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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description:
Reference character “72” in Fig. 2
Reference character “800” in Figs. 9, 10, and 11
Reference character “308” in Fig. 12
The drawings are further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
Reference character “302” has been used to designate both powder particles in Fig. 3 and a step in the flow chart of Fig. 12.
Reference character “304” has been used to designate both powder particles in Fig. 3 and a step in the flow chart of Fig. 12.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“may cause powder to powder to displace” should be corrected to --may cause powder to displace-- in [PG Pub: 0022].
“primary energy delivery device 16 may be arranged of configured such that” should be corrected to --primary energy delivery device 16 may be arranged or configured such that-- in [PG Pub: 0042].
“powder delivery device 16” should be corrected to --powder delivery device 14-- in [PG Pub: 0049].
“mass source 44” should be corrected to --mass sensor 44-- in [PG Pub: 0062].
“PFMS 50 may be determine a position of powder stream” should be corrected to --PFMS 50 may determine a position of powder stream-- in [PG Pub: 0068].
“energy delivery device 16 outputs energy 34m” should be corrected to --energy delivery device 16 outputs energy 34-- in [PG Pub: 0079].
“a center of the lens if substantially opaque” should be corrected to --a center of the lens is substantially opaque-- in [PG Pub: 0080].
“computing device 12 may a digital micromirror device” should be corrected to --computing device 12 may [include, contain, have, etc.] a digital micromirror device-- in [PG Pub: 0081].
“a melt pool is not formed (e.g., by second energy delivery device 17, FIGS. 1 and 5) formed during an additive manufacturing technique” should be corrected to --a melt pool is not formed (e.g., by second energy delivery device 17, FIGS. 1 and 5) during an additive manufacturing technique-- in [PG Pub: 0082].
“imaging optics 92 and 98” should be corrected to --imaging optics 92 and 96-- in [PG Pub: 0083].
In [PG Pub: 0085], repeated reference is made to “second imaging optics 92” however, first and second imaging optics have reference characters 92 and 98, respectively. Thus it is unknown whether this paragraph is referring to the first imaging optics and using the incorrect term “second” or referring to the second imaging optics and using the incorrect reference character “92”.
“which may generate and/or delivery energy 234” should be corrected to --which may generate and/or deliver energy 234-- in [PG Pub: 0098].
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 11, 13, 16, and 17 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, “receive, from the powder flow monitoring system, data indicative of a position of the powder stream from the powder flow monitoring system” should be corrected to --receive, from the powder flow monitoring system, data indicative of a position of the powder stream--.
In claim 2, “the position of central axis” should be corrected to --the position of the central axis--.
In claim 3, “the melt pool to fall to fall within” should be corrected to --the melt pool to fall within--.
In claim 5 “adjusting the position at least one” should be corrected to --adjusting the position of at least one--.
In claims 6 and 7, “an adjustment to one or both of the position of” should be corrected to --adjustment to one or both of the positions of--.
In claim 7, “captured efficiency” should be corrected to --capture efficiency--.
In claim 11, “a component” should be corrected to --the component--.
In claim 13, “the additively manufactured component” should be corrected to --the component—(two instances).
In claim 16, “the relative position of powder stream” should be corrected to --the relative position of the powder stream--.
In claim 17, “relative position of the powder stream and the melt pool” should be corrected to --relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool--.
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:
The energy delivery device in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 14, 16, and 17, which is interpreted as a laser source [PG Pub: 0040] and equivalents. It should be noted that the energy delivery device will not be interpreted under 112(f) in claims 9, and 11, where it is provided structure including a laser and galvanometer.
The powder delivery device in claims 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, and 17, which is interpreted as a powder source connected to a flow path consisting of conduits, pipes, or tubing, and nozzles [PG Pub: 0037] and equivalents. It should be noted that the powder delivery device will not be interpreted under 112(f) in claims 10, and 11, where it is provided structure including nozzles.
The powder flow monitoring system in claims 1 and 16, which is interpreted as an illumination device and an imaging device [PG Pub: 0043] and equivalents.
The optical system in claims 1, and 16, which is interpreted as an imaging device [PG Pub: 0076-0080] and equivalents. It should be noted that the optical system will not be interpreted under 112(f) in claim 14, where it is provided structure including two cameras.
The computing device in claims 1-7, 10-12, and 14-20, which is interpreted as a desktop computer, a laptop computer, a workstation, a server, a mainframe, or a cloud computing system [PG Pub: 0054] and equivalents.
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.
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.
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.
Claim 11 is 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.
Specifically, claim 11 recites the limitations "the central axis" and “the center point”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for these limitations in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 10, 12, 16, 17, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2017/0087666 A1) in view of Mann (WO 2012/100940 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Sasaki discloses an additive manufacturing system (processing nozzle 200 [Figs. 2, 5, and 6, 0036]; see Annotated Figure 1) comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
537
642
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fig. 6 disclosed by Sasaki, annotated to show claimed elements.
an energy delivery device (laser beam 210 [Fig. 2, 0037] including a laser source [0034]) configured to deliver energy to a build surface (laser beam 210 creates a molten pool 221 on the process surface 220 [0037]) of an additively-manufactured component (process surface 220) to form a melt pool in the build surface of the component (molten pool 221 is formed on process surface 220 [Figs. 2, 5, and 6, 0037]);
a powder delivery device (powder ejector 201 [Figs. 2, 5, and 6, 0037]) configured to direct a powder stream (powder material 230 [Figs. 2, 5, and 6, 0037]) toward the melt pool (“ejecting a powder material 230 toward a molten pool 221” [0037]);
a powder spot position (“the shape and/or position of a powder spot formed by the powder ejector 201” [0039]);
an optical system configured to observe the melt pool (detector 525 detects the shape of the molten pool 221 [Fig. 5 0041]; the shape and coordinates of the molten pool 221 is illustrated in Figs. 3 and 4);
a computing device (controller 524; “the present invention also incorporates the program installed in a computer” [Fig. 5, 0041, 0077]) configured to:
receive, from the optical system, data indicative of a position of the melt pool (the detector 525 detects the shape of the molten pool 221 and communicates with the controller 524 [Fig. 5, 0041]; further, Figs. 3 and 4 illustrate the molten pool shape in cartesian coordinates, indicating its position with respect to the laser spot at point (0,0) [Figs. 3 and 4, 0040]);
determine, based on the position of the powder stream and the position of the melt pool, a relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool (the controller 524 controls (and thus determines) the position of the powder spot via adjuster 202 [Fig. 2, 0039] based on the detected the shape of the molten pool with respect to a coordinate system based on the laser spot [Figs. 3, 4, and 5, 0040-0041]; thus, the controller 524 is configured to determine the relative position of the powder spot to the melt pool); and
control, based on the determined relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool, one or both of the powder delivery device and the energy delivery device (controller 524 controls the adjuster 202 via a driver 523 which moves the outer housing 212 with respect to the inner housing 211 of powder ejector 201 to adjust the position of the powder spot [Figs. 5 and 6, 0041-0042]).
Sasaki does not expressly disclose a powder flow monitoring system configured to observe the powder stream, nor that the computing device is configured to receive, from the powder flow monitoring system, data indicative of a position of the powder stream. Sasaki does not disclose the process by which the powder spot is determined.
PNG
media_image2.png
388
625
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2. Fig. 5 disclosed by Mann, annotated to show powder flow monitoring system.
Mann teaches a method and device for detecting a particle distribution in a powder delivery jet nozzle for laser beam cladding (powder nozzle 14 [Fig. 1, abstract, 001-005, 0073]). Mann further teaches a powder flow monitoring system, configured to observe a powder stream (illumination laser 16 and high speed camera 17 [Figs. 1 and 5, 0074-0077]; see Annotated Figure 2). Further, Mann teaches a computing device (computer 23 [Fig. 5, 0091]) configured to receive, from the powder flow monitoring system, data indicative of a position of the powder stream from the powder flow monitoring system (computer 23 includes an evaluation unit for the data supplied by camera 17 [0091]; said data is a spatial representation of the powder, including a profile and a location of the focus of the power beam [0085]).
Sasaki discloses a system for additive manufacturing wherein the position of the powder spot is adjusted but does not disclose the process by which said powder spot is detected. Mann teaches a method and device for powder jet laser cladding, including a powder flow monitoring system for determining the shape and central location of a powder stream. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system disclosed by Sasaki to include the powder flow monitoring system taught by Mann. Specifically, the powder flow monitoring system taught by Mann would be implemented to inform the computing device taught by Sasaki of the position of the powder stream. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “the superposition of the powder gas jet to the laser beam is an important prerequisite for achieving a good result” [Mann: 0012], and Mann teaches a powder flow monitoring system which contributes to this achievement. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification as the systems of both references pertain to aligning a laser with a powder delivery system, and Mann teaches obtaining the position of the powder, which is needed for the system disclosed by Sasaki.
Regarding claim 2, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches that:
to determine the position of the powder stream, the computing device is configured to determine a position of a central axis of the powder stream (the powder flow monitoring system taught by Mann includes a profile of the powder stream with a focus point that is obtained by imaging in the direction of the nozzle jet [Mann: 0059, 0085]; the central axis of this profile would be the axis in the direction of the nozzle jet, centered at the focus);
to determine the position of the melt pool, the computing device is configured to determine a position of a center point of the melt pool (Sasaki discloses Fig. 3, which illustrates the melt pool shape and coordinates, with a center located at (0,0) representative of the laser spot [0040]); and
to determine the relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool, the computing device is configured to compare the position of central axis of the powder stream to the position of the center point of the melt pool. In the combination system discussed regarding claim 1, the powder flow monitoring system taught by Mann (Mann: illumination laser 16 and high speed camera 17 [Figs. 1 and 5, 0074-0077]) informs the computing device taught by Sasaki (Sasaki: controller 524 [Fig. 5, 0041]) of the position of the powder stream (central axis discussed above with respect to the profile taught by Mann). Mann further teaches that this profile “makes it possible to check […] whether the focus is centrally located under the nozzle” [Mann: 0085].
Regarding claim 4, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches (with citations directed to Sasaki unless otherwise noted) that the computing device is configured to adjust at least one of the positions of the energy delivery device or the powder delivery device such that the central axis of the powder stream intersects the center point of the melt pool. Sasaki teaches that the computing device (controller 524 [0041]) can adjust (via adjuster 202 [0039]) the powder delivery device (powder ejector 201, specifically adjusting the position of outer housing 212 [0039, 0014]) in order to adjust the position of the powder stream in accordance with the movement of the melt pool (molten pool 221 [0041]). When the computing device is provided the center of the melt pool (coordinate (0,0) taught by Sasaki [Fig. 3, 0040]) and the central axis of the powder stream (obtained from the powder profile disclosed by Mann [0059, 0085]), the computing device is configured to adjust the position of the powder delivery device such that the central axis of the powder stream intersects the center point of the melt pool (Sasaki: [0041]).
Regarding claim 5, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches (with citations directed to Sasaki) that to control the powder delivery device and the energy delivery device, the computing device is configured to adjust the relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool by adjusting the position at least one of the powder delivery device or the energy delivery device. Specifically, the computing device (controller 524) adjusts the position of the powder delivery device (outer housing 212 is moved by adjuster 202 with respect to inner housing 211 [Fig. 2, 0039, 0041]) to adjust the position of the powder stream (powder spot) in accordance with the detected position of the melt pool [Figs. 2-6, 0041].
Regarding claim 8, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches (with citations directed to Sasaki) that the powder delivery device and the energy delivery device are parts of a deposition head (laser beam 210 and powder ejector 201 are part of processing nozzle 200 [Figs. 5 and 6, 0036-0038]).
Regarding claim 10, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches (with citations directed to Sasaki) that:
the powder delivery device comprises one or more delivery nozzles (powder ejector 201 has inner housing 211 and outer housing 212 which define channel of processing nozzle 200 [0037]), and
to control the powder delivery device, the computing device is configured to control the angle or the position of the of the one or more delivery nozzles (controller 524 controls adjuster 202 to move the position of housing 212 [0041]).
Regarding claim 12, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches (with citations directed to Sasaki) that the computing device is further configured to determine a plurality of additional parameters of the additive manufacturing system (Sasaki teaches determination of melt pool shape [Sasaki: 0041]; Mann teaches determination of 3D particle density distribution, which would be incorporated in the modification of Sasaki to include the powder flow monitoring system discussed with regard to claim 1 [Mann: 0032]);
wherein the plurality of additional parameters include at least one of a powder size distribution, a beam shape, a melt pool size, a melt pool shape (Sasaki: [0041]), a powder feed rate, a powder feed mass flow rate, a process gas flow rate, or flow velocity, or flow direction, and
control the energy delivery device or the powder delivery device based at least partially on the determined additional parameters (Sasaki discloses controller 524 controlling adjuster 202 to move housing 212 in accordance with determination of melt pool shape [0041]).
Regarding claim 16, the method of claim 16 substantially corresponds to the system of claim 1 and is thus rejected over Sasaki in view of Mann for the reasons outlined above.
Regarding claim 17, the method of claim 17 substantially corresponds to the system of claim 5 and is thus rejected over Sasaki in view of Mann for the reasons outlined above.
Regarding claim 18, the method of claim 18 substantially corresponds to the system of claim 2 and is thus rejected over Sasaki in view of Mann for the reasons outlined above.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2017/0087666 A1) in view of Mann (WO 2012/100940 A1) and further in view of Shi (US 2022/0362885 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Sasaki in view of Mann does not expressly teach that the computing device is configured to:
determine a capture efficiency of powder in the powder stream by the melt pool,
determine, based on the determined capture efficiency, an adjustment to one or both of the position of the powder delivery device or the energy delivery device, and
control, based on the determined adjustment, the powder delivery device or the energy delivery device.
Shi teaches a laser cladding device which comprises a powder delivery device and an energy delivery device comprising an optics system to shift the focus point of the laser (divergent laser beam 2, off-axis parabolic focusing mirror 7, conical reflector 5, focus point 13, nozzle 9, and powder spraying tube 27 [Fig. 4, 0043, 0047-0050]). Shi additionally teaches determination of a capture efficiency (utilization rate of the powder [0058]), and that this capture efficiency can be increased by adjustment of the laser beam focus position [0058].
Sasaki in view of Mann teaches an additive manufacturing system but does not teach a determination of powder capture efficiency, nor does it teach control of an adjustment of the laser beam. Shi teaches an additive manufacturing system with a determined powder capture efficiency, as well as an adjustment of the laser beam which can increase said efficiency. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Shi for determination of capture efficiency and adjustable optics system to modify the additive manufacturing system taught by Sasaki in view of Mann. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the system taught by Sasaki in view of Mann to include the adjustable laser system optics to allow for control and adjustability of the laser beam taught by Sasaki in view of Mann. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have included the teaching of Shi that an adjustment of the energy delivery device can increase capture efficiency to inform the computing device taught by Sasaki in view of Mann to implement this control adjustment into the optics system. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification, as it would improve the efficiency of the system and reduce waste of powder material. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation of success in this modification as each reference pertains to an additive manufacturing system configured to monitor welding parameters and make adjustments to the energy delivery devices, accordingly.
Regarding claim 20, the method of claim 20 substantially corresponds to the system of claim 6 and is thus rejected over Sasaki in view of Mann and further in view of Shi for the reasons outlined above.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2017/0087666 A1) in view of Mann (WO 2012/100940 A1) and further in view of Shi (US 2022/0362885 A1) and Vora (US 2021/0016509 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Sasaki in view of Mann and further in view of Shi (hereinafter referred to as the combination system) teaches that the computing device is configured to determine, based on the capture efficiency, the adjustment to one or both of the position of the powder delivery device or the energy delivery device. Please see above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 6 for further detail.
The combination system does not expressly teach that the computing device makes this determination using a machine learning model.
Vora teaches an additive manufacturing system comprising an energy delivery system and a powder delivery system (AM system 13, multiple laser system 41, and “Powder Feeding System” [Fig. 1A-B, 0021]). The system additionally comprises a machine learning model, hosted on a computing device (Build and Feedback Machine Learning Platform 21 on local computer 39 [Figs. 1A-B, 0021]). The machine learning model interfaces with sensors and image capturing devices to obtain process parameters and identify defects of the build (via Defect Exploration System 23 and Defect Identification System 25 [Fig. 3, 0023]). Upon discovery of a defect, the machine learning model responds with an appropriate corrective action for the additive manufacturing system to take [Figs. 4-6, 0024-0025].
The combination system teaches an additive manufacturing system which determines a capture efficiency of the powder and adjusts the energy delivery system accordingly but does not teach that the adjustment is determined by a machine learning model. Vora teaches an additive manufacturing system that comprises a machine learning model which takes input from a variety of sensors and image capturing devices and provides correction actions for the system to take upon discovery of a defect. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Vora for a machine learning model in an additive manufacturing system to modify the combination system. Specifically, the machine learning model taught by Vora would be implemented into the computing device taught by the combination to take the capture efficiency as an input and suggest a corrective action of adjusting the laser beam focus position. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because a machine learning model allows for real-time monitoring for defects or inefficiencies and response/corrective action to take place during the process. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification as both the combination and Vora teach additive manufacturing systems which utilize computer control for powder and energy delivery.
Claims 9 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2017/0087666 A1) in view of Mann (WO 2012/100940 A1) and further in view of Dutta (US 2018/0326539 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches that the energy delivery device is a laser (laser beam 210 with a laser source [Sasaki: 0034, 0037]. Sasaki does not provide further detail on the laser beam source and thus, Sasaki in view of Mann does not expressly disclose that:
the energy delivery device comprises one or more galvanometers; and
the position of the energy delivery device is adjustable by manipulation of the one or more galvanometers.
