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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-10, drawn to “A build head”, classified in B29C64/209.
II. Claims 11-20, drawn to “A method of operating a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, classified in B33Y10/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Groups I and II are related as apparatus and processes for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the processes as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice materially different processes such as creating a plurality of consolidated parts within the build area instead of a single consolidated part.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with George Romanik on 5/8/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Claims 1-10, drawn to “A build head”. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-10 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 5 of copending Application No. 18/758,524 in view of Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), Phillips (WO2021003256A1), and Pontiller-Schymura (US20190232564A1).
An obvious rationale for the combination of the prior art of Corsmeier exists to improve a PBF AM system, as Corsmeier teaches a build head for a PBF AM apparatus and details its components. Corsmeier teaches the build head comprises a powder delivery mechanism, a recoater, and an optical array over an annular build plate. Corsmeier also teaches the claim elements of an inert gas flow across the irradiation zones and that the build head translates in the z-direction as it rotates. Corsmeier teaches all elements of instant claims 1, 9 & 10.
For claims 2 & 6-8, a rationale for the combination of the prior art of Phillips exists, as Phillips teaches a preheater, and an irradiation device that can be a laser or electron beam type that provides overlapping irradiation zones. These teachings all provide improvement over the art of Corsmeier.
For claims 3-5, a rationale for the combination of the prior art of Pontiller-Schymura exists, as Pontiller-Schymura teaches an improvement to Corsmeier, in view of Phillips, by compensating for curves in the path of the radiation source array by adjusting the energy input for different sources in the array, delivering an even energy density across the irradiated powder in all areas of the powder bed. In the annular powder bed of Corsmeier, in view of Phillips, this improvement obviously results in producing a lower source power output for the inner part of the powder bed (shorter radius) because the source moves slower so the irradiation time is increased compared to the outer band of the powder bed.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
While claim 5 of Application No. 18/758,524 is not duplicate claim to instant claim 1, it comprises all elements of instant claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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)(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.
(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 & 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Corsmeier (US20180345369A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A build head for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: a powder delivery mechanism configured to deliver build powder to a build area of an annular build plate to form a build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; a recoater configured to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; and an optical array positioned over the build area on the build plate, wherein the optical array is configured to project energy onto the build powder bed to form a melt pool in the build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Corsmeier teaches a build head (Figs. 2B & 2C; item 208) for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: a powder delivery mechanism (Fig. 2B, item 214) configured to deliver build powder to a build area of an annular build plate to form a build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0040]; a recoater (Fig. 2B, item 216) configured to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0035, 0040]; and an irradiation beam directing mechanism, which can be an optical array (Fig. 2B, item 212 – the rectangle above the beam with angle θ, see Fig 2A, item 212; [0043]), positioned over the build area on the build plate [0040], wherein the optical array is configured to project energy onto the build powder bed to form a melt pool in the build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0038].
9. The build head of claim 1, further comprising: a gas manifold configured to direct a flow of inert gas across the optical array when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 9, Corsmeier teaches “a build unit having a laser beam irradiation mechanism may advantageously include a gas-flow mechanism with gas inlet(s) and outlet(s) providing a substantially laminar gas flow in a gas-flow zone to a build area on the powder bed [0048]”. Corsmeier teaches the gas atmosphere of the build chamber can be inert [0046].
10. The build head of claim 1, wherein the build head is configured to translate along a z-axis with respect to the build plate.
With respect to claim 10, Corsmeier teaches the build head is configured to translate along a z-axis with respect to the build plate, wherein an embodiment having a single build head will helically rise the vertical height of one layer for each full 360° rotation around the powder bed (Fig. 4A; [0050]).
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 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.
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 non-obviousness.
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.
Claims 2 & 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), in view of Phillips (WO2021003256A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
2. The build head of claim 1, wherein the optical array comprises a plurality of individual energy sources distributed radially over the build area of the build plate such that the individual energy sources irradiate overlapping portions of the build area.
With respect to claim 2, Corsmeier teaches the optical array comprises a plurality of individual energy sources distributed over the build area of the build plate such that the individual energy sources can irradiate overlapping portions of the build area [0043].
Corsmeier is silent on the plurality of individual energy sources being distributed radially over the build area of the build plate, as Corsmeier is silent on the configuration of the laser array.
However, the prior art of Phillips teaches a similar PBF additive manufacturing system wherein a build head assembly [0060, 0210] can rotate axially over a stationary powder build chamber [0196], wherein the build head can comprise a plurality of irradiation devices (Fig. 10, items 1022C) distributed radially over the build chamber and can irradiate overlapping portions (Fig. 10, items 1022D) of the build area [0181-0185].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known technique of aligning the array of irradiation devices radially over the build area, taught by Phillips, to improve the similar PBF additive manufacturing of Corsmeier in the same way, by providing a known configuration of radially-distributed irradiation devices with overlapping coverage areas which ensures every point in the build platform can be reached by the beams [0185].
6. The build head of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of individual energy sources is a laser.
With respect to claim 6, Corsmeier teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources is a laser [0017, 0036].
7. The build head of claim 2, wherein each of the plurality of individual energy sources is an electron beam source.
With respect to claim 7, Corsmeier teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources is an electron beam source [0017, 0036].
8. The build head of claim 1, further comprising: a build powder preheater configured to preheat build powder after distribution by the recoater and before formation of the melt pool.
With respect to claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Corsmeier teaches a build head for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: a powder delivery mechanism, a recoater, and an irradiation beam directing mechanism.
Corsmeier is silent on a build powder preheater configured to preheat build powder after distribution by the recoater and before formation of the melt pool.
However, the prior art of Phillips teaches a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system embodiment wherein an integrated and rotating build head assembly can comprise a powder depositor, an irradiation device, a preheat device (Fig. 1B, item 16), a cooler device, and a temperature measurement device [0071, 0210].
Phillips teaches “the preheat device preheats the powder particles 12 to inhibit smoking of the powder particles 12 when they are subsequently melted by the irradiation device 22 [0074]”. Phillips teaches ‘in one embodiment, the pre-heat device 16 extends along a pre-heat axis (direction) 16B and is arranged between the powder supply device 18 and the irradiation device 22 along the movement direction 26A [0072]”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known pre-heating device to preheat powder prior to irradiation melting, taught by Phillips, to improve the similar PBF system, taught by Corsmeier, in the same way. Phillips teaches an advantage of preheating the powder is to inhibit smoking of the powder particles during irradiation melting.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), in view of Phillips (WO2021003256A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2, and further in view of Pontiller-Schymura (US20190232564A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
3. The build head of claim 2, wherein a power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources is scaled such that the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources differs as a function of location within the optical array.
With respect to claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Corsmeier, in view of Phillips, teaches a PBF system wherein the optical array comprises a plurality of individual energy sources distributed radially over the build area of the build plate such that the individual energy sources irradiate overlapping portions of the build area.
Corsmeier, in view of Phillips, is silent on a power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources is scaled such that the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources differs as a function of location within the optical array.
Phillips teaches understanding of a similar concept that powder temperatures will vary based on the amount time the powder particles are subjected to the heating [0074], but is again silent on compensating for a difference in heating times at radial distances within the powder bed.
However, the prior art of Pontiller-Schymura teaches an irradiation array for a PDF additive manufacturing apparatus [0007], wherein the moving speed of the individual energy beams can be taken into calculation along a curved path [0012], wherein faster moving energy beams and slower moving energy beams can be compensated by adjusting the energy input accordingly [0032]. Pontiller-Schymura teaches this provides for curving compensation for the individual array sources, where the moving speed as well as the moving speed difference can be used to control the energies of the energy beams [0032].
Pontiller-Schymura teaches matching the energy inputs of the at least two energy beams emitted by the at least two irradiation elements. This allows for achieving a homogeneous energy input in the irradiated regions of the build plane [0020]. For example, the energy of the energy beam that is guided along the longer energy beam path (if differences in the path length of the at least two energy beam paths occur) has to be raised compared to the other energy beam that is guided along the shorter energy beam path or the energy of the energy beam guided along the shorter energy beam path is lowered, respectively [0020].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to apply the known technique, taught by Pontiller-Schymura, of scaling the energy of the individual irradiation sources of an array based on their travel path to provide the same energy to the surface on the powder bed from each source, to improve the PBF additive manufacturing apparatus of Corsmeier, in view of Phillips, by predictably resulting in adjusted power outputs for the irradiation sources of the array with increasing energy output as the radius length increases to provide the same energy distributed across the powder bed over time.
For the annular travel path for the modified apparatus of Corsmeier, in view of Phillips and Pontiller-Schymura, each irradiation source would have a constant radius distance from center, and their scaled energy outputs along the array would be higher to compensate for the increased radius distance and movement speed.
4. The build head of claim 3, wherein the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources is scaled to deliver constant energy density across a radius of the powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Pontiller-Schymura teaches the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources is scaled to deliver constant energy density across a radius of the powder bed [0020] while the annular build plate rotates when the modified PBF additive manufacturing system of Corsmeier, in view of Phillips and Pontiller-Schymura, is in operation.
5. The build head of claim 4, wherein the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources is lower for individual energy sources closer to an inner radius of the powder bed than for individual energy sources closer to an outer radius of the powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 4, Pontiller-Schymura teaches the power of each of the plurality of individual energy sources is lower for individual energy sources closer to an inner radius of the powder bed than for individual energy sources closer to an outer radius of the powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0020].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights