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/Restrictions
Claims 12-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/02/2026.
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 7, 10, and 11 are 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 7 recites the limitation “a magnet configured to…” in line 2. It is unclear whether the magnet recited in claim 7 is equivalent to or different from the magnet recited in claim 5, which claim 7 depends from. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the magnet of claim 7 to be equivalent to the magnet recited in claim 5. However, clarification and correction is required.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “an extrusion nozzle” in line 1. It is unclear whether the extrusion nozzle of claim 10 is equivalent to or different from the nozzle recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the extrusion nozzle of claim 10 and claim 11 to be equivalent to the nozzle recited in claim 1. However, clarification and correction is required.
Further, it is unclear whether the filament recited in claim 11 is equivalent to or different from the material recited in claim 1. For the purpose of examination, Examiner will interpret the filament of claim 11 to be equivalent to the material of claim 1. However, clarification and 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kovalchuck et al. (US20220001451).
Regarding claim 1, Kovalchuck teaches a system (functional assembly 1; Figure 3) comprising:
a particle source (gas-discharge electron beam gun 2; Figure 3) configured to generate a particle beam (electron beam 9a; Figure 3);
a beam extraction assembly (magnetic lens 13a, 13b; Figure 3), the beam extraction assembly configured to direct a terminal position of the particle beam ([0072]) on a material (melting zone 14; Figure 3) deposited by a nozzle ([0076] The energy of the concentrated electron beam 9a forms on the surface of the substrate 18 a melt pool 19. The feedstock material 16 in the form of a wire is fed into the melting zone where the specified melt pool 19 is formed); and
a control system for controlling a beam spot location of the particle beam (Claim 1: “a control system for controlling all equipment, mechanisms, subsystems and instruments included in said manufacturing system”; [0035], and [0051] an angle of inclination of the generating surface of this hollow cone can be adjusted by changing the current in the magnetic lens).
PNG
media_image1.png
342
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2 and claim 3, Kovalchuck teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the particle source further comprises a particle accelerator wherein the particle accelerator comprises an electron beam accelerator (gas-discharge electron beam gun 2 in Figure 3 and [0031] Accelerating voltage of gas-discharge electron beam gun can be regulated within the limits of 5-45 kV).
Regarding claim 4, Kovalchuck teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the particle beam comprises: an electron beam (gas-discharge electron beam gun 2 in Figure 3 and [0031] Accelerating voltage of gas-discharge electron beam gun can be regulated within the limits of 5-45 kV).
Regarding claim 10, Kovalchuck teaches the system of claim 1 wherein the nozzle comprises the nozzle associated with an additive manufacturing system ([0022]; see annotated Figure 3 in the rejection of claim 1 above).
Regarding claim 11, Kovalchuck teaches the system of claim 10, wherein the beam spot location of the particle beam is directed on a filament deposited by the nozzle ([0076]).
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.
The factual inquiries 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 nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalchuck et al. (US20220001451), and further in view of McGregor et al. (US20030116542).
Regarding claim 5, Kovalchuck teaches a system of claim 1. While Kovalchuck teaches wherein the beam extraction assembly comprises a magnetic lens is configured to direct the particle beam, and the electron beam forms a cone shape, Kovalchuck fails to teach the beam extraction assembly comprises a shield cone such that the magnet is configured to direct the particle beam in the shield cone.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to an additive manufacturing system, McGregor teaches a beam extraction assembly comprising a shield cone (protective cone 41; Figure 4) wherein the particle beam is directed in the shield cone ([0051] The spherical mirror reflects the hollow conical beam in the form of a convergent hollow cone 35 and focuses the energy in an annular pattern 36 on the substrate surface 37… Additionally the consolidation system features a gas purge system 40 to keep the mirrors clean and as the gas exists from the nozzle of the protective cone 41 provides a cover gas 42 over the melt pool that inhibits oxidation). The shield cone of McGregor keep the beam extraction assembly mirrors clean and provides a cover gas over the melt pool that inhibits oxidation.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the beam extraction assembly of Kovalchuck comprise a shield cone, as taught by McGregor, such that the magnetic lens of Kovalchuck is configured to direct the particle beam in the shield cone, for the benefit of keeping the beam extraction assembly mirrors clean and providing a cover gas over the melt pool that inhibits oxidation.
Regarding claim 6, Kovalchuck modified with McGregor teaches the system of claim 5. Further, Kovalchuk teaches wherein the shield cone further comprises:
an inner cone;
an outer cone; and
a cutaway in the shield cone configured to accept the nozzle (see annotated Figure 3 below).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the beam extraction assembly of Kovalchuck comprise a shield cone with an inner cone, outer cone, and cutaway to accept the nozzle, as taught by McGregor, for the benefit of keeping the beam extraction assembly mirrors clean and providing a cover gas over the melt pool that inhibits oxidation.
PNG
media_image2.png
666
577
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Kovalchuck modified with McGregor teaches the system of claim 5. Further, Kovalchuck teaches the magnetic lens is configured to adjust an angle of the particle beam as it reaches the terminal position on the material deposited by the nozzle ([0051]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the magnetic lens of Kovalchuck be configured in the shield cone of McGregor to adjust an angle of the particle beam as it exits the shield cone, for the benefit of keeping the magnetic mirrors clean as gas exists from the nozzle.
Claim(s) 8 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovalchuck et al. (US20220001451) and McGregor et al. (US20030116542), and further in view of Sauers et al. (US20200139620).
Regarding claim 8, Kovalchuck modified with McGregor teaches the system of claim 5. However, Kovalchuck fails to teach the system further comprising: a sensor array configured along the shield cone.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to an additive manufacturing system ([0115]), Sauers teaches a system comprising a sensor array (see sensors 750 in Figure 7) configured along the shield cone (shielding 668; Figure 7). The sensors can generate a map of the beam terminal position and use such information to ensure the correct irradiation dose is provided ([0077]). Further, the sensors can detect certain elements within the material to determine an appropriate irradiation value for fabricating a desired structure ([0085]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the system of Kovalchuck modified with McGregor comprise a sensor array configured along the shield cone, as taught by Sauers, for the benefit of providing an appropriate radiation dose when fabricating a desired structure.
Regarding claim 9, Kovalchuck modified with McGregor and Sauers teaches the system of claim 8.
Further, Sauers teaches the system comprises a mechanically rotating assembly for the magnet that rotates about a vertical axis of the beam extraction assembly, bending the particle beam ([0106] and Figure 9).
The mechanically rotating assembly for rotating the magnet about a vertical axis of the beam extraction assembly can achieve a desired pattern through the rotation angle variation ([0108]), which allows for the formation of very precise patterns of material ([0109]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the system of Kovalchuck modified with McGregor and Sauers further comprise a mechanically rotating assembly for the magnet that rotates about a vertical axis of the beam extraction assembly, as taught by Sauers, for the benefit of achieving precise patterns of material through the rotation angle variation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743