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 powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system” and “A build head for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, classified in B29C64/209.
III. Claims 11-19, 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 apparatuses 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 apparatuses 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 or by hand such as a rotary platform PBF apparatus where the build head travels radially back and forth over the annular powder bed while the rotating platform is held stationary.
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 1-10. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 11-19 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 Objections
Claims 1 & 5 are objected to because of the following informalities: typographical errors.
In line 6 of claims 1 and 5, the phrase “power packing” should be “powder packing”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 & 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Tucker (US20190344346A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. 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; and a recoater configured to provide a uniform density of power packing of the build powder in the build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation, wherein the recoater comprises at least one segment positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Tucker teaches a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system (Figs. 1 & 2), comprising: a powder delivery mechanism (Fig. 2, item 116) 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 continuous operation [0036]; and a recoating assembly (Fig. 2, item 80) configured to provide a uniform density of power packing of the build powder in the build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0037], wherein a curved recoater blade (Fig. 2, item 82) comprises at least one segment positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate [0037].
4. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the recoater includes a sharp edge and/or a radiused edge in contact with the build powder bed.
With respect to claim 4, Tucker teaches the recoater includes a sharp edge (Fig. 3, See bottom edge of recoater blade item 82) in contact with the build powder bed [0038].
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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US20190344346A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
3. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the recoater has a chevron shape and comprises two segments that are each positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate.
With respect to claim 3, Tucker teaches the recoater blade (Fig. 2, item 82) comprises two end segments that are each positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate [0032].
Tucker teaches a curved blade design that is understood to match a chevron shape with the exception of a noticeable angle change at the leading point of the blade. It is understood by the Examiner that the curved blade of Tucker effectively teaches a chevron shape but with a rounded point and would prima facie obviously function exactly as a chevron-shaped blade. For example, if a nearly undetectable 178° angle were made in the leading edge of the curved recoater blade of Tucker, the blade would be considered to have a chevron shape, and predictably there would be no added advantage or change in function in its operation.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tucker (US20190344346A1), in view of Corsmeier (US20180345369A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
2. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the annular build plate further comprises: an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall, wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall extend vertically from a junction with the annular build plate to define the build area and inner radius wall and the outer radius wall each include a plurality of apertures that are configured to collect excess build powder and direct the excess build powder through the inner radius wall and outer radius wall to an excess build powder reservoir; wherein the recoater is further configured to direct the excess build powder through the inner radius wall and outer radius wall to the excess build powder reservoir.
With respect to claim 2, Tucker teaches the annular build plate further comprises: containment walls comprising an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall (Fig. 4, item 162; [0048]), wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall extend vertically from a junction with the annular build plate to define the build area. Tucker teaches configurations exist wherein the recoater can direct the excess build powder through the inner radius wall and outer radius wall to distribute the powder particles past a boundary of the working surface.
Tucker is silent on an excess build powder reservoir, and teaches any powder past the containment walls would be lost and would increase manufacturing costs [0019].
However, the prior art of Corsmeier teaches the inner (Fig. 2A, items 224) and outer (Fig. 2A, items 222) build walls include a plurality of apertures (Fig. 2A, top of items 226) that are configured to collect spillover and place excess build powder (Fig. 2A, items 230) in receptacles [0035].
Corsmeier teaches the inner receptacle and outer excess powder receptacles each having a continuous annular aperture, not each having a plurality of apertures. However, there is not considered to be any added patentable improvement or significance to a plurality of apertures compared to a continuous, uninterrupted aperture. For example, if two small strips could be added across one of the continuous apertures to change it to a two-aperture receptacle and there would be no anticipated benefit to the modification.
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 plurality of apertures to collect powder from over the inner and outer build walls to collect excess powder in reservoirs, taught by Corsmeier, to improve the similar PBF AM system of Tucker in the same way. Corsmeier teaches this modification would prevent the waste of overflowed powder.
Claims 5-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), in view of Tucker (US20190344346A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
5. 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 a uniform density of power packing of the build powder in the build powder bed while the annular build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation, wherein the recoater comprises at least one segment positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate; 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 5, the prior art of Corsmeier teaches a build head (Fig. 2A, item 208) for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system [0035], comprising 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 a uniform density of power packing 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], wherein the recoater comprises at least one segment positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate; 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 the build unit operating as relative rotation between the build head and built plate created by a moving build plate and a stationary build head.
Corsmeier is silent on the recoater comprising at least one segment positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate. Corsmeier does not provide details for the recoater blade design.
However, the prior art of Tucker teaches a PBF AM system wherein relative rotation is created by a rotating circular build plate and a stationary overhead build unit [0018]. Tucker teaches the rotating build plate system operates continuously while the stationary powder distribution device, recoater, and irradiation device are configured to operate continuously.
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 system configuration of a rotating build plate and stationary build unit, taught by Tucker, 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.
Tucker teaches a PBF AM system recoater comprises each end segment is positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate. Tucker teaches “the curved recoater blade 82 facilitates substantially even distribution of the powder particles 52 to mitigate disruptions in the build layer 54”.
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 curved recoater blade comprising end segments positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate, taught by Tucker, in place of the undetailed recoater taught by Corsmeier, to predictably result in a known recoater design for the PBF AM apparatus. This modified recoater shape in the system of Corsmeier, in view of Tucker, would similarly facilitate substantially even distribution of the powder particles 52 to mitigate disruptions in the build layer 54”.
6. The build head for PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 5, wherein the annular build plate further comprises: an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall, wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall extend vertically from a junction with the annular build plate to define the build area and inner radius wall and the outer radius wall each include a plurality of apertures that are configured to collect excess build powder and direct the excess build powder through the inner radius wall and outer radius wall to an excess build powder reservoir; wherein the recoater is further configured to direct the excess build powder through the inner radius wall and outer radius wall to the excess build powder reservoir.
With respect to claim 6, Corsmeier teaches the annular build plate further comprises: an annular build plate including an inner radius wall (Fig. 2A, item 224) and an outer radius wall (Fig. 2A, item 222).
Corsmeier teaches the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall extend vertically from a junction with the annular build plate to define the build area (See Fig. 2A). For the modified system of Corsmeier, in view of Tucker, it would be prima facie obvious to maintain this configuration to define the build area.
Corsmeier teaches the inner (Fig. 2A, items 224) and outer (Fig. 2A, items 222) build walls include a plurality of apertures (Fig. 2A, top of items 226) that are configured to collect spillover and place excess build powder (Fig. 2A, items 230) in receptacles [0035].
As set forth in the rejection of claim 5, Tucker teaches the curved recoater design is configured to direct the excess build powder through the inner radius wall and outer radius wall, and in combination with Corsmeier would direct overflow powder to the excess build powder reservoir.
Corsmeier teaches the inner (Fig. 2A, items 224) and outer (Fig. 2A, items 222) build walls include a plurality of apertures (Fig. 2A, top of items 226) that are configured to collect spillover and place excess build powder (Fig. 2A, items 230) in receptacles [0035].
Corsmeier teaches the inner receptacle and outer excess powder receptacles each having a continuous annular aperture, not each having a plurality of apertures. However, there is not considered to be any added patentable improvement or significance to a plurality of apertures compared to a continuous, uninterrupted aperture. For example, if two small strips could be added across one of the continuous apertures to change it to a two-aperture receptacle and there would be no anticipated benefit to the modification.
7. The build head for PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 5, wherein the recoater has a chevron shape and comprises two segments that are each positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate.
With respect to claim 7, Tucker teaches the recoater blade (Fig. 2, item 82) comprises two end segments that are each positioned at an acute angle relative to an axis perpendicular to a direction of rotation of the annular build plate [0032].
Tucker teaches a curved blade design that is understood to match a chevron shape with the exception of a noticeable angle change at the leading point of the blade. It is understood by the Examiner that the curved blade of Tucker effectively teaches a chevron shape but with a rounded point and would prima facie obviously function exactly as a chevron-shaped blade. For example, if a nearly undetectable 178° angle were made in the leading edge of the curved recoater blade of Tucker, the blade would be considered to have a chevron shape, and predictably there would be no added advantage or change in function in its operation.
8. The build head for PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 5, wherein the recoater includes a sharp edge and/or a radiused edge in contact with the build powder bed.
With respect to claim 8, Tucker teaches the recoater includes a sharp edge (Fig. 3, See bottom edge of recoater blade item 82) in contact with the build powder bed [0038].
Claims 9 & 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), in view of Tucker (US20190344346A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 5, and further in view of Phillips (WO2021003256A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
9. The build head for PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 5, 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, wherein each of the plurality of individual energy sources is a laser or an electron beam source.
With respect to claim 9, Corsmeier teaches the optical array comprises a plurality of individual energy sources, which can be laser beam or electron beam-type [0017, 0036], 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].
10. The build head for PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 5, further comprising: a build powder preheater configured to preheat build powder after distribution by the recoater and before formation of the melt pool; and a gas manifold configured to direct a flow of inert gas across the optical array when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; 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 “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].
Corsmeier teaches the build head is configured to translate along a z-axis with respect to the build plate (Fig. 4A; [0050]).
The modification of Tucker which provides rotation by the build plate with a stationary build head still supports this claim element, as Tucker teaches the recoater element can optionally be configured to slide in the z-direction [0044]. This would prima facie obviously also apply for the integrated build head of Corsmeier that is used for the modified system of Corsmeier, in view of Tucker.
Corsmeier, in view of Tucker, 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 view of Tucker, in the same way. Phillips teaches an advantage of preheating the powder is to inhibit smoking of the powder particles during irradiation melting.
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