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 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.
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 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, 2-10, and 12-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0129012 A1 (hereinafter Ishida), in view of US 2018/0154439 A1 (hereinafter Mark), and US 2017/0297108 A1 (hereinafter Gibson).
Specifically, regarding Claims 1, 4-5, 9-10, 13-14, and 18, Ishida teaches a method and device for 3D printing comprising:
setting, by a device, a first tool head 5 and extruding, by the device, at least one layer L of melted filament from the first tool head relative to at least one of a print bed 13 and a layer D to deposit material (see Figure 1 and [0076]);
controlling, by the device, at least one optical heating head to generate a laser light beam to heat deposited material, wherein the optical heating head is controlled to heat deposited material to debind the deposited material and wherein the optical heating head is controlled to sinter debinded material by adjusting the power of the laser (per [0126]-[0127]);
However, Ishida is silent with respect to controlling, by the device, emission of an inert gas over the heated aera in association with heating of deposited material to prevent metal powder particles from at least one of reacting and oxidizing in air in a printing chamber.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Mark teaches in [0167] controlling a printing chamber to be full of inert gas is a known sintering technique, and therefore it would have been obvious to use Mark’s known sintering technique in Ishida, since such a combination would be a simple substitution of one known atmosphere for another to yield the predictable result of sintering, and further resulting in preventing metal powder particles from at least one of reacting and oxidizing in air in a printing chamber.
However, the previous combination is silent on monitoring, by the device, heating of the deposited material using camera image data and the laser light beam, wherein control of the optical heating head includes using the camera image data to adjust focus and power of the laser light beam.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Gibson teaches in [0106]-[0110] that during monitoring of 3D printing, laser heating (per [0215]) of deposited material is monitored by camera image data that also inspects for defects, and the camera image data is used adjust parameters of the additive manufacturing system such as temperature of the build material to achieve a more uniform degree of thermal debind throughout a fabricated object.
Therefore, given that Ishida already teaches adjusting the focus (i.e. the component of the filament, literally on which component is being focused) and power of the laser light beam depending on what its intended result is, it would have been obvious to incorporate camera imaging with defect and temperature monitoring per Gibson in the previous combination and adjust those identified focus and power parameters using the camera data to achieve a more uniform degree of thermal debind throughout a fabricated object.
Regarding Claims 3 and 12, Ishida teaches in [0069] that the steps, including debinding, repeat on a layer-by-layer basis such that debinding includes control of the laser light beam to heat each layer of depsosited material before depositing an additional layer.
Regarding Claims 6 and 15, Ishida teaches in [0136]-[0139] redirecting air in the printing chamber via suction to remove fumes when optically heating deposited filament.
Regarding Claims 7 and 16, the previous combination remains as applied above, and Mark teaches in [0264] that milling each deposited layer before a subsequent layer is applied is a known 3D printing technique.
Regarding Claims 8 and 17, Ishida teaches in [0102]-[0104] using two different tool heads 5A and 5B in a way that can be reasonably interpreted to control a tool head change (i.e. changing the output tool head from one to another) from the first tool head to the second tool head change to print different materials to form at least a portion of an integrated part as claimed.
Regarding Claims 19-20, the previous combination teaches the method as applied above including milling after ever layer, but is silent on using a third and fourth tool head as claimed. However, as the previous combination has already established the utility of a second tool head, adding third and fourth tool heads and their deposition would be prima facie obvious as a duplication of parts to add further materials to a structure, since duplication of parts has been held to be within ordinary skill.
Claims 2 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishida, Mark, and and Gibson as applied to Claims 1 and 10 above, and further in view of US 11,498,124 B1 (hereinafter Sander)
Regarding Claims 2 and 11, the previous combination teaches the method and device as applied above, but is silent on using all three of laser light beam focus, size, and speed of movement to control the process.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Sanders teaches in Column 9 Lines 5-40 that all three laser aspects are known to be used in laser control, and therefore it would have been obvious to use these three parameters to in the previous combination’s control to control the lasers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights