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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 08/07/2024 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-15 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9-10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the fluid". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
All claims dependent on the above rejected claims are rejected as well because they include all the limitations of the rejected claims.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claim(s) 1-4 and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houwink et al. (US2022/0168957 of record) hereinafter Houwink in view of Deal et al. (US2019/0210151) hereinafter Deal.
Regarding claim 1, Houwink teaches:
A method of manufacturing an article, the method comprising:
producing a first portion of the article ([0116]);
producing a second portion of the article ([0116]);
applying pressure to both the first portion and the second portion ([0106, 0149-0162]);
removing the pressure from both the first portion and the second portion ([0173]; removing pressure is implied as the consolidated pieces must be removed from the pressure vessel).
Houwink does not teach:
applying pressure to the first portion;
removing the pressure from the first portion;
after removing the pressure from the first portion, applying pressure to both the first portion and the second portion.
However, Houwink teaches that the first portion and second portions can be made by additive manufacturing ([0116]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding consolidation of articles, Deal teaches a method of additive manufacturing comprising applying and removing pressure from an additively manufactured article for the motivation of reducing the cost to additively manufacture components and improving the quality of the additively manufactured components by reducing the frequency and magnitude of interactions between spatter formed during the additive manufacturing process and the plurality of particles on the build platform ([0023, 0044, 0047]; removing the pressure is implied as the article is removed from the pressure chamber).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the production of the first portion as taught by Houwink with the pressurized consolidation as taught by Deal in order to reduce the cost to additively manufacture components and improve the quality of the additively manufactured components by reducing the frequency and magnitude of interactions between spatter formed during the additive manufacturing process and the plurality of particles on the build platform.
Regarding claim 2, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 1.
Houwink further teaches wherein producing the first portion of the article includes an additive manufacturing process ([0116]).
Regarding claim 3, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 2.
Houwink further teaches wherein producing the second portion of the article includes an additive manufacturing process ([0116]).
Regarding claim 4, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 1.
Houwink further teaches producing the second portion of the article includes performing the additive manufacturing process directly on the first portion ([0116]).
Regarding claim 13, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 1.
Houwink further teaches after removing the pressure from the first portion and applying pressure to both the first portion and the second portion, performing a surface treatment on a surface of the first portion ([0176]).
Regarding claim 14, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 13.
Houwink further teaches wherein the surface treatment includes one or more of: peening, texturing, finishing, and cleaning ([0176]).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houwink in view of Deal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bracha et al. (US2020/0070415) hereinafter Bracha.
Regarding claim 7, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 1.
Deal further teaches wherein applying pressure to the first portion includes submerging the first portion in a fluid ([0044])
Houwink in view of Deal does not teach the method further comprising: while applying pressure to the first portion, increasing temperature of the fluid to between about 150 degrees C and about 1000 degrees C; and preventing the temperature of the fluid from exceeding 1000 degrees C at any time before removing the pressure from the first portion.
However, Deal teaches that the fluid is argon ([0044]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Bracha teaches forming articles in a heated argon environment at a temperature that overlaps with the claimed range for the motivation of for the motivation of avoiding cracks or breakages due to thermal stresses on the printed part ([0006, 0017, 0032]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the producing of the first article as taught by Houwink in view of Deal with the heated argon environment as taught by Bracha in order to avoid cracks or breakages due to thermal stresses on the printed part.
Furthermore, since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the temperature as taught by Bracha that overlaps with the claimed range.
Regarding claim 8, Houwink in view of Deal and Bracha teaches the method according to claim 7.
Bracha further teaches increasing temperature of the fluid to between about to between about 400 degrees C and about 600 degrees C ([0017]; see art rejection of claim 7 above).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houwink in view of Deal as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Persaud et al. (US2016/0176078) hereinafter Persaud.
Regarding claim 9, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 1.
Houwink further teaches wherein applying pressure to both the first portion and the second portion includes submerging both the first portion and the second portion in a curable fluid ([0140]), the method further comprising: while applying pressure to both the first portion and the second portion, increasing temperature of the cured fluid to between about 150 degrees C and about 1000 degrees C (Fig 8; [0159]); and preventing the temperature of the cured fluid from exceeding 1000 degrees C at any time before removing the pressure from both the first portion and the second portion (Fig 8; [0142, 0159]).
Houwink in view of Deal does not teach increasing temperature of the fluid. However, Houwink teaches that the cured fluid applies pressure to the first and second portions ([0154]).
In the same field of endeavor regarding consolidation of articles, Persaud teaches consolidating an article using pressure and heat applied by a pressurizing gas ([0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have substituted the cured fluid as taught by Houwink in view of Deal with the pressurizing gas as taught by Persaud and the results would have been predictable since the prior art teaches using both the cured fluid and pressurizing gas for applying heat and pressure to consolidate and article.
Regarding claim 10, Houwink in view of Deal and Persaud teaches the method according to claim 9.
Houwink in view of Deal and Persaud does not explicitly recite increasing temperature of the fluid in which both the first portion and the second portion are submerged to between about 400 degrees C and about 600 degrees C.
However, Houwink teaches a range of values for the temperature that overlaps with the claimed range ([0159]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). See MPEP 2144.05.
Since overlapping ranges are evidence of prima facie obviousness, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have chosen the portion of the temperature as taught by Houwink that overlaps with the claimed range.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Houwink in view of Deal as applied to claim 14 above, and further in view of Kornilovich et al. (US2018/0264753 of record) hereinafter Kornilovich.
Regarding claim 15, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 14.
Houwink in view of Deal does not teach wherein the surface treatment is performed with a water jet.
However, Houwink teaches a surface treatment of cleaning ([0176]).
Houwink is silent as to the specific method of cleaning. Therefore one of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to look to other cleaning methods for cleaning an additively manufactured article.
In the same field of endeavor regarding additive manufacturing, Kornilovich teaches using water-jet cleaning to clean an additively manufactured article ([0081]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have tried the water-jet cleaning as taught by Kornilovich for the cleaning as taught by Houwink and Deal and there would have been a reasonable expectation of success since the prior art teaches methods of cleaning additively manufactured articles.
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 1-5 and 13-14 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 and 6 of U.S. Patent No. US12070881 in view of Houwink.
Claim 1 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink.
Claim 2 is made obvious over claims 2 and 6 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink.
Claim 3 is made obvious over claim 2 and 6 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink.
Claim 4 is made obvious over claim 2 and 6 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink.
Claim 5 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink.
Claim 13 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink.
Claim 14 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink.
Claims 7-8 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. US12070881 in view of Houwink and Bracha.
Claim 7 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink and Bracha.
Claim 8 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink and Bracha.
Claims 9-10 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. US12070881 in view of Houwink and Persaud.
Claim 9 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink and Persaud.
Claim 10 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink and Persaud.
Claims 15 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 2 of U.S. Patent No. US12070881 in view of Houwink and Kornilovich.
Claim 15 is made obvious over claim 2 of the ‘881 patent in view of Houwink and Kornilovich.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 11-12 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 1.
Houwink in view of Deal does not teach wherein applying pressure to the first portion includes applying pressure to the first portion greater than 30,000 psi.
However, claim 5 is subject to the double patenting rejection above and is therefore not allowed.
Regarding claim 6, Houwink in view of Deal does not teach the subject matter of claim 5 as discussed above. Houwink in view of Deal also does not teach wherein applying pressure to the first portion includes applying pressure to the first portion greater than 100,000 psi.
The remaining prior art of record fails to teach of suggest wherein applying pressure to the first portion includes applying pressure to the first portion greater than 100,000 psi in combination with the remaining claimed subject matter.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is indicated for allowable subject matter.
Regarding claim 11, Houwink in view of Deal teaches the method according to claim 1.
Houwink in view of Deal does not teach after applying pressure to the first portion and before removing the pressure from the first portion, oscillating the pressure applied to the first portion.
The remaining prior art of record fails to teach of suggest after applying pressure to the first portion and before removing the pressure from the first portion, oscillating the pressure applied to the first portion in combination with the remaining claimed subject matter.
Since the prior art of record fails to teach or suggest each and every limitation of the claim, the claim is indicated for allowable subject matter.
Clam 12 is indicated for allowable subject matter due to dependency on claim 11.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights