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 .
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.
Claims 15 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hopkins et al. (US Pub 2022/0161485).
As of claim 15, Hopkins discloses a method for fabricating a part, comprising:
loading a model of a part into a controller of a powder bed fusion (PBF) tool, the PBF tool comprising an energy source (see paragraph [0122], “scan tracks within successive layers need not follow the directional orientation suggested by track cross sectional objects in a covering problem solution. For example, in FIG. 16, a depiction of a path-tangent cross section of a covering problem solution derived scan strategy with a unit cell including two different objects generated from different AM track geometry parameters employing a powder bed fusion” and paragraph [0137], “In a powder bed fusion or similar process, the geometry of the track (and track cross section) is dependent on the powder thickness. This can also be the case for a material jetting process where the material tracks harden, solidify, or are exposed to an energy source…”);
generating, by the controller of the PBF tool, a scan strategy for individual layers of the part based on the model, the scan strategy comprising a hatch spacing between scan lines of the energy source in the individual layers (see paragraph [0043], “FIG. 4 is a schematic drawing illustrating a specific implementation of a scan strategy as described in FIG. 3a. In this method, the positions of scan paths are defined both within a given layer and relative to successive layers such to achieve an “interleaved” pattern. For example, in layer n, a multitude of parallel, adjacent scan lines are separated by hatch spacing h, representing the area fill of the slice of the article”); and
forming an intermediate part from a powder material using the tool based on the scan strategy for the individual layers of the part (see paragraph [0078], “FIG. 26 is an image of a track cross section, with unit normal tangent to half of the scan tracks and perpendicular to the other half, of a part printed in stainless steel by laser powder bed fusion employing an iteration of the two track geometry approach described for FIG. 25. In this case, after producing the two layers as described in FIG. 25, scan tracks are rotated 90 degrees to produce the next two layers, again in the same fashion again as shown in FIG. 25. This two layer build plus 90 degree rotation is repeated as often as required”).
As of claim 19, Hopkins discloses the step of performing at least one post processing step on the intermediate part to form the part (see paragraph [0078], “In this case, after producing the two layers as described in FIG. 25, scan tracks are rotated 90 degrees to produce the next two layers, again in the same fashion again as shown in FIG. 25. This two layer build plus 90 degree rotation is repeated as often as required” and [0086], “For articles fabricated this strategy, the x-axis component of the shear strength would be increased relative to a scan strategy with tracks laid one on top of the other due to the large z-axis span of tracks both within layer and across layers”).
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.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US Pub 2022/0161485).
As of claim 17, Hopkins discloses that the hatch spacing is relative to a width of the scan lines of the energy source (see paragraph [0043], “For example, in layer n, a multitude of parallel, adjacent scan lines are separated by hatch spacing h, representing the area fill of the slice of the article”). However, it does not explicitly disclose that the hatch spacing is larger than the width of the scan lines of the energy source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the hatch spacing larger than a width of the scan lines of the energy source, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of the component and would reduce article fabrication time and/or improve article physical properties, by targeting a distribution of scan paths that satisfy covering problem overlap and/or dense packing criteria (see paragraph [0001], also see MPEP 2144.04 IV A, Changes in Size/Proportion).
As of claim 18, Hopkins discloses that a width of the scan lines of the energy source is a certain dimension and the hatch spacing is a certain dimension (see paragraph [0043], “For example, in layer n, a multitude of parallel, adjacent scan lines are separated by hatch spacing h, representing the area fill of the slice of the article. The fill scan lines in successive planar layers, layer n+1, likewise are separated by hatch spacing h but are translated laterally relative to the prior layer by a distance equal to half of the hatch distance, placing the scan lines of layer n+1 at the midpoint between the scan lines in layer n”). However, it does not explicitly disclose a width of the scan lines of the energy source is equal to or less than 0.3 mm; and the hatch spacing is between 0.6 mm and 1.5 mm. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include width of the scan lines of the energy source is equal to or less than 0.3 mm; and the hatch spacing is between 0.6 mm and 1.5 mm since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of the component and would reduce article fabrication time and/or improve article physical properties, by targeting a distribution of scan paths that satisfy covering problem overlap and/or dense packing criteria (see paragraph [0001], also see MPEP 2144.04 IV A, Changes in Size/Proportion).
Claims 1-6 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US Pub 2022/0161485) in view of Tjellesen et al. (US Pub 2016/0009028).
As of claims 1 and 16, Hopkins discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 15 above, however it does not disclose that the power material comprises an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) power.
Tjellesen discloses a method for fabricating a part wherein the the power material comprises an ultra-high molecular weight polyethylene (UHMWPE) power (see paragraph [0085]).
From the teaching of Tjellesen it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Hopkins to include UHMWPE power as taught by Tjellesen to provide heat-treating successive layers of green material to create a plurality of cross-sectional layers forming a three-dimensional model.
As of claim 2, combination of Hopkins and Tjellesen discloses that the hatch spacing is larger than a width of the scan lines of the energy source (please see rejection of claim 17).
As of claim 3, combination of Hopkins and Tjellesen discloses that a width of the scan lines of the energy source is equal to or less than 0.3 mm; and the hatch spacing is between 0.6 mm and 1.5 mm (please see rejection of claim 18).
As of claim 4, Hopkins discloses that the model comprises a solid model of the part (see paragraph [0040], “An energy source scans the prescribed paths to melt or sinter powder particles that subsequently resolidify to form a solid layer. Scan strategies need not be identical nor similar between layers—incremental rotation or translation of scan paths are employed. By way of example, between layer n and layer n+1 representing successive slices of the article…”). However, it does not explicitly disclose the hatch spacing is defined by the controller to be larger than a width of the scan lines of the energy source. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to include the hatch spacing larger than a width of the scan lines of the energy source, since such a modification would involve a mere change in the size of the component and would reduce article fabrication time and/or improve article physical properties, by targeting a distribution of scan paths that satisfy covering problem overlap and/or dense packing criteria (see paragraph [0001], also see MPEP 2144.04 IV A, Changes in Size/Proportion).
As of claim 5, Hopkins discloses that the model comprises voiding to create the hatch spacing between the scan lines in the individual layers (see paragraph [0114], “Consequently, design of scan tracks using good covering problem solutions that employ overlap, but not too much (excess) overlap, between tracks will still tend to result in either a larger ratio of particles (for example, powder) to solution in green articles with very low porosity in binder jetting and similar processes, and a reduction in void space in material jetting, fused deposition modeling, arc plasma sintering, multi-jet fusion, and similar processes”).
As of claim 6, Hopkins discloses that the performing at least one post processing step on the intermediate part to form the part (please see rejection of claim 19).
Claims 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US Pub 2022/0161485) in view of Tjellesen et al. (US Pub 2016/0009028) and further in view of Kasperchik et al. (US Pub 2020/0398338).
As of claims 7 and 11, combination of Hopkins and Tjellesen discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 1 above, however it does not explicitly disclose performing the at least one post processing step comprises: removing the intermediate part from the tool; removing excess UHMWPE powder from the intermediate part; and processing the intermediate part in an oven.
Kasperchik discloses a method for fabricating a part including a at least one post processing step comprising removing the intermediate part from the tool; removing excess powder from the intermediate part; and processing the intermediate part in an oven (The intermediate part 31 may be extracted or separated from the non-patterned build material composition 12. The intermediate part 31 may be cleaned to remove non-patterned build material composition 12. The intermediate part 31 may then be placed in a heating mechanism (not shown). Examples of the heating mechanism include a conventional furnace or oven (see paragraphs [0105]-[0106]).
From the teaching of Kasperchik it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the combination of Hopkins and Tjellesen to include the function of removing the intermediate part from the tool; removing excess UHMWPE powder from the intermediate part; and processing the intermediate part in an oven as taught by Kasperchik to consolidation of the particles of the composition into a mechanically stronger final metal object (see paragraph [0020]).
As of claim 8, Kasperchik discloses processing the intermediate part in the oven comprises heating the intermediate part at a temperature for a period of time in the oven (see paragraph [0108], “The heating mechanism may be used to perform a heating sequence, which involves exposing the intermediate part 31 to a decomposition/reduction temperature or a pyrolysis temperature that decomposes the flow additive 21”).
As of claim 9, Kasperchik discloses processing the intermediate part in the oven comprises heating the intermediate part at a temperature above a melt temperature of the UHN4WPE powder for a period of time in an atmosphere of Nitrogen (see paragraph [0113], “The sintering temperature is highly depending upon the composition of the host metal particles 15. During sintering, the at least substantially flow additive and binder-free intermediate structure 31′ may be heated to a temperature ranging from about 80% to about 99.9% of the melting point of the host metal particles”).
As of claims 10 and 14, Kasperchik discloses processing the intermediate part in the oven comprises heating the intermediate part in an oven at a temperature of about 220°C for about two hours in an atmosphere of Nitrogen (see paragraph [0108], “Briefly, the decomposition/reduction temperature decomposes/reduces the flow additive nanoparticle 21 to the elemental metal or the pyrolysis temperature removes the flow additive nanoparticle 21, and the de-binding temperature removes the binder, from the intermediate structure 31 to produce a binder-free intermediate structure 31′, and the structure 31′ may be sintered to form the final 3D object 35... heating to de-bind and heating to decompose/pyrolyze may take place at the same temperature or within the same temperature range (e.g., from about 300° C. to about 500° C”).
As of claim 12, combination of Hopkins and Tjellesen discloses that the hatch spacing is larger than a width of the scan lines of the energy source (please see rejection of claim 17).
As of claim 13, combination of Hopkins and Tjellesen discloses that a width of the scan lines of the energy source is equal to or less than 0.3 mm; and the hatch spacing is between 0.6 mm and 1.5 mm (please see rejection of claim 18).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hopkins et al. (US Pub 2022/0161485) in view of Kasperchik et al. (US Pub 2020/0398338).
As of claim 20, Hopkins discloses all the limitations of the claimed invention as mentioned in claim 15 above, however it does not explicitly disclose performing the at least one post processing step comprises: removing the intermediate part from the tool; removing excess UHMWPE powder from the intermediate part; and processing the intermediate part in an oven.
Kasperchik discloses a method for fabricating a part including a at least one post processing step comprising removing the intermediate part from the tool; removing excess powder from the intermediate part; and processing the intermediate part in an oven (The intermediate part 31 may be extracted or separated from the non-patterned build material composition 12. The intermediate part 31 may be cleaned to remove non-patterned build material composition 12. The intermediate part 31 may then be placed in a heating mechanism (not shown). Examples of the heating mechanism include a conventional furnace or oven (see paragraphs [0105]-[0106]).
From the teaching of Kasperchik it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Hopkins to include the function of removing the intermediate part from the tool; removing excess UHMWPE powder from the intermediate part; and processing the intermediate part in an oven as taught by Kasperchik to consolidation of the particles of the composition into a mechanically stronger final metal object (see paragraph [0020]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NABIL H SYED whose telephone number is (571)270-3028. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00-5:00 M-F.
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, Davetta W Goins can be reached at (571) 272-2957. 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.
/NABIL H SYED/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2689
Prosecution Insights