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 § 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 and 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold (US 20170146488 A1) in view of Rogren (US 20210379821 A1) and Huang (US 20210096123 A1).
Claim 1. Gold discloses a method of assessing a build quality of an additively manufactured part (acoustic monitoring system for a 3D printer that can be used to detect defects in the printed part, par. 27), the method comprising:
receiving build parameter data pertaining to one or more components of an additive manufacturing system (laser scanner can adjust and control the processing parameters/properties, par. 37);
receiving
determining a potential build anomaly on the additively manufactured part from the frequency of oscillation (build defects can be determined by the acoustic signals, par. 31).
Gold does not disclose receiving voltage data from at least one voltmeter electrically coupled to a piezoelectric crystal and determining a frequency of oscillation of the piezoelectric crystal from the voltage data.
Rogren discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein they teach that piezoelectric sensors are a form of acoustic sensors (par. 99).
Huang teaches in par. 32 that “a piezoelectric sensor is as is known in the art. For example, piezoelectric sensor responds to changes in physical pressure with a change in electrical charge. Typical piezoelectric sensors employ piezoelectric quartz crystals, e.g., in electrical contact with a voltage detector to monitor changes in pressure or vibration frequency of the sensor.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gold to incorporate the teachings of Huang and use a piezoelectric sensor as the acoustic sensor and have a voltmeter coupled to the piezoelectric sensor and measure the voltage to determine the frequency of oscillation. Rogren demonstrates that it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that acoustic sensors may be piezoelectric sensors and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select piezoelectric from a variety of acoustic sensing technology based on design specifications. Huang demonstrates that using a voltmeter to determine the frequency of oscillation in a piezoelectric crystal is well known in the art (par. 32, Huang).
Claim 14. Gold discloses a method of additively manufacturing a part (3D printing, title), the method comprising:
transmitting a signal to one or more components of an additive manufacturing system to begin additive formation of the part (additive manufacturing is performed by the apparatus, par. 25);
receiving
determining an additional movement of the one or more components of the additive manufacturing system (method of determining the next layer to be printed and moving the recoater and build platform accordingly, par. 20-25); and
receiving adjusted build parameter data pertaining to the one or more components of the additive manufacturing system (build platform is moved based on the determined select layer increment, par. 24).
Gold does not disclose receiving voltage data from at least one voltmeter electrically coupled to a piezoelectric crystal and determining a frequency of oscillation of the piezoelectric crystal from the voltage data.
Rogren discloses an additive manufacturing device wherein they teach that piezoelectric sensors are a form of acoustic sensors (par. 99).
Huang teaches in par. 32 that “a piezoelectric sensor is as is known in the art. For example, piezoelectric sensor responds to changes in physical pressure with a change in electrical charge. Typical piezoelectric sensors employ piezoelectric quartz crystals, e.g., in electrical contact with a voltage detector to monitor changes in pressure or vibration frequency of the sensor.”
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gold to incorporate the teachings of Huang and use a piezoelectric sensor as the acoustic sensor and have a voltmeter coupled to the piezoelectric sensor and measure the voltage to determine the frequency of oscillation. Rogren demonstrates that it is known to one of ordinary skill in the art that acoustic sensors may be piezoelectric sensors and one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to select piezoelectric from a variety of acoustic sensing technology based on design specifications. Huang demonstrates that using a voltmeter to determine the frequency of oscillation in a piezoelectric crystal is well known in the art (par. 32, Huang).
Claim 11. Gold in view of Rogren and Huang does not disclose the method of claim 1, further comprising correlating build parameters with the frequency of oscillation of the piezoelectric crystal (known good acoustic signals are recorded along with spacing of the weld pools, par. 30-31); and
storing the correlated build parameters as correlation data within a database (acoustic signals/profiles are recorded, par. 30).
Claim 12. Gold in view of Rogren and Huang discloses the method of claim 11, further comprising determining an additional movement of the one or more components of the additive manufacturing system (the spacing of the weld pools and positions are determined, par. 30-31).
Claim 13. Gold in view of Rogren and Huang discloses the method of claim 11, wherein determining the potential build anomaly comprises retrieving the correlation data from a database (profiles of “known good” acoustic signals are recorded, par. 30, and compared to currently measured signals, par. 31); and
Gold in view of Rogren and Huang does not disclose that the method determines that a correct correlation does not exist.
However, it would have been within one of ordinary skill in the art’s ability to determine that the detected signal does not match the previously known “good” or “bad” signals by the simple fact of not falling within the previously known frequency spectrums. This would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 15. Gold in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising receiving build parameter data pertaining to one or more components of an additive manufacturing system (position of the weld pool is tracked, par. 32), prior to receiving the voltage data from the at least one voltmeter (inspection, which involves measuring acoustic signals, can be performed after the fusing of each build layer, par. 35; where it is understood by the examiner that the apparatus will send/recieve build parameter data such as the select layer increment levels in order to print a layer then perform the inspection method of listening to acoustic signals).
Claim 16. Gold in view of Huang discloses the method of claim 14, further comprising determining a potential build anomaly on the additively manufactured part from the frequency of oscillation (build defects can be determined by the acoustic signals, par. 31).
Claim(s) 2-10 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gold in view of Huang as applied to claim 1 and 14 above, and further in view of DehghanNiri (US 20180101167 A1)
Claims 2 and 17. Gold in view of Rogren and Huang discloses the method of claim 1, wherein determining the potential build anomaly comprises retrieving correlation data from a database (comparing measured acoustic profiles from a baseline acoustic profile, par. 31; where the acoustic profile is stored, claim 7); and
DehghanNiri discloses a method of monitoring and quality control of additive manufactured parts wherein their acoustic sensors detect the frequency spectrum which can indicate a defect or crack in the structure wherein the detect signal is compared to previously known “good” and “bad” frequency spectrums (par. 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gold in view of Rogren and Huang to incorporate the teachings of DehghanNiri and correlate the detected frequency spectrum with a database of previously known good and bad frequency spectrum. Doing so would have the benefit of determining if the detected signal indicates the presence of a defect (par. 37, DehghanNiri.
Gold in view of Rogren, Huang, and DehghanNiri does not disclose that the method determines that a correct correlation does not exist.
However, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determine that the detected signal does not match the previously known “good” or “bad” signals (par. 37, DehghanNiri) by the simple fact of not falling within the previously known frequency spectrums. This would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 3. Gold in view of Rogren and Huang does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining the potential build anomaly further comprises determining a reason for an incorrect correlation.
DehghanNiri discloses a method of monitoring and quality control of additive manufactured parts wherein their acoustic sensors detect the frequency spectrum which can indicate a defect or crack in the structure wherein the detect signal is compared to previously known “good” and “bad” frequency spectrums (par. 37).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gold in view of Rogren and Huang to incorporate the teachings of DehghanNiri and correlate the detected frequency spectrum with a database of previously known good and bad frequency spectrum. Doing so would have the benefit of determining if the detected signal indicates the presence of a defect (par. 37, DehghanNiri.
Gold in view of Rogren, Huang, and DehghanNiri does not disclose that the method determines a reason for an incorrect correlation.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a reason for an incorrect correlation when attempting to correlate the measured signal to the good/bad frequency spectrums. This would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claim 4. Gold in view of Rogren and Huang does not disclose the method of claim 1, wherein determining the potential build anomaly further comprises transmitting a signal or a message to an external device regarding the incorrect correlation.
DehghanNiri further discloses that the user’s computer is an external computer accessing the manufacturing apparatus through the internet (par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gold in view of Rogren and Huang to incorporate the teachings of DehghanNiri and transmit messages to an external computer. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing a user to control and receive messages from the apparatus remotely (par. 44, DehghanNiri).
Claim 5. Gold in view of Rogren, Huang, and DehghanNiri discloses the method of claim 2, wherein the correlation data from the database is generated from a method of establishing a baseline frequency of the piezoelectric crystal (calibration of the sensors compares the signals to a measurement standard, where the standard is a known value, par. 50).
Claim 6. Gold in view of Rogren and Huang discloses the method of claim 1, further comprising determining an additional movement of the one or more components of the additive manufacturing system (build platform is moved based on the determined select layer increment, where this additional movement may be for the next layer being deposited, par. 29).
Claims 7 and 18. Gold in view of Rogren, Huang, and DehghanNiri discloses the method of claim 2, wherein determining the potential build anomaly further comprises determining a reason for an incorrect correlation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have determined a reason for an incorrect correlation when attempting to correlate the measured signal to the good/bad frequency spectrums. This would have been apparent to one of ordinary skill in the art through routine experimentation. MPEP 2144.05.II.A.
Claims 8 and 19. Gold in view of Rogren, Huang, and DehghanNiri does not disclose the method of claim 7, wherein determining the potential build anomaly further comprises transmitting a signal or a message to an external device regarding the incorrect correlation.
DehghanNiri further discloses that the user’s computer is an external computer accessing the manufacturing apparatus through the internet (par. 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gold in view of Roren and Huang to incorporate the teachings of DehghanNiri and transmit messages to an external computer. Doing so would have the benefit of allowing a user to control and receive messages from the apparatus remotely (par. 44, DehghanNiri).
Claims 9 and 20. Gold in view of Rogren, Huang, and DehghanNiri disclose the method of claim 8, further comprising determining whether a command has been received in response to the signal or the message (computer can receive instructions, par. 45).
Claim 10. Gold in view of Rogren, Huang, and DehghanNiri disclose the method of claim 9, further comprising determining an additional movement of the one or more components of the additive manufacturing system if no command has been received (it is understood by the examiner that if no instructions are received in response to a defect then normal operation continues, wherein the build platform is moved based on the determined select layer increment, where this additional movement may be for the next layer being deposited, par. 29).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761