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 1-7, drawn to “A powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, classified in B22F12/37.
II. Claims 8-17, drawn to “A method of making an annular part with a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, classified in B22F10/85.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Groups I and II are related as apparatus and a process for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process 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 process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus such as one with a build plate configured to translate up and down and rotate with a gear system instead of a piston.
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 “A powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, claims 1-7. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 8-17 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).
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), in view of Goodwin (US20200346407A1) and Yang (US20220099602A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: an annular build plate including an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall, wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall define a build area on the annular build plate between the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall; a build piston configured to rotate around a drive shaft in a continuous circular motion and to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate, wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston; a build powder delivery mechanism configured to deliver build powder to the build area to form a build powder bed 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 when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; 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 when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; and an integrated X-ray CT system positioned operationally downstream from the optical array, wherein the integrated X-ray CT system is configured to inspect a part formed on the build plate when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Corsmeier teaches a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system (Fig. 2A), comprising: an annular build plate including an inner radius wall (Fig. 2A, item 224) and an outer radius wall (Fig. 2A, item 222), wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall define a build area on the annular build plate between the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall [0035]; a build powder delivery mechanism (Fig. 2B, item 214) configured to deliver build powder (Fig. 2B, item 230) to the build area to form a build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0038]; a recoater (Fig. 2B, item 216) configured to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0035]; an optical array (Fig. 2B, item 212 – the rectangle above the beam with angle θ, see Fig 2A, item 212) 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 when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0043].
Corsmeier teaches relative rotation between the build head (Fig. 2A, item 208) and built plate (Fig. 2A, item 202), as the build head above the annular build plate will rotate (Fig. 2A, item 236) around the plate central axis to layerwise build an annular product [0035-0036].
Corsmeier is silent on relative rotation between the build head and built plate created by a moving build plate and a stationary build head, wherein a build piston is configured to rotate around a drive shaft in a continuous circular motion and to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate, wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston.
However, the prior art of Goodwin teaches relative rotation between a rotating circular build plate and a stationary overhead build unit. Goodwin teaches a build piston (Fig. 1A, item 26B) is configured to rotate around a drive shaft (Fig. 1A, item 28B) in a continuous circular motion, wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston [0057]. Goodwin teaches the build piston is configured to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate, by teaching “the powder bed 426 or the top assembly is continuously moved along the Z axis while printing to maintain a substantially constant height [0058-0059, 0132]”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the build piston with rotating build plate, taught by Goodwin, in place of the rotating means for the build unit taught by Corsmeier, to predictably result in matching function while providing relative rotation between the build unit and the build plate by a different moving section of the apparatus. This modification could be selected as desired or based on the available equipment for building the PBF AM apparatus.
Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin, is silent on an integrated X-ray CT system positioned operationally downstream from the optical array, wherein the integrated X-ray CT system is configured to inspect a part formed on the build plate when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation. Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin, is silent on any type of inspection method.
However, in the same field of art, the prior art of Yang teaches inspecting, with an integrated X-ray CT system, the consolidated part in situ as it forms [0028, Claim 1]. Yang teaches the CT with X-ray process provides a means to test quality during the part manufacture to detect a defect during production, store imaging data, and generating a warning [Claim 1]. The CT and X-ray test process is non-contact and non-destructive [0034].
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 CT using X-ray device within the AM apparatus for in-situ inspection of an AM product during the build, taught by Yang, to improve the powder bed AM apparatus taught by Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin, in the same way. This improved AM process for Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin and Yang, would provide a means to test quality during the part manufacture to detect a defect during production and generating a warning.
2. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the integrated X-ray CT system comprises an X-ray scan head and an X-ray detector is configured to inspect a part formed on the build plate when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 2, Yang teaches the integrated X-ray CT system comprises an X-ray scan head (Fig. 1, item 4 – which can comprise an X-ray cone beam CT system with X-ray generator, and a translational and rotational motion control system [Claim 2]) and a flexible X-ray detector (Fig. 1, item 6) configured to inspect a part formed on the build plate when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0028, claim 1].
3. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the X-ray scan head is positioned on an outer diameter of the annular build plate and the X-ray detector is positioned on an inner diameter of the annular build plate such that a linear path between the X-ray scan head and the X-ray detector intersects the part.
With respect to claim 3, Yang teaches the X-ray scan head is positioned along the same height to the part on the build plate and the X-ray detector is positioned on the opposite side of the build plate such that a linear path between the X-ray scan head the X-ray detector intersects the part (See Fig. 1).
Yang teaches the scan head and the detector each are capable of translational and/or rotational motion by a control system [Claim 2].
Yang is silent on configuration of the scan head and the detector for an annular part, such as for the modified process of Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin and Yang.
However, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to try positioning the X-ray/CT scan head on an outer diameter of the annular build plate with the X-ray detector positioned on an inner diameter of the annular build plate (or vice versa, if preferred) such that a linear path between the X-ray scan head the X-ray detector intersects only one section of the annular part.
This configuration would avoid scanning two of the part sections on opposite ends of the part simultaneously if the scan head and the detector were configured on opposite outer ends of the annular part.
4. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 3, wherein the X-ray scan head is configured to direct X-ray energy through the part to the X-ray detector and the X-ray detector is configured to receive X-ray energy as it exits the part to form an image of part that can be examined for defects in the part when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 4, Yang teaches directing, by the X-ray scan head, X-ray energy through the part to the X-ray detector; receiving, by the X-ray detector, X-ray energy as it exits the part; forming, by the X-ray detector, an image of part; and examining the part for defects [Claim 2].
5. The PBF additive manufacturing system 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 5, as set forth in the rejection of claim 1, Corsmeier teaches an optical array comprising a plurality of individual energy sources.
Corsmeier is silent on how the plurality of individual energy sources are distributed over the build area of the build plate, or whether they result in overlapping irradiated sections of the build area.
However, Goodwin teaches a plurality of individual energy sources (Fig. 4, items 422C) distributed radially over the build area of the build plate such that the individual energy sources irradiate overlapping portions (Fig. 4, items 422D) of the build area [0120].
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 distributing the plurality of individual energy sources in the optical array radially to allow for overlapping irradiation sections, taught by Goodwin, to improve the modified apparatus of Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin and Yang by detailing the distribution of the energy sources. This modification would ensure coverage of the entire radius of the powder bed [0120].
6. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 5, wherein the plurality of individual energy sources comprises a plurality of lasers.
With respect to claim 6, Corsmeier teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources can be a laser [0017, 0036].
7. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 5, wherein the plurality of individual energy sources comprises a plurality of electron beam sources.
With respect to claim 7, Corsmeier teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources can be an electron beam source [0017, 0036].
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