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 .
Status of the Application
2. Claim 1-12 have been examined in this application. Claim 13-18 have been restricted and withdrawn from further consideration. This communication is the first action on the merits.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 7/8/24 are acceptable for examination proceedings.
Election/Restrictions
During a telephone conversation between Patent examiner Mary J Omari with attorney George J Romanik (Reg.# 34711) on 10/3/2025 a provisional election was made with traverse to prosecute the invention of case# 18765996, claim 1-12. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claim 13-18 have withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
4. 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.
5. Claims 1, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a) (1) as being anticipated by Balanica (Pub: 2019/0091770).
6. Regarding claim 1, Balanica discloses:
A method of making a replacement part, comprising: obtaining a physical example of a target part; imaging the physical example of the target part to produce a three-dimensional (3D) image of the target part (e.g., The 3D-printer may be controlled by a controller 20. The controller 20 may be a separate part as shown in FIG. 1, or the controller 20 may be employed in the 3D-printer or in the apparatus 10 for configuring the 3D-printing device 1 which will be described below. For example, the controller 20 may be applied as a processor which may receive construction data of a part to be printed. Based on the received construction data, for example 3D data, the controller 20 may generate signals for driving the respective components of the 3D-printer 30.) (Para. [0034]);
comparing the 3D image of the target part to parts in a product lifecycle management (PLM) database to identify a reference part to use as a basis for making a replacement part for the target part, wherein the PLM database includes a digital model for a baseline additive manufacturing (AM) technique for making the reference part (e.g., The database 11 may store any kind of information related with previously printed parts. For this purpose, the database 11 may be any kind of appropriate data management system for collecting and storing data related with previously printed parts. For example, database 11 may be a database of a product lifetime management (PLM) system. Especially, the data of the previously printed parts may be stored in a PLM system such as Siemens Teamcenter) (Para. [0038]);
comparing the reference part to the target part to identify missing features,
extraneous features or a combination of missing features and extraneous features on the reference part (e.g., For example, configuration data of a desired new part may be provided by data analyzer 12. The data analyzer 12 receives the data of the part to be manufactured. This data of the part to be manufactured may comprise, e.g. construction data of the part. Especially, the construction data may comprise the CAD data of the product which shall be printed. Based on the received data of the part to be printed, data analyzer 12 compares the features of the received data with features of previously printed parts which are stored in database 11. For example, data analyzer 12 may compare the outer shape of the part to be printed with the outer shape of previously printed parts stored in database 11. However, the process of comparing the parts is not limited to comparing the outer surface. Moreover, a part may be separated into a number of elements, and for each of these elements it may separately searched in database 11 to identify corresponding previously printed parts. For example, if a part to be printed has a part having a rounding with a particular diameter, it may be searched in database 11 for corresponding previously printed parts having similar properties. Accordingly, edges, corners or any kind of functional elements of the part to be printed may be identified and it may be searched for corresponding features of previously printed parts) (Para. [0044]);
determining a replacement part manufacturing method for modifying the reference part to provide the missing features, to remove extraneous features or a combination of missing features and extraneous features, to make a replacement part for the target part (e.g., Furthermore, it may be possible to analyze the additional information stored in association with the previously printed parts in database 11. For example, it may be possible to evaluate the results of the previously printed parts by analyzing the additional information stored in association with the previously printed parts in database 11. Especially, if same or similar parts are stored in database 11, wherein different setup parameters are applied, the respective results of the printing process may be analyzed in order to determine an optimal setup. Especially, the optimal setup may be different depending on a desired purpose of the part to be printed. For example, a first setup may result to a part having a very high strength but wherein other parameters may be less good, e.g. the maximum lifetime of the part is limited. According to another setup, the lifetime of a part may be optimized, but some other parameters may be limited, e.g. a higher tolerance. Accordingly, depending on a desired purpose of a part, it may be possible to identify an optimum setup by analyzing the additional information stored in association with the previously printed parts in database 11. For this purpose, a desired purpose of a part may be provided to a data analyzer 12 in association with the construction data. In this case, the data analyzer 12 may automatically identify an optimum setup parameter by taking into consideration all available information. Furthermore, it may be also possible that data analyzer 12 forms an analysis of the desired new part which shall be printed based on the information stored in database 11, and the data analyzer 12 may provide a plurality of suggestions of setup parameters. In this case, data analyzer 12 may also identify the additional information stored in association with the previously printed parts in database 11 and provide this additional information together with the suggestion for the setup parameters. In this case, a user may refer to the suggested setup parameters and the corresponding additional information and select the appropriate setup parameter accordingly. Furthermore, the user may also perform any modifications in the suggested setup parameters before applying the setup parameters to the 3D-printer 1.) (Para. [0046]);
making the replacement part for the target part using the replacement part manufacturing method (e.g., After the appropriate setup parameters for printing the desired new product have been determined, the respective setup parameter may be applied by configurator 13 in order to perform the printing process. For this purpose, the determined setup parameters may be provided to a controller 20 and controller 20 may perform the three-dimensional printing based on the provided setup parameters and the construction data of the desired new part. In this way, the process for setting-up the 3D-printing device 1 can be accelerated. Since the automatically determined parameters taking into account the result of previously printing processes, the knowledge of the previous printing processes can be used in order to identify an optimized setup of the 3D-printing device 1. Hence, the result of the printing process can be optimized and thus, the number of test prints for achieving an optimized result can be minimized. Thus, the costs and the time for obtaining a 3D-printing part having a desired quality can be significantly reduced) (Para. [0047]).
7. Regarding claim 5, Balanica discloses:
The method of claim 1, wherein the replacement part manufacturing method includes at least one AM step (e.g., FIG. 1 shows a block diagram of an embodiment of a 3D-printing device 1. The 3D-printing device may comprise a 3D-printer 30. For example, the 3D-printer 30 may be a laser powdered bed fusion (LPS) printer which enables manufacturing of metal parts by laser-wise selective melting of metal powder. However, it is understood that any other technique for three-dimensional printing may be also applied. Especially, the 3D-printer 30 may be a printer applying selective laser sintering, electron beam melting, electron beam additive manufacturing, fused filament fabrication, fused deposition modeling, stereo lithography, multi jet modeling or film transfer imaging. Furthermore, any other appropriate technique for performing a three-dimensional printing may be possible, too) (Para. [0033], Fig. 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. 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.
9. Claim 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balanica in view of Lilley (Pub: 2023/0401686).
10. Regarding claim 2, Balanica teaches the method of claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein the target part is an aerospace part.
Lilley teaches wherein the target part is an aerospace part (e.g., Referring to the drawings, wherein like reference numbers refer to like features throughout the several views, FIG. 1 schematically depicts an exemplary additive manufacturing (AM) process 10 and a computer system 50. The computer system 50 is configured as set forth herein to execute an instruction set embodying a method 100, an example of which is shown in FIG. 2 and described in detail below. Execution of the method 100 allows the computer system 50 to evaluate progressive damage in a metal test component 12, e.g., a three-dimensional (3D)-printed part or a wrought metal part such as an aircraft or spacecraft component (“aerospace component”), a medical component, or another industry-specific component constructed of metal, and to quantify the same as a set of test results 101. While aluminum and titanium are two exemplary metals within the scope of the aforementioned aerospace and medical industries, other metals or metal alloys may be used in alternative embodiments, such as martensitic or austenitic stainless steel. Thus, the metal test component may be constructed of aluminum, stainless steel, or titanium in a non-limiting implementation of the present teachings.) (Para. [0024]).
Because Lilley is also directed to 3D-printing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Balanica and Lilley before him/her, to modify the teachings of Balanica to include the teaching of Lilley in order to manufacture a three-dimensional part or a wrought metal part such as an aircraft or spacecraft component (“aerospace component”) (Para. [0024]).
11. Regarding claim 3, the combination of Balanica and Lilley teaches the method of claim 2, wherein Lilley further teaches the aerospace part comprises an aluminum alloy, a titanium alloy, a superalloy material, or a specialty steel (e.g., a three-dimensional (3D)-printed part or a wrought metal part such as an aircraft or spacecraft component (“aerospace component”), a medical component, or another industry-specific component constructed of metal, and to quantify the same as a set of test results 101. While aluminum and titanium are two exemplary metals within the scope of the aforementioned aerospace and medical industries, other metals or metal alloys may be used in alternative embodiments, such as martensitic or austenitic stainless steel. Thus, the metal test component may be constructed of aluminum, stainless steel, or titanium in a non-limiting implementation of the present teachings.) (Para. [0024]).
12. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balanica in view of DiCintio (Pub: 2025/0216077).
13. Regarding claim 4, Balanica teaches the method of claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein the aerospace part is a gas turbine engine part.
DiCintio teaches wherein the aerospace part is a gas turbine engine part (e.g., Another aspect of the disclosure includes a component for replacing a first non-additively manufactured (non-AM) part of a combustor body for a gas turbine (GT) system) (Para. [0020]).
Because DiCintio is also directed to additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Balanica and DiCintia before him/her, to modify the teachings of Balanica to include the teaching of DiCintio in order to generate replacement AM part (Para. [0076]).
14. Claim 6, 7, and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balanica in view of Snyder (Pub: 2016/0082664).
15. Regarding claim 6, Balanica teaches the method of claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein the replacement part manufacturing method includes making the reference part using a first AM technique and depositing on the reference part a missing feature using a second AM technique.
Snyder teaches wherein the replacement part manufacturing method includes making the reference part using a first AM technique and depositing on the reference part a missing feature using a second AM technique (e.g., The device 100 may have the ability to support additive and subtractive processes as well as post processing methods such as coating, annealing, etc. With respect to subtractive processes, as a non-limiting example, if an object is damaged, and the desire is to repair the damaged object, the subtractive process may be used to remove a part or section of the damaged area. In another non-limiting example, the subtractive process may be used to remove a portion, segment or section of the damaged object to replace all of a section with the additive manufacturing process. Thus, if a damaged part is made of two different materials and the damage occurred only to one of the materials, the subtractive manufacturing process may be used to remove the material that is damaged. In another non-limiting example, the portion removed may be a logical part removed based on a configuration of the object so that structural strength of the additive replaced part is sufficiently supported) (Para. [0039]).
Because Snyder is also directed to additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Balanica and Snyder before him/her, to modify the teachings of Balanica to include the teaching of Snyder in order to seamless creating or duplication of objects with at least one of an additive manufacturing process and a subtractive manufacturing process (Para. [0076]).
16. Regarding claim 7, the combination of Balanica and Snyder teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Balanica further teaches the first AM technique is laser powder bed fusion (e.g., In a possible embodiment, the 3D-printing device may be a laser powder bed fusion in 3D-printing device) (Para. [0023]).
17. Regarding claim 10, Balanica teaches the method of claim 1 but does not specifically teach wherein the replacement part manufacturing method includes at least one subtractive manufacturing step.
Snyder teaches wherein the replacement part manufacturing method includes at least one subtractive manufacturing step (e.g., The device 100 may have the ability to support additive and subtractive processes as well as post processing methods such as coating, annealing, etc. With respect to subtractive processes, as a non-limiting example, if an object is damaged, and the desire is to repair the damaged object, the subtractive process may be used to remove a part or section of the damaged area. In another non-limiting example, the subtractive process may be used to remove a portion, segment or section of the damaged object to replace all of a section with the additive manufacturing process. Thus, if a damaged part is made of two different materials and the damage occurred only to one of the materials, the subtractive manufacturing process may be used to remove the material that is damaged. In another non-limiting example, the portion removed may be a logical part removed based on a configuration of the object so that structural strength of the additive replaced part is sufficiently supported) (Para. [0039]).
Because Snyder is also directed to additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Balanica and Snyder before him/her, to modify the teachings of Balanica to include the teaching of Snyder in order to seamless creating or duplication of objects with at least one of an additive manufacturing process and a subtractive manufacturing process (Para. [0076]).
18. Regarding claim 11, the combination of Balanica and Snyder teaches the method of claim 10 wherein Snyder further teaches the at least one subtractive manufacturing step is machining and/or cutting (e.g., The subtractive process may include, but is not limited to, computer numerical control CNC milling and turning, drilling, etc. More specifically, the subtractive process may be any process that may be used to remove a part or section of an object. This may be accomplished with a tool that makes contact with the object or even a tool that applies energy (such as, but not limited to, a laser) or another substance ((such as, but not limited to, a gas and/or a liquid (a solvent, etc.)) to the object.) (Para. [0041]).
19. Regarding claim 12, Balanica teaches the method of claim 1, but does not specifically teach wherein the replacement part manufacturing method includes at least one AM step and at least one subtractive manufacturing step.
Snyder teaches wherein the replacement part manufacturing method includes at least one AM step and at least one subtractive manufacturing step (e.g., The system comprises a manufacturing device to evaluate an object to determine whether to at least one of repair and replicate the object wherein to repair further comprises at least one of a subtractive process and an additive manufacturing process applied to the object and to replicate further comprises an additive manufacturing process applied to create a second object) (Para. [0005]).
Because Snyder is also directed to additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Balanica and Snyder before him/her, to modify the teachings of Balanica to include the teaching of Snyder in order to seamless creating or duplication of objects with at least one of an additive manufacturing process and a subtractive manufacturing process (Para. [0076]).
20. Claim 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Balanica in view of Snyder, and further in view of Byers (Pub: 2018/0329906).
21. Regarding claim 8, the combination of Balanica and Snyder teaches the method of claim 6 but does not specifically teach wherein the second AM technique is directed energy deposition.
Byers teaches wherein the second AM technique is directed energy deposition (e.g., The CAx system 10 may additionally provide for manufacturing processes 18 that may include manufacturing automation support. For example, additive manufacturing models may be derived, such as 3D printing models for material jetting, binder jetting, vat photopolymerization, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, directed energy deposition, material extrusion, and the like, to create the part or product) (Para. [0030]).
Because Byers is also directed to manufacturing process includes additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, having teachings of Balanica, Snyder and Byers before him/her, to modify the combined teachings of Balanica, and Snyders to include the teaching of Byers in order to create the part or product (Para. [0030]).
22. Regarding claim 9, the combination of Balanica and Snyder teaches the method of claim 6, wherein Balanica further teaches the first AM technique is laser powder bed fusion (e.g., In a possible embodiment, the 3D-printing device may be a laser powder bed fusion in 3D-printing device) (Para. [0023]) and Byers teaches the second AM technique is directed energy deposition (e.g., The CAx system 10 may additionally provide for manufacturing processes 18 that may include manufacturing automation support. For example, additive manufacturing models may be derived, such as 3D printing models for material jetting, binder jetting, vat photopolymerization, powder bed fusion, sheet lamination, directed energy deposition, material extrusion, and the like, to create the part or product) (Para. [0030]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL whose telephone number is (571)270-0698. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7:00 AM - 5:00 PM.
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, Kenneth M. Lo can be reached at (571)272-9774. 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.
/JIGNESHKUMAR C PATEL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2116
Prosecution Insights