Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Claims 1 – 8 in the reply filed on 06/04/26 is acknowledged. Claims 9 – 15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 06/04/26.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2 – 4 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “low intensity” in claim 3 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For purposes of examination, any laser capable of performing debinding will be interpreted as meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 2, 3, 6 and 8, the use of the term “preferably” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are actually required or merely optional/exemplary embodiment. The limitations are interpreted as optional.
Regarding claim 4, the claim recites the limitation "the apparatus for focusing the laser beam". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether the claim is requiring a separate “apparatus” or whether the phrase was intended to refer back to “the control unit” which is configured to focus the laser beam. The latter interpretation is taken.
Regarding claim 8, the claim recites the limitation "the laser scan head" or the laser comprising a laser scan head. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 8 is dependent on claim 7 and claim 3, neither of which introduce a laser scan head. The first introduction of “laser scan head” is in claim 4. As such, the term in claim 8 lacks antecedent basis and it is not clear whether the claim is meant to depend on claim 4.
Claim 7 is rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 – 2 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Jaster (US2022/0227052)
Regarding claim 1, Jaster teaches an additive deposition system (3D printing) and process [Title, 0014]. Jaster teaches that the system comprises:
A deposition head for extruding material onto a build surface [Fig 2a, “201”; 0012]
Meeting the claimed limitation of an extruder for extruding a filament/paste of build material onto a build platform to form a part
A directed heating device [Fig 2a, “206”, 0007]
Meeting the claimed limitation of a heater configured for local heating of the build part
A thermal camera for monitoring the temperature of the previous layer [Fig 2a, “210”, 0078]
Meeting the claimed limitation of a monitoring unit for capturing data of the build part
A control system [Fig 6, “606”] that can control the movement of the deposition head and laser [0089, 0090, Fig 6], see also [Claim 14].
Meeting the claimed limitation of a control unit configured for controlling the extruder and heater such that material can be extruded onto a particular area and heated.
Regarding claim 2, Jaster teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Jaster teaches that the extrusion material is a metal/ceramic powder with a polymeric binder [0067 – 0074], meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Jaster teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Jaster teaches that the apparatus comprises a thermal camera, meeting the claimed limitation of a monitoring system comprising an optical sensor. Jaster shows that the thermal camera can be disposed on the laser which is aligned with the build part [0080, Fig 2B], meeting the claimed limitation of the optical sensor being aligned with the build part.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 3 – 4 and 7 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaster (US2022/0227052), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Buller (US2019/0291184)
Regarding claim 3, Jaster teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Jaster teaches that the heat sources can be provided as lasers, radiant heaters (i.e., lamp), and microwave, for debinding and sintering/melting [0083]. Jaster teaches a specific embodiment in which a low/lower power laser is first used to debind the material and a secondary laser is used to fully sinter/melt the layer [0090], meeting the claimed limitation of a low intensity laser for debinding a layer of the build part and a laser for sintering the debound layer of metal/ceramic powder.
Jaster does not expressly disclose that the sintering/melting laser is a CO2 or Nd:YAG Laser.
Buller teaches a three-dimensional printing apparatus in which the material can be deposited via filament/extrusion deposition [0153, 0155]. Buller discloses that the printed material (that can include metal or ceramic) can be transformed via melting or sintering [0009, 0152]. Additionally, Buller discloses that the energy source for transforming the material can be a laser including a Nd:YAG or CO2 laser [0270], meeting the claimed limitation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the apparatus of Jaster and used a Nd:YAG or CO2 laser as the sintering/melting laser, as disclosed by Buller. Jaster and Buller are directed to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing with sintering/melting, including the deposition of extrudate/filament. Moreover, Buller acknowledges that the energy sources disclosed can be used to melt/sinter metal or ceramic (i.e., the material used in Jaster). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Buller because Buller provides types of energy sources (including specific types of lasers) that are capable of performing the operation of the laser in Jaster (i.e, melting/sintering).
The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use is a prima facie case of obviousness (In re Leshin, 277 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960)) (See MPEP 2144.07). In this case the selection of a known type of laser, such as Nd:YAG or CO2, which is suitable for the intended use of sintering/melting presents a prima facie case of obviousness.
Regarding claim 4, Jaster in view of Buller teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Jaster teaches that the heat sources can be provided as lasers, radiant heaters (i.e., lamp), and microwave, for debinding and sintering/melting [0083]. Jaster teaches a specific embodiment in which a low/lower power laser is first used to debind the material and a secondary laser is used to fully sinter/melt the layer [0090].
Jaster further teaches that the control system can control the speed and temperature of the heating element [0014], and shows that the low energy laser can be moved along with the deposition head [Fig 6], meeting the claimed limitation of the control unit being capable of moving the low intensity laser in all spatial directions. It is implied that the lasers for debinding and sintering are capable of impacting the build part and heating.
Jaster as-modified does not expressly disclose that the sintering/melting CO2 or Nd:YAG Laser has a laser scan head for focusing and aligning the laser beam and that the scan head is fixed.
Buller teaches a three-dimensional printing apparatus in which the material can be deposited via filament/extrusion deposition [0153, 0155]. Buller discloses that the printed material (that can include metal or ceramic) can be transformed via melting or sintering [0009, 0152]. Buller further discloses that the sintering/melting laser can be used by targeting the intended material from outside the build area using an optical system containing a lens/mirror and laser beam guide with is connected with the control unit for controlling the laser [Fig 1; 0308], meeting the claimed limitation of the control unit for focusing the beam and a position fixed laser scan head for aligning the beam with the build part.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the apparatus of Jaster and used the optical system configuration for the melting/sintering laser, as disclosed by Buller. Jaster and Buller are directed to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing with sintering/melting, including the deposition of extrudate/filament. Moreover, Buller acknowledges that the energy sources disclosed can be used to melt/sinter metal or ceramic (i.e., the material used in Jaster). As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to use the laser arrangement of Buller because the optical system of Buller provides benefits such as controlling the energy source, the angle and focus of the laser, and/or the energy of the energy source via connection to a control unit [0308].
Regarding claim 7, Jaster in view of Buller teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Jaster teaches that a radiant heater can be provided to drive off the binder (i.e., debind) [0083]. Jaster shows that the radiant heater (meeting the BRI of infrared lamp) is aligned over the build part [Fig 3], meeting the claimed limitation of an infrared lamp aligned with the build part and configured to irradiate the build part to remove binding material from it.
Regarding claim 8, Jaster in view of Buller teaches the invention as applied in claim 7. Jaster shows that the apparatus has a build chamber for controlling various aspects of the atmosphere [0102], meeting the claimed limitation of a build chamber.
Jaster shows that the infrared lamp, extruder/nozzle, and build plate are inside the build chamber [Fig 3, Fig 6], meeting the claimed limitations.
Jaster shows that a thermal camera can be provided on a laser inside the build volume [Fig 2a, Fig 6], meeting the claimed limitation.
Jaster shows that the debinding laser (i.e. the low intensity laser) can be provided inside the build chamber [Fig 6, “612”; 0090] while the sintering/melting laser source can be placed outside the build chamber [Fig 6, “613”; 0090]. Wherein Buller teaches using a CO2 or Nd:YAG laser. Meeting the claimed limitations of the low intensity laser inside the build chamber and the CO2 or Nd:YAG or pulsed laser outside the build chamber.
Buller further discloses that the sintering/melting laser can be used by targeting the intended material from outside the build area using an optical system containing a lens and laser beam guide for focusing/moving the beam through an optical window [Fig 1; 0308], meeting the claimed limitation of a position fixed laser scan head for targeting the build part through an opening in the build chamber.
Jaster does not expressly disclose including an ultrasonic receptor.
Buller teaches a three-dimensional printing apparatus in which the material can be deposited via filament/extrusion deposition [0153, 0155]. Buller discloses that the printed material (that can include metal or ceramic) can be transformed via melting or sintering [0009, 0152]. Additionally, Buller discloses that a control system is provided which can contain a variety of sensors inside the build chamber for monitoring the process and providing feedback and feedforward information [0309]. Buller discloses the sensor(s) “may comprise light sensor, image 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, metrology sensor, sonic sensor (e.g., ultrasonic sensor), or proximity sensor.” [0310]. The ultrasonic sensor meeting the claimed limitation of an ultrasonic receptor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the apparatus of Jaster and included an ultrasonic sensor in the chamber, as disclosed by Buller. Jaster and Buller are directed to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing with sintering/melting, including the deposition of extrudate/filament. Moreover, Jaster acknowledges that tools can be provided to monitor, capture, or record the process and then provide the information/data to the control system [0097]. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the teachings of Buller/include the ultrasonic senor because a person possessing ordinary skill in the art would reasonably understand that providing processing conditions data to the control system would improve the process via feedback monitoring and capturing real-time information for the control system to make adjustments. This is further suggested by Jaster which acknowledges that various process conditions can be recorded and fed to the control system for improved real time process control [0096].
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jaster (US2022/0227052), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Shuck (US2021/0146602) and HoloOR (“Laser Beam Shaping application spotlight – Laser Shock Peening Process”, 2020, NPL).
Regarding claim 5, Jaster teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Jaster does not expressly teach the system comprises a pulsed laser or a solid transparent confinement overlay.
Shuck teaches producing components by fused filament fabrication [Title] which includes debinding and sintering [Abstract]. Shuck further discloses that the component can be subjected to laser shock peening [0038]. As discussed by HoloOR, laser shock peening is surface engineering process to improve the properties of material by improving resistance to fatigue and stress corrosion cracking, strengthening thin sections, and hardening of the surface [page 1]. Furthermore, HoloOR states that the industrial applications include many industries [page 2]. As shown in the diagram, laser shock peening involves the application of a high energy short pulsed laser beam with a transparent overlay to capture plasma.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have included a pulsed laser/overlay with the system of Jaster in order to conduct laser shock peening as disclosed by Shuck and HoloOR. Shuck is directed to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing by filament deposition followed by debinding and sintering. As such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings to the system of Jaster. Moreover, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to apply the process because of the benefits disclosed by HoloOR such as improving resistance to fatigue and stress corrosion cracking, strengthening thin sections, and hardening of the surface.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2019/0329322 – Additive system for extruding material, control system, and laser(s) for debinding and sintering. Disclosure of camera for monitoring and adjusting process by feeding data to control unit
US2018/0154438 – Producing a composed by filament deposition and a debinding head that can be a laser. Disclosure of various sensor and control units for real time adjustment of process
WO2023049337 – multi-material additive manufacturing with lasers and camera
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights