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
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-9 in the reply filed on 5-29-26 is acknowledged.
Claims 10-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 5-29-26.
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gray (2017/0173737).
Regarding claim 1, Gray discloses a method of making a component using multi-laser powder bed fusion additive manufacturing techniques (abstract, fig. 1-7, claim 1), comprising the steps of:
Distributing, with a build powder distributor and a recoater (para 24), an active layer of build powder onto a build powder bed 20 on a build platform (fig. 1-2, 7, abstract, claim 1);
Directing a laser beam 141 from a first laser source 161 onto a first scan area 221 of the build powder bed to melt the active layer of build powder within the first scan area (para 29, fig. 1);
Directing a laser beam 142 from a second laser source 162 onto a second scan area 222 of the build powder bed to melt the active layer of build powder within the second scan area (para 29, fig. 1);
Providing a dwell time to permit the active layer of build powder to resolidify (claim 1, abstract, para 23-25);
Lowering the build powder platform to permit distribution of another active layer of build powder over a resolidified active layer of build powder (para 23-25);
Distributing, with a build powder distributor and a recoater, another active layer of build powder onto the build powder bed on the build platform (para 23-25);
Repeating the steps recited above a preselected number of times to deposit, melt, and solidify sufficient layers of build powder to form the component (para 23-25);
Wherein the first scan area is adjacent to the second scan area and the first scan area and second scan area overlap each other at an overlap point (fig. 1, para 28-30);
Wherein the steps of directing a laser beam from a first laser source and directing a laser beam from a second laser source are performed concurrently (para 8-9, 26, claim 9, 14, 16-17); and
Wherein the overlap point for each succeeding active layer of build powder is different than the overlap point for the preceding active layer (fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 2, Gray discloses wherein a power of the lasers from the first laser source and the second laser source is selected to melt only the active build powder layer (6, 10, 42-43, claim 15 and 26).
Regarding claim 3, Gray discloses wherein a power of the lasers from the first laser source and the second laser source is selected to melt the active build powder layer and a desired number of previous build powder layers (including zero).
Regarding claim 4, Gray discloses directing a laser beam from a third laser source onto a third scan area of the build powder bed to melt the active layer of build powder within the third scan area (para 35);
Wherein the steps of directing a laser beam from a first laser source, directing a laser beam from a second laser source, and directing a laser beam from a third laser source are performed concurrently (para 8-9, 26, claim 9, 14, 16-17).
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) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Binek et al. (2025/0135552).
Regarding claim 5, Gray does not teach wherein the component is an aerospace component. However, Binek et al. teaches powder bed fusion additive manifesting can be used to make a wide variety of near net shape parts. Examples of PBF technique include PBF-laser and PBF-electron beam processes. Once such exemplary structure is a gas turbine engine diffuser. For some applications, it is desirable to make engine parts, such as gas turbine engine diffusers, as unitized parts using AM techniques to reduce costs and simplify assembly (para 17-19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply the method of Gray for making aerospace components since Binek et al. teaches that it is desirable to make aerospace component such as gas turbine engine diffusers using AM techniques to reduce costs and simplify assembly.
Regarding claim 6, Binek et al. teaches wherein the aerospace component is a gas turbine engine component (claim 8, 13 and 19).
Regarding claim 7, Binek et al. teaches wherein the gas turbine engine component is a compressor section component (claim 8, 13 and 19).
Regarding claim 8, Binek et al. teaches wherein the aerospace component is an airplane component (claim 8, 13, 19).
Claim(s) 5-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gray as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ugarte et al. (2022/0062989).
Regarding claim 5, Gray does not teach wherein the component is an aerospace component. However, Ugarte et al. teaches that component 108 may be additively manufactured in a layer-by-layer manner. In certain embodiments, the component 108 may be an aircraft component (para 24). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the method of Gray for making aerospace components since Ugarte et al. teaches that aircraft component is a suitable part that can benefit from additive manufacturing technology (para 24).
Regarding claim 6, Ugarte et al. teaches wherein the aerospace component is a gas turbine engine component (para 24).
Regarding claim 7, Ugarte et al. teaches wherein the gas turbine engine component is a heat exchanger for a gas turbine engine (para 24).
Regarding claim 8, Ugarte et al. teaches wherein the aerospace component is an airplane component (para 24).
Regarding claim 9, Ugarte et al. teaches wherein the airplane component is one of a gear box component and heat exchangers (para 24).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to XUE H LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-5522. The examiner can normally be reached 1PM - 10PM.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached at 5702721176. 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.
/X.H.L/Examiner, Art Unit 1742 /CHRISTINA A JOHNSON/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights