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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 14-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/20/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tammas-Williams et al. (“XCT analysis of the influence of melt strategies on defect population in Ti–6Al–4V components manufactured by Selective Electron Beam Melting” Materials Characterization. 2015)
Regarding Claim 1, Tammas-Williams teaches a method of performing a material build comprising:
Forming material on a platform,
Controlling composition of the material in a plane in a spatial manner by directly irradiating with an energy beam using a combination of energy scan techniques (Hatch and Contour Strategies)(Abstract and Fig 1) to volatilize elements of the material away and results in spatial variation in composition of the material (See Figures 10 and 12) and the volatilization is considered to result from temperature, pressure and chemical reactions from the plume during electron beam melting, further the prior art teaches that pores are formed at least in part by the evaporation of Aluminum which has an effect on microstructure and mechanical properties of the components (Section 4.2)
Regarding Claim 3, the composition starts with a single alloy composition of Ti-6Al-4V powder (2 Experimental method)
Regarding Claim 4, the energy beam is an electron beam (SEBM) (Abstract)
Regarding Claim 5, at each level the pores formed are considered to change material in another (vertical) plane during the building of a new layer. (See Fig 10)
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.
Claim(s) 2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tammas-Williams et al. (“XCT analysis of the influence of melt strategies on defect population in Ti–6Al–4V components manufactured by Selective Electron Beam Melting” Materials Characterization. 2015) in view of Lee et al. “Correlations of caracking with scan strategy and build geometry in electron powder bed additive manufacturing. Additive Manufacturing 32. 2020).
Regarding Claim 2, Tammas-Williams teaches one of the beam strategies may be rastering (See 1.1); however, does not teach the combination of raster scanning and random scanning. However, Lee teaches a method of electron beam additive manufacturing of Ni-based superalloys (Abstract); and teaches a scan strategy called random raster scan can be used which is a mixture or combination of raster and random-spot melting scan patterns and results in a product similar to those from post-treatment in other process (welding) as it reheats the same areas multiple times and relaxes the high stress of those areas and serves to cut the melting in almost half compared to normal raster strategies (See 3.2), therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use a raster-random scan strategy in the process of Tammas-Williams for the purpose of reducing internal stresses in the product and reducing overall melting time of the process.
Regarding Claim 7, Lee teaches melt pool geometries and shapes may be changed by changes in scan parameters to lead to a change in solidification conditions to impact solidification morphology (Section 3.1)
Regarding Claim 8, Lee teaches a real-time (in-situ) tool is sued to measure properties of the material during fabrication (crack formation and porosity defects) (Fig 6), as uncontrolled evaporation loss is considered to result in these defects, this measurement is considered to read on the claimed limitation.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tammas-Williams et al. (“XCT analysis of the influence of melt strategies on defect population in Ti–6Al–4V components manufactured by Selective Electron Beam Melting” Materials Characterization. 2015).
Regarding Claim 6, Tammas-Williams teaches process parameters are selected for a material feedstock used Ti6AlV powder, but is silent regarding changing process parameters to tune out-of-specification feedstock compositions for the material to feedstock compositions meeting a desired specification; however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify or tune powders that do not meet specification so that they meet specification for the purpose of additively manufacturing a product with a desired composition.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9-13 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The closest prior art of record is Tammas-Williams as used above, however the prior art does not teach or suggest controlling of a plume with a high partial pressure of the given element or compound being evaporated as required by claim 9; or introducing one or more metal-containing gases patterned into the deposition of the material prior or during deposition as required by claim 11; or the using a second melting/evaporation system as required by claim 13.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights