, in real time detecting and recognition in the component 1645. Through this way, it can avoid the problem of damaging the production component. In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”, where the energy delivery device from modified Thomas can provided the correct energy or functional graded characteristic through the computing device controlling the process parameters of laser power, speed, scanning distance, and other parameters).
Regarding claim 8, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the second energy delivery device is configured to deliver energy to the build surface of the component simultaneously with the first energy delivery device delivering energy to the build surface of the component (Thomas, Para. 0030, “Alternatively, the ultrasonic laser emitter 106 can be coaxial with the energy emitter 104 and configured to emit the ultrasonic laser energy 116 directly into the melt pool 112, instead of the solidified portion 114 that trails the melt pool 112.”, where this configuration has both lasers being directed into the melt pool, which would need to occur at the same time).
Regarding claim 9, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the second energy delivery device is configured to deliver energy to the build surface of the component subsequent to the first energy deliver device delivering energy to the build surface of the component (Thomas, Para. 0034, “The additive manufacturing head 102 can be used to form a component, via the material 110, through directed energy deposition (DED). The ultrasonic laser emitter 106 emits the ultrasonic laser energy 116 in relation to the material 110 (such as the solidified portion 110 that trails the melt pool 112) to generate the ultrasonic waves 118 into the material 114, thereby disrupting grain growth in relation to the material 110 as a component is formed from the material 110.”, where the melt pool formation and ultrasonic grain disruption can have the ultrasonic grain disruption occur subsequent the melt pool formation, where the two laser energy delivery devices are spaced apart and the melt pool is created first).
Regarding claim 11, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the second energy delivery device is configured to deliver energy to a local area of the build surface, wherein the local area comprises about 20 percent or less of the surface area of the build surface (Thomas, modified Fig. 2, where the second energy delivery device’s energy delivery area is shown to be about 20% or less).
PNG
media_image1.png
492
641
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Thomas
Regarding claim 12, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the second energy delivery device is configured to deliver energy to a global area of the build surface (Thomas, Para. 0028, “As the additive manufacturing head
102 moves in the direction of arrow A, portions of the material previously in the melt pool 112 cool and solidify into a solidified portion 114, which trails the melt pool 112. The solidified portion 114 ultimately forms as at least a portion of a component or part that is formed through the directed energy deposition process.”, where technically the ultrasonic laser emitter 106 can deliver energy to a global area of the build surface as the build surface continually moves).
Regarding claim 20, Thomas discloses a method (Para. 0019, “provide an additive manufacturing method, including emitting energy, from an energy emitter of an additive manufacturing head, into a material to form one or more portions of a component; and emitting ultrasonic laser energy, from an ultrasonic laser emitter”) comprising:
wherein the additive manufacturing system comprises a powder delivery device configured to direct a powder stream toward a melt pool in a build surface of an additively-manufactured component (Para. 0027, “For example, the material 110 can be a powder or liquid, which can be deposited from the additive manufacturing head 102 through one or more nozzles.”),
a first energy delivery device configured to deliver energy to the build surface of a component to form the melt pool (Para. 0028, “The energy emitter 104, such as a laser emitter, emits the focused laser beam 108 into the material, thereby creating a melt pool 112.”),
a second energy delivery device configured to deliver energy to the build surface of the component (Para. 0030, “the ultrasonic laser emitter 106 emits ultrasonic laser energy 116 onto the solidified portion 114 behind the melt pool 112 (that is, behind the laser beam 108 forming the melt pool 112).”).
Thomas does not disclose:
receiving, by one or more computing devices, data from at least one heat sensor configured to measure a temperature of a portion of a component of an additive manufacturing system,
the additively manufactured component mechanically supported by a stage; and
controlling, by the one or more computing devices, the first or the second energy device based at least partially on the received data from the at least one heat sensor to provide functionally-graded characteristics to the additively-manufactured component, in-situ, through modification of an amount of thermal energy delivered by the first energy delivery device or the second energy delivery device.
However, Nelson discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing systems (Abstract, “additive manufacturing”), where a stage is configured to support an additively manufactured component (Para. 0026, “In other examples, substrate 26 may define a build plate on stage 18 on which component 22 is built.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system in Thomas to include a stage as taught by Nelson.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a stage allowing for the component to be moved, as stated by Nelson, Para. 0027, “For example, computing device 12 may control movement of stage 18 in one or more axes ( e.g., three orthogonal axes (e.g., the x, y, and/or z axes shown in FIG. lA) along which stage 18 can translate, five axes along which stage 18 can translate and rotate, six axes along which stage 18 can translate and rotate, or the like).”.
Further, Beckett discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing systems (Abstract, “An additive manufacturing system”), where a heat sensor is configured to capture data indicative of a temperature of the component (Page 17, Para. 3, “data generated by the optical sensor to determine the thermal energy density, but also can use the data generated by the sensor of other representation of the physical variable of the measuring process to implement the embodiment described herein. The sensor for measuring the performance of the process physical variable comprises: a force and vibration sensor, a contact-type heat sensor, a non-contact-type heat sensor, an ultrasonic sensor, and a vortex sensor.”, and Page 16, last Para., “data generated by the optical sensor 1650 on the axis can be used for determining the heat energy density and/or heat energy density during the construction process.”), where a computing device receives data from the heat sensor (Page 16, Para. 2 from end, “The data received by the computing system 1675 may include process original sensor data and/or down-sequence sensor data. One or more processors 1680 may use the process original sensor data and/or the down sensor data to determine the power and control information of the laser 1610”, where the sensor data includes data from the optical sensor that can be a heat sensor), and where the computing device controls an energy device based on the heat sensor data through in-situ modification of an amount of thermal energy delivered by the energy delivery device (Page 16, Para. 2, “In some embodiments, the third optical sensor is 1650c to measure the heat energy density. The thermal energy density is sensitive to changes in process parameters (e.g., energy source power, energy source velocity, and scan pitch, etc.).”, and Page 16, last Para., “the thermal energy density and/or other metric can be used by one or more processors 1680 to respond to the thermal energy density or other metric to generate a process parameter (e.g., laser power, laser speed, scanning distance and other process parameters) of the control signal. As described herein, one or more processors 1680 may use the one or more process parameters as input to one or more of the trained machine learning algorithm, in real time detecting and recognition in the component 1645. Through this way, it can avoid the problem of damaging the production component. In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system in modified Thomas to include the heat sensor and energy adjustment due to the heat sensor through a computing device as taught by Beckett.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that the correct amount of energy is delivered to the workpiece, as stated by Beckett, Page 16, last Para., “In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”.
Claims 10, 15, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20240100600 A1, where the prior art date is the effective filing date or the filing date of 09/22/2022) in view of Nelson et al. (US 20210260701 A1, hereinafter Nelson) and Beckett et al. (CN 114302781 A, hereinafter Beckett) in further view of Naoya et al. (JP 7325698 B1, hereinafter Naoya).
Regarding claim 10, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
wherein the one or more computing devices are configured to: determine a solidification rate of material surrounding the melt pool based on data received from an optical system, and control the second energy delivery device to modify the determined solidification rate.
However, Naoya discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing (Page 2, Para. 2, “additive manufacturing methods”), where the computing device can determine a solidification rate of material around the melt pool based on data received from an optical system (Page 6, last Para., “By doing so, the control device 19 acquires the position of the solid-liquid interface 116 between the molten pool 115 and the modeled object 112 from the melting point of the wire W and the temperature distribution information. The control device 19 derives the solidification speed, which is the moving speed of the solid-liquid interface 116, from the position of the solid-liquid interface 116 obtained from a plurality of pieces of temperature distribution information at different times.”), and where the energy delivery device is controlled to modify the determined solidification rate (Page 9, Para. 2 from end, “Alternatively, when the control device 19 determines that the derived solidification rate is smaller than the threshold value, the subsequent scanning speed of the laser beam L is increased or the flow rate of the shield gas G is increased to solidify the modeling layer. Implement control to increase speed.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device in modified Thomas to include determining solidification rate and altering that solidification rate as taught by Naoya.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that the correct solidification rate is implemented by the additive manufacturing system, as stated by Naoya, Page 9, Para. 2 from end, “Alternatively, when the control device 19 determines that the derived solidification rate is smaller than the threshold value, the subsequent scanning speed of the laser beam L is increased or the flow rate of the shield gas G is increased to solidify the modeling layer. Implement control to increase speed.”.
Regarding claim 15, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
further comprising a cooling device, and wherein the one or more computing devices is configured to control the cooling device to remove thermal energy from the build surface.
However, Naoya discloses where a cooling device is present and where a computing device can control the cooling device to remove thermal energy from the build surface (Page 5, Para. 2, “The temperature adjustment device 18 heats or cools the substrate 111 so that the temperature of the substrate 111 is maintained at the temperature set by the control device 19 . Examples of the temperature adjustment device 18 include a heating device using high-frequency induction heating, a heating device using a heating wire such as a hot plate, a cooling device using a water-cooled heat sink, and a cooling device using a thermoelectric cooling element such as a Peltier module.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system in modified Thomas to include a cooling device as taught by Naoya.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to maintain a specific temperature for the build plate, as stated by Naoya, Page 5, Para. 2, “The temperature adjustment device 18 heats or cools the substrate 111 so that the temperature of the substrate 111 is maintained at the temperature set by the control device 19 . Examples of the temperature adjustment device 18 include a heating device using high-frequency induction heating, a heating device using a heating wire such as a hot plate, a cooling device using a water-cooled heat sink, and a cooling device using a thermoelectric cooling element such as a Peltier module.”.
Regarding claim 19, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
wherein the computing device is configured to: determine a solidification rate of material surrounding the melt pool based on data received from an optical system., and control the second energy delivery device to modify the determined solidification rate.
However, Naoya discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing (Page 2, Para. 2, “additive manufacturing methods”), where the computing device can determine a solidification rate of material around the melt pool based on data received from an optical system (Page 6, last Para., “By doing so, the control device 19 acquires the position of the solid-liquid interface 116 between the molten pool 115 and the modeled object 112 from the melting point of the wire W and the temperature distribution information. The control device 19 derives the solidification speed, which is the moving speed of the solid-liquid interface 116, from the position of the solid-liquid interface 116 obtained from a plurality of pieces of temperature distribution information at different times.”), and where the energy delivery device is controlled to modify the determined solidification rate (Page 9, Para. 2 from end, “Alternatively, when the control device 19 determines that the derived solidification rate is smaller than the threshold value, the subsequent scanning speed of the laser beam L is increased or the flow rate of the shield gas G is increased to solidify the modeling layer. Implement control to increase speed.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the computing device in modified Thomas to include determining solidification rate and altering that solidification rate as taught by Naoya.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that the correct solidification rate is implemented by the additive manufacturing system, as stated by Naoya, Page 9, Para. 2 from end, “Alternatively, when the control device 19 determines that the derived solidification rate is smaller than the threshold value, the subsequent scanning speed of the laser beam L is increased or the flow rate of the shield gas G is increased to solidify the modeling layer. Implement control to increase speed.”.
Claims 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20240100600 A1, where the prior art date is the effective filing date or the filing date of 09/22/2022) in view of Nelson et al. (US 20210260701 A1, hereinafter Nelson) and Beckett et al. (CN 114302781 A, hereinafter Beckett) in further view of MacDonald et al. (US 20210354387 A1, hereinafter MacDonald).
Regarding claim 13, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
further comprising a plurality of mass sensors, each mass sensor associated with a portion of the additive manufacturing system, and wherein the one or more computing devices is further configured to: receive data from the plurality of mass sensors; determine an overall mass flux based on the data from the plurality of mass sensors; and control the powder delivery device based on the overall mass flux to generate the additively-manufactured component with functional characteristics.
However, MacDonald discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing systems (Abstract, “additively manufacturing”), where there are mass sensors to measure the amount of powder delivered (Para. 0081, “each one of the constituent regulators 232 includes a mass sensor 236. The mass sensor 236 of each one of the constituent regulators 232 is configured to measure the mass of a respective one of the powder constituents 106 passing through an associated one of the constituent regulators 232.”), and where based on the mass sensor measurements the powder delivery device is controlled to create an additive manufacturing component (Para. 0083, “During delivery of each one of the powder constituents 106 from an associated one of the constituent regulators 232 to the mixer 206, the controller 250 monitors the mass, as measured by the mass sensor 236. Once the predetermined mass each one of the powder constituents 106 is dispensed from an associated one of the constituent reservoirs 230, as measured by the mass sensor 236 of a respective one of the constituent regulators 232, the valve 234 of each one of the constituent regulators 232 is selectively closed, under direction from the controller 250.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system of modified Thomas to include the mass sensors as taught by MacDonald.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that the correct amount of mass is dispensed for the additive manufacturing component, as stated by MacDonald, Para. 0083, “During delivery of each one of the powder constituents 106 from an associated one of the constituent regulators 232 to the mixer 206, the controller 250 monitors the mass, as measured by the mass sensor 236. Once the predetermined mass each one of the powder constituents 106 is dispensed from an associated one of the constituent reservoirs 230, as measured by the mass sensor 236 of a respective one of the constituent regulators 232, the valve 234 of each one of the constituent regulators 232 is selectively closed, under direction from the controller 250.”.
Claims 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20240100600 A1, where the prior art date is the effective filing date or the filing date of 09/22/2022) in view of Nelson et al. (US 20210260701 A1, hereinafter Nelson) and Beckett et al. (CN 114302781 A, hereinafter Beckett) in further view of MacDonald et al. (US 20210354387 A1, hereinafter MacDonald) and Hascoet et al. (WO 2017114965 A1, hereinafter Hascoet).
Regarding claim 14, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 13, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of mass sensors comprises a powder flow monitoring system comprising: an illumination device configured to illuminate at least some powder the powder stream between the powder delivery device and the build surface; and an imaging device configured to image the illuminated powder at an image plane that intersects an longitudinal axis of a deposition head, and wherein the one or more computing devices is configured to determine a mass flow rate of powder from the powder delivery device using data from the powder flow monitoring system.
However, Hascoet discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing (Abstract, “additive manufacturing”), where sensors include an illumination device to illuminate the powder in the powder stream between the powder delivery device and the build surface, where an imaging device images the illuminated powder at am image plane that intersects a longitudinal axis of a deposition head (Page 4, Para. 5-6, “iv. illuminate the end of the nozzle by means of the light source; v. get the image through the end of the nozzle by the centering camera, the mark left by the laser shot on the target, while the end of the nozzle is illuminated. This method makes it possible to obtain an image of the position of the powder projection orifice, which appears as a luminous crown, with respect to the axis of the laser beam, materialized by the mark left by the laser on the target, without removing said target, as well as to visualize the modifications of this position during each adjustment, by the displacement of the luminous crown, thus facilitating the adjustment of the nozzle.”, where Fig. 5 shows that the deposition head 100 has the longitudinal axis intersected by the image plane as 500 is the image), and where a computing device can determine a mass flow rate of powder from the powder flow monitoring system (Page 3, last Para., “profile camera. This embodiment makes it possible to measure the shape of the powder jet and the alignment of its profile with the laser in two planes. The adjustment of the shape of the powder jet is achieved by adjusting the powder and gas flow rates.”, where the image can capture the shape of the powder jet and where that shape is related to the mass flow rate of powder). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system in modified Thomas to include the powder flow imaging as taught by Hascoet.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to determine a shape of a powder jet, where this shape can allow for adjustment of powder and gas flows, as stated by Hascoet, Page 3, last Para., “profile camera. This embodiment makes it possible to measure the shape of the powder jet and the alignment of its profile with the laser in two planes. The adjustment of the shape of the powder jet is achieved by adjusting the powder and gas flow rates.”.
Claims 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20240100600 A1, where the prior art date is the effective filing date or the filing date of 09/22/2022) in view of Nelson et al. (US 20210260701 A1, hereinafter Nelson) and Beckett et al. (CN 114302781 A, hereinafter Beckett) in further view of MacDonald et al. (US 20210354387 A1, hereinafter MacDonald) and Milshtein et al. (US 20170291372 A1, hereinafter Milshtein).
Regarding claim 16, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 13, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
wherein the plurality of mass sensors comprise a topology sensor configured to measure a topology of material added to the melt pool, wherein the one or more computing devices is further configured to determine a mass of powder added to the melt pool based on the topology of the material added to the melt pool and a density of the powder.
However, Milshtein discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing (Para. 0002, “additive manufacturing”), where sensors can determine the topology of material added to workpiece (Para. 0120, “One or more sensors (at least one sensor) can detect the topology of the exposed surface of the material bed and/or the exposed surface of the 3D object (or any portion thereof). The sensor can detect the amount of pre-transformed material deposited in the material bed.”), where the mass of the powder can be determined through the topology and density of the powder (Para. 0120, “The sensor may comprise light sensor, acoustic sensor, vibration sensor, chemical sensor, electrical sensor, magnetic sensor, fluidity sensor, movement sensor, speed sensor, position sensor, pressure sensor, force sensor, density sensor,”, where the sensor that detects topology can determine the volume of the powder through detecting the amount of powder, where the density sensor can measure the density of the powder, where then the mass of the powder can be calculated). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system and computing device in modified Thomas to include the topology and density sensor as taught by Milshtein.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to determine the topology of the powder, which can allow the system to determine the amount of material deposited on the material bed, as stated by Milshtein, Para. 0120, “One or more sensors (at least one sensor) can detect the topology of the exposed surface of the material bed and/or the exposed surface of the 3D object (or any portion thereof). The sensor can detect the amount of pre-transformed material deposited in the material bed.”.
Claims 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20240100600 A1, where the prior art date is the effective filing date or the filing date of 09/22/2022) in view of Nelson et al. (US 20210260701 A1, hereinafter Nelson) and Beckett et al. (CN 114302781 A, hereinafter Beckett) in further view of MacDonald et al. (US 20210354387 A1, hereinafter MacDonald) and Milshtein et al. (US 20170291372 A1, hereinafter Milshtein) and Mazumder et al. (US 20070205184 A1, hereinafter Mazumder).
Regarding claim 17, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 16, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
wherein the one or more computing devices is further configured to determine a capture efficiency by dividing the mass of powder added to the melt pool by the mass of powder leaving the powder delivery device or dividing a mass rate of powder added to the melt pool by a mass flow rate of powder leaving the powder delivery device.
However, Mazumder discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing (Para. 0002, “rapid prototyping and, in particular, to a high-throughput manufacturing station that integrates high-speed, ultra-precision direct metal deposition (DMD)”), where a capture efficiency can be determined for a powder delivery device (Para. 0086, “The preferred nozzle utilizes a unique shaping gas flow to deliver powder in a cone shape around the laser beam. This causes the powder density at the melt pool to increase, resulting in an increase in process efficiency or catchment of powder in the melt pool. The efficiency of the DMD nozzle is 44% vs. powder utilization efficiency of 15% for the typical powdered metal deposition nozzle.”, where the catchment of powder in the melt pool is a percentage determined by the mass of powder added to the melt pool divided by the mass leaving the powder delivery device, where in order to determine the efficiency of catchment of powder there must be powder measurements done). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system and computing device in modified Thomas to calculate the capture efficiency as taught by Mazumder.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to adjust the nozzle shape depending on the capture efficiency, as stated by Mazumder, Para. 0086, “The preferred nozzle utilizes a unique shaping gas flow to deliver powder in a cone shape around the laser beam. This causes the powder density at the melt pool to increase, resulting in an increase in process efficiency or catchment of powder in the melt pool. The efficiency of the DMD nozzle is 44% vs. powder utilization efficiency of 15% for the typical powdered metal deposition nozzle.”.
Claims 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Thomas (US 20240100600 A1, where the prior art date is the effective filing date or the filing date of 09/22/2022) in view of Nelson et al. (US 20210260701 A1, hereinafter Nelson) and Beckett et al. (CN 114302781 A, hereinafter Beckett) in further view of MacDonald et al. (US 20210354387 A1, hereinafter MacDonald) and Hascoet et al. (WO 2017114965 A1, hereinafter Hascoet) and Mazumder et al. (US 20070205184 A1, hereinafter Mazumder).
Regarding claim 18, modified Thomas teaches the apparatus according to claim 14, as set forth above.
Modified Thomas does not disclose:
wherein the one or more computing devices is configured to determine an overall heat flux based on the data from the at least one heat sensor and a capture efficiency.
However, Beckett discloses where the computing device can determine an overall heat flux based on the data from the heat sensor (Claim 4, “wherein the one or more parameters comprises determining a heat emission density (TED) and determining the area of the construction plane of one or more scanning period traversal The heat emission density includes measuring the amount of energy radiated from the build plane during the one or more scans.”, where heat emission density is equivalent to overall heat flux), where the energy delivery device is controlled based on the overall heat flux (Page 16, last Para., “the thermal energy density and/or other metric can be used by one or more processors 1680 to respond to the thermal energy density or other metric to generate a process parameter (e.g., laser power, laser speed, scanning distance and other process parameters) of the control signal. As described herein, one or more processors 1680 may use the one or more process parameters as input to one or more of the trained machine learning algorithm, in real time detecting and recognition in the component 1645. Through this way, it can avoid the problem of damaging the production component. In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”, and Page 6, last Para., “real-time metric of the process metric is thermal energy density (thermal energy density, TED), TED Sigma (TED Sigma). Thermal energy Planck, TEP and TEP sigma. TED is a heat energy density metric indicative of heat energy in a given area”, where process metrics can include heat emission density or TED, where the process metric influences the process parameter of laser power from the energy delivery device). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the adjustment of energy in the energy delivery device from modified Thomas to include heat flux being an influence on the energy delivery device as taught by Beckett.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to ensure that the correct amount of energy is delivered to the workpiece, as stated by Beckett, Page 16, last Para., “In the embodiment of generating a plurality of components at one time, in response to a metric exceeding a desired range, the process parameters are rapidly corrected to prevent adjacent components from receiving too much or too little energy from the energy source.”.
Mazumder discloses, in the similar field of additive manufacturing (Para. 0002, “rapid prototyping and, in particular, to a high-throughput manufacturing station that integrates high-speed, ultra-precision direct metal deposition (DMD)”), where a capture efficiency can be determined for a powder delivery device (Para. 0086, “The preferred nozzle utilizes a unique shaping gas flow to deliver powder in a cone shape around the laser beam. This causes the powder density at the melt pool to increase, resulting in an increase in process efficiency or catchment of powder in the melt pool. The efficiency of the DMD nozzle is 44% vs. powder utilization efficiency of 15% for the typical powdered metal deposition nozzle.”, where the catchment of powder in the melt pool is a percentage determined by the mass of powder added to the melt pool divided by the mass leaving the powder delivery device, where in order to determine the efficiency of catchment of powder there must be powder measurements done). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system and computing device in modified Thomas to calculate the capture efficiency as taught by Mazumder, where knowing the amount of powder within the melt pool allows for an overall heat flux calculation to be made from modified Thomas as Beckett assumes that the amount of material within the build plane is already known.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to adjust the nozzle shape depending on the capture efficiency, as stated by Mazumder, Para. 0086, “The preferred nozzle utilizes a unique shaping gas flow to deliver powder in a cone shape around the laser beam. This causes the powder density at the melt pool to increase, resulting in an increase in process efficiency or catchment of powder in the melt pool. The efficiency of the DMD nozzle is 44% vs. powder utilization efficiency of 15% for the typical powdered metal deposition nozzle.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
07/30/2026
Prosecution Insights