PNG
media_image3.png
432
632
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3. Figs. 2 and 5 disclosed by Dutta, annotated to show laser scanning head components and motion system.
Dutta teaches a nozzle with a laser scanning head for direct material deposition [Fig. 1, abstract]. Specifically, the process head 12 produces a laser beam 18 via laser source 28, and comprises a scanner 32, which includes at least one galvanometer 34 [Figs. 1 and 2, 0015-0017]. The galvanometer 34 moves the laser beam 18 along a desired path to generate a desired melt pool 20, by melting powder delivered via nozzle 24 [Figs. 1 and 2, 0018]. See Annotated Figure 3.
Sasaki in view of Mann teaches a system for additive manufacturing including a laser beam with a laser source, however, the structure of the laser source is not disclosed. Dutta teaches an apparatus for additive manufacturing wherein the laser source includes at least one galvanometer for adjusting the position of the laser beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser source taught by Sasaki in view of Mann, whose structure is not disclosed, to include the at least one galvanometer for adjusting the position of the laser beam, as taught by Dutta. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification because “use of a laser scanner in combination with a motion system and a nozzle provides a significant enhancement to the direct material deposition process” [Dutta: 0007]. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification because each of the references pertain to adjusting a material deposition head to achieve a desired melt pool.
Regarding claim 15, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches that the computing device is configured to adjust the relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool (discussed above with regard to claim 1).
Sasaki additionally discloses additive manufacturing ([0062] “generates a three-dimensional shaped object”) on a stage (1605, see Fig. 16, which can incorporate the relied upon nozzle embodiment according to [0065]).
However, Sasaki in view of Mann does not expressly teach that the additive manufacturing system is configured to additively-manufacture the component layer-by-layer while the component is mechanically supported by a stage, and
wherein the computing device is configured to adjust the relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool while the component is being additively-manufactured and mechanically supported by the stage.
Dutta, as described above, teaches an apparatus for direct material deposition [Fig. 1, abstract]. Dutta additionally teaches a motion system for moving the apparatus (motion system 14 [Figs. 1 and 5, 0014]). The motion system moves the process head during processing such that multiple layers are sequentially deposited onto a component, while the component is supported by the motion system (Fig. 5 shows the support of the motion system 14; see Annotated Figure 3).
Sasaki in view of Mann teaches an additive manufacturing system in which power is deposited onto the surface of a component and melted by an energy delivery system, however, Sasaki in view of Mann does not specify a layer-by-layer additive manufacturing process wherein the component is supported on a stage. Dutta teaches an additive manufacturing system with a motion system that supports the component as it is subjected to a layer-by-layer additive manufacturing process. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system taught by Sasaki in view of Mann to include the motion system taught by Dutta. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have implemented the motion system taught by Dutta to support and move the processing nozzle and process surface taught by Sasaki. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification as this would allow for 3-dimensional construction of a component using the system taught by Sasaki in view of Mann. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification as each reference pertains to deposition of powder material into a melt pool created by a laser for manufacturing a component.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2017/0087666 A1) in view of Mann (WO 2012/100940 A1) and further in view of Varney (US 2018/0073390 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches that the system further comprising the additively manufactured component (the process surface 220 disclosed by Sasaki is representative of the component (Figs. 2 and 5, [0037], Sasaki [0062] “generates a three-dimensional shaped object”).
Sasaki in view of Mann does not expressly teach that the additively manufactured component is a gas turbine engine component.
Sasaki teaches that the powder material may be a metal or resin ([0068]).
Varney teaches an additively manufactured component, which is a gas turbine engine component (component 10 [Fig. 1, abstract, 0020]) and may be made of metal ([0047]). The component is produced by an additive manufacturing system comprising a deposition device and energy delivery device (system 110, material source 124, and energy source 128 [Fig. 6, 0045]).
Sasaki in view of Mann teaches a system for additive manufacturing of a component but does not disclose what the component may be. Varney teaches that a comparable additive manufacturing system can produce a gas turbine engine component. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the teaching of Varney that a gas turbine engine component may be manufactured by a powder and laser deposition additive manufacturing system, to produce a gas turbine engine component from the component taught by Sasaki in view of Mann. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in this modification as the references present additive manufacturing systems including powder and energy delivery devices.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sasaki (US 2017/0087666 A1) in view of Mann (WO 2012/100940 A1) and further in view of Ishikawa (US 2019/0047226 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Sasaki in view of Mann teaches that the optical system includes:
a camera disposed on an axis of the energy delivery device (Sasaki teaches detector 525 which is an image capturing unit and it can be seen from Figs. 2 and 5 that it is placed on axis with the laser beam 210 [0041]).
Sasaki in view of Mann does not expressly teach a second camera displaced from the axis of the energy delivery device positioned to capture data indicative of the relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool,
wherein the computing device is configured to adjust the relative position of the powder stream to the melt pool based at least partially on the data captured by the second camera.
PNG
media_image4.png
423
565
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4. Fig. 1B disclosed by Ishikawa, annotated to show the secondary off-axis camera.
Ishikawa teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising a powder delivery system and an energy delivery system (apparatus 100, dispenser 120, and energy delivery system 114 [Fig. 1B, 0031]). Ishikawa additionally teaches a first camera and a second camera (thermal imaging device 108 and melt pool monitor 110 [Fig. 1B, 0029]; see Annotated Figure 4) displaced from the axis of the energy delivery device [Fig. 1B]. This camera is positioned such that it is focused on and monitoring the melt pool and generates data related to the powder in its focus region on the melt pool [0058].
Sasaki in view of Mann teaches an additive manufacturing system with an optical system comprising one camera on the axis of the energy delivery device. Ishikawa teaches an additive manufacturing system comprising a secondary camera, positioned off-axis from the energy delivery device for monitoring the melt pool and providing data related to the powder in the region of the melt pool. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing system taught by Sasaki in view of Mann to include a second camera off-axis from the energy delivery device, as taught by Ishikawa. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this modification in order to monitor the melt pool along with the properties of the powder in the region of the melt pool. This would allow for additional information on the state of the powder spot to inform the system of the adjustments needed for the powder delivery system. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success with this modification as each reference pertains to monitoring of process parameters within an additive manufacturing system utilizing a laser and powder deposition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 11 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 3, The closest prior art reference is Sasaki (US 2017/0087666 A1) in view of Mann (WO 2012/100940 A1) as discussed above with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claims 1 and 2.
Sasaki in view of Mann teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 2 (see above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2), wherein the computing device is configured to determine the positions of the central axis of the powder stream and center point of the melt pool, compare these positions, and adjust the positioning of the energy delivery device or the powder delivery device. Please see above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 2 for further detail.
Sasaki in view of Mann, in combination with the above limitations and with the limitations of claim 2 does not teach whether a distance between the central axis of the powder stream and the center point of the melt pool exceeds a threshold distance. Sasaki in view of Mann does not specify a distance or threshold distance in which the system is configured to aim the powder toward or near the melt pool.
Regarding claim 11, The closest prior art reference is Sasaki (US 2017/0087666 A1) in view of Mann (WO 2012/100940 A1) as discussed above with regard to the 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1.
Sasaki in view of Mann teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 1 (see above 35 U.S.C. 103 rejection of claim 1), wherein:
the powder delivery device and the energy delivery device are parts of a deposition head (Sasaki: laser beam 210 and powder ejector 201 are components of processing nozzle 200 [0037]), and
the deposition head is configured to deposit a layer of material on a component during an additive manufacturing process (Sasaki: powder ejector 201 of process nozzle 200 deposits a layer of powder onto process surface 220 during an additive manufacturing process [0037]).
Sasaki in view of Mann does not expressly teach, in combination with the above limitations and the limitations of claim 1, a central axis defined within a plurality of delivery nozzles. The central axis taught by Sasaki in view of Mann is a resultant axis formed by the profile of powder flow taught by Mann and when applied to the powder delivery system taught by Sasaki (i.e., powder ejector 201) it would be representative of a singular, conical-shaped nozzle.
Further, in combination with the limitations above and with the limitations of claim 1, Sasaki in view of Mann does not teach that the deposition head is configured to travel along a tool path.
Finally, in combination with the limitations above and with the limitations of claim 1, Sasaki in view of Mann does not teach that the central axis is displaced along the build surface by a displacement distance from the center of the melt pool. While the system of Sasaki in view of Mann is configured to adjust the position of the powder (via adjuster 202 of Sasaki), there is no disclosure of a set displacement distance that the system is configured to hold the powder stream to with respect to the melt pool.
Regarding claim 19, the method of claim 19 substantially corresponds to the system of claim 3 and thus contains allowable subject matter for the reasons outlined above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA RAE BOSS whose telephone number is (571)270-0274. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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 at (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.
/MARISSA RAE BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights