Delavan Inc.

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Aug 4, 2020

14886535 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Aug. 4, 2020)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/886,535 10/19/2015 Sergey Mironets 91016US01-1510801.537US1 9382
61654 7590 08/04/2020
Locke Lord LLP
P.O. BOX 55874
BOSTON, MA 02205
EXAMINER
JOHNSON, JONATHAN J
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1734
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/04/2020 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
patent@lockelord.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________

Ex parte SERGEY MIRONETS, ALEXANDER STAROSELSKY,
and THOMAS J. MARTIN

Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535
Technology Center 1700
____________

Before KAREN M. HASTINGS, MICHAEL P. COLAIANNI, and
MICHAEL G. McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judges.

McMANUS, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 seeks review of the
Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–7, 9, and 20. We have jurisdiction
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We affirm.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies the real party in interest as Delavan Inc.
Appeal Brief dated Dec. 20, 2018 (“Appeal Br.”) 2.
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

2

CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The present application generally relates to additive manufacturing.
Specification filed Oct. 19, 2015 (“Spec.”) 1. More specifically, the
application relates to applying energy to a powder to produce a weld pool of
molten powder and applying an electromagnetic field to the weld pool to
control one or more characteristics of the weld pool. Id. at 3. The
Specification teaches that “[c]ontrolling weld pool geometry can include
reducing a cross-sectional area of the weld pool to reduce wall thickness of
an additively manufactured article.” Id.
Figure 5 of the Specification is reproduced below.

Figure 5 depicts an “embodiment of an electromagnetic field system 500.”
Spec. 9. Figure 5 shows laser 203 acting on powder to produce weld pool
313. Id. It further depicts magnets 550a and 550b disposed so as to create a
magnetic field perpendicular to the direction of motion of the laser. Id.
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

3
Figure 3 of the Specification is also reproduced below.

Figure 3 schematically depicts the direction of the magnetic field. Spec. 6.
“[A]pplying the magnetic field to the weld pool 313 can include applying
the magnetic field such that a magnetic induction vector B of the magnetic
field is perpendicular to the melt direction 315 at the weld pool 313.” Id.
Claims 1 and 20 are illustrative of the subject matter on appeal and are
reproduced below:
1. A method for additively manufacturing an article,
comprising:
applying energy to a powder to produce a weld pool of
molten powder; and
applying an electromagnetic field to the weld pool to
control one or more characteristics of the weld pool, wherein
applying the electromagnetic field to control one or more
characteristics of the weld pool includes controlling weld pool
geometry, wherein controlling weld pool geometry includes
reducing a cross-sectional area of the weld pool to reduce wall
thickness of an additively manufactured article.
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

4

20. A method for additively manufacturing an article,
comprising:
applying energy to a powder to produce a weld pool of
molten powder; and
applying an electromagnetic field to the weld pool to
control one or more characteristics of the weld pool, wherein
applying the electromagnetic field to control one or more
characteristics of the weld pool includes controlling molten flow,
wherein controlling molten flow includes controlling molten
flow rate of the molten flow within the weld pool.
Appeal Br. 12, 15 (Claims App.).
REFERENCES
The Examiner relies upon the following prior art:
Name Reference Date
Sagoo US 2015/0165693 A1 June 18, 2015
Bencher US 2016/0375492 A1 Dec. 29, 2016
M. Bachman et al., About the influence of a steady magnetic field on weld
pool dynamics in partial penetration high power laser beam welding of
thick aluminium parts, 60 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF HEAT AND MASS
TRANSFER, 309–321 (2013) (“Bachman”)

REJECTIONS
The Examiner maintains the following rejections:
1. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as being
indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly
claim the subject matter which the inventors regard as the
invention. Final Action dated June 26, 2018 (“Final Act.”)
2.
2. Claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

5
§ 102(a)(1) an anticipated by, or in the alternative, under 35
U.S.C. § 103 as being unpatentable over, Bencher as
evidenced by Bachmann. Id. at 3–5.
3. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Bencher as evidenced by Bachmann in
view of Sagoo. Id. at 6.
DISCUSSION
Rejection 1. The Examiner rejects claim 7 as indefinite. Id. at 2.
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and further requires that “applying the
electromagnetic field to control one or more characteristics of the weld pool
includes controlling at least one of molten flow, convection, grain growth
rate, and/or grain morphology.” Appeal Br. 13 (Claims App.).
The Examiner determines that the use of the term “and/or” before
“grain morphology” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear
whether the listed characteristics are conjunctive or disjunctive with regard
to “grain morphology.” Final Act. 2. Appellant does not address this
rejection in its briefs. As a result, Appellant has waived argument regarding
this rejection. See Hyatt v. Dudas, 551 F.3d 1307, 1314 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
(explaining that summary affirmance without consideration of the
substantive merits is appropriate where an appellant fails to contest a ground
of rejection).

Rejection 2. The Examiner rejects claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 20 as
anticipated by, or in the alternative, obvious over, Bencher as evidenced by
Bachmann. Final Act. 3–4. In support of the rejection the Examiner finds
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

6
that Bencher discloses a method of additive manufacturing where a layer of
metallic powder is delivered onto a support, an energy source is applied to
fuse or melt the powder, and a magnetic array applies a magnetic field to the
powder. Final Act. 3. The Examiner further finds that Bencher discloses
that the energy source may be a laser that is configured to scan across the
surface of the layer of powder. Id. The Examiner finds that the magnetic
field is taught to be applied to control the grain size and grain alignment. Id.
The Examiner finds that Bencher depicts an embodiment where “the
magnetic field is oriented perpendicular to the surface of the layer ([0044],
Figure 1), figure 4 showing that the vector of the magnetic field is
perpendicular to the path of the energy source beam.” Answer 5.
Figures 1 and 4 of Bencher are reproduced below.

Figure 1 (left) is a schematic drawing of an additive manufacturing system.
Bencher ¶ 25. Figure 1 shows energy source (e.g., laser) 136 and magnet
assembly 200 (including magnets 204 and 206) configured to apply
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

7
magnetic field 202 parallel to the surface of layer 120. Id. ¶¶ 17, 25. Figure
4 (right) is similar but “shows a schematic of an additive manufacturing
system . . . with the magnetic field 202 produced by magnets 204, 206
directed perpendicular to the surface of the layer 120.” Bencher ¶ 53
(emphasis added). That is, Figure 1 depicts an embodiment where the
magnets are located on either side of the weld pool while Figure 4 shows an
embodiment where the magnets are located above and below the weld pool.
The Examiner additionally finds that Bachmann “discusses laser
welding of aluminum parts under the influence of a steady magnetic field
aligned perpendicular to the welding direction, disclosing that the
application of the magnetic field causes significant changes in the weld pool
flow pattern and weld pool geometry.” Final Act. 4. Bachmann teaches, for
example, that the “weld pool . . . width at the upper surface becomes smaller
when a magnetic field perpendicular to the welding direction is applied.”
Bachmann 320. Figure 3 of Bachmann is reproduced below.

Figure 3 of Bachmann is a “[s]ketch of effects of the application of a steady
magnetic field perpendicular to the welding direction on the weld seam
geometry.” Id. at 311.
The Examiner determines that the teachings of Bachmann are
applicable to the method as taught by Bencher, and as such, “Bachmann’s
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

8
application of perpendicularly applied magnetic fields to control grain size
necessarily controls weld pool geometry and molten flow rate.” Final Act.
4.
Appellant argues that the Examiner’s analysis is in error because
Bencher does not apply magnetic fields in the same direction as Bachmann.
Appeal Br. 7. Appellant further argues that Bencher does not teach
controlling weld pool geometry and molten flow using a vertical magnetic
field. 2 Id. at 8. As a result, Appellant argues, there is no basis to find that
Bencher inherently discloses the claimed methods. Id. More specifically,
Appellant argues that there is no teaching of controlling weld pool geometry
that “includes reducing a cross-sectional area of the weld pool to reduce wall
thickness of an additively manufactured article” as recited in claim 1. Id. at
9.
In the Answer, the Examiner determines as follows: that claims 1 and
20 (the independent claims) do not have any limitation requiring any
particular direction or arrangement of the applied electromagnetic field
(Answer 7–8); that the teachings of Bachmann regarding the effect of
magnetic fields on the molten pool are broadly applicable to interpretation of
Bencher (id. at 8); that the claims don’t require any particular magnitude of
effect (id. at 8–9); that Appellant has not shown that “the magnetic
field/induction vector direction” is critical (id. at 9); that Figure 6 of

2 There is some ambiguity as to the scope of claims 1 and 20. In claim 1,
one could construe “wherein applying the electromagnetic field to control
one or more characteristics of the weld pool includes controlling weld pool
geometry” as not requiring controlling weld pool geometry but rather
specifying it as an exemplary characteristic. The same is true of the “molten
flow” limitations of claim 20.
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

9
Bachmann shows magnets 204 and 206 arranged in the same manner as in
Bachmann’s Figure 3 as well as the figures of the present Specification (id.
at 9); that “applying the magnetic field such that a magnetic induction vector
of the magnetic field is perpendicular to the melt direction at the weld pool”
as used in claim 6 should be construed to encompass the arrangement of
Bencher (id. at 9–10); and that the use of Bachmann as an evidentiary
reference is not predicated on exact matching of magnetic induction vector
angles between the references, but rather on both references applying
overlapping ranges of magnetic fields in a perpendicular direction (id. at 11).
In its Reply Brief, Appellant argues that Figure 6 of Bencher “actually
shows permanent magnets providing a magnetic field in two directions at the
same time.” Reply Brief dated June 4, 2019 (“Reply Br.”) at 2.3 Appellant
further argues that Bencher does not teach a magnetic field perpendicular to
the weld direction. Reply Br. 2. Appellant additionally asserts that the
references do not teach the claimed weld pool geometry or molten flow. Id.
Appellant presents argument against the rejection of the two
independent claims as a group (Claims 1 and 20). Appeal Br. 6–9.
Appellant additionally presents separate argument relating to the rejection of
dependent claim 6. Id. at 7–8. We begin with Appellant’s arguments
relevant to claims 1 and 20.
Claim 1 requires applying energy to a powder to produce a weld pool
and applying an electromagnetic field to reduce the cross-sectional area of
the weld-pool. Id. at 12 (Claims App.). Claim 20 is similar but requires

3 This is incorrect. See Bencher ¶¶ 59–60 (regarding alternating
orientations).
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

10
“controlling [the] molten flow rate” rather than controlling weld pool
geometry. Id. at 15. Bencher teaches an additive manufacturing system
similar to that of the Specification. Compare Bencher, Fig. 1, with Spec.,
Fig. 5. This basic scheme is also employed in Bachmann. See Bachmann,
Fig. 3.
Bencher teaches that “the application of magnetic fields during the
manufacturing process can improve uniformity of grain size and alignment
throughout the layer of material.” Bencher ¶ 23. Bencher, however, does
not address weld pool geometry or molten flow rate. Bachmann addresses
these topics.
First, Bachmann discusses weld pool geometry and flows in the
absence of an electromagnetic field as follows:
It is clear that the surface tension variations at the upper surface
cause a strong vortex flowing from hot regions near the
laser spot associated with low values of the surface tension to
regions near the boundaries of the weld pool with
corresponding higher values of the surface tension. This
mechanism is well-known and is the main reason for the
formation of an elongated weld bead at the surface. This
mechanism is increased by an upward-directed flow near the
keyhole due to natural convection caused by density differences
in the melt. These effects lead to a typical shape of the weld
bead in both the longitudinal as well as the transversal cross
section similar to a wineglass. Moreover, the vertical flow
near the keyhole causes convective heat transfer mainly to the
upper surface in its vicinity followed by a downwards
directed flow at the weld pool rear.

Bachmann 315–317 (emphasis added). When, however, the weld pool is
subjected to a magnetic field, “[t]he influence of the Lorentz forces causes
changes in the solidification front at the rear side of the weld pool and also
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

11
in the cross sectional size.” Id. at 317 (emphasis added). Bachmann
further teaches that “[t]he influence of the magnetic fields becomes large
enough to cause significant changes in the flow pattern and also the weld
pool geometry.” Id. at 318 (emphasis added). Bachmann additionally
teaches that “the width at the upper surface [of the weld pool] becomes
smaller when a magnetic field perpendicular to the welding direction is
applied.” Id. at 320 (emphasis added). Thus, Bachmann teaches reduction
of the cross-sectional area of the weld pool and control of the molten flow
rate result from the application of a magnetic field.
The Examiner finds that control of molten flow and reduction of the
cross-sectional area of the weld pool is inherent to the process of Bencher.
Appellant’s primary argument against this reasoning is that certain
embodiments of Bencher (e.g., Figure 4) have a magnetic field that is
oriented perpendicularly to the surface of the weld pool. Appeal Br. 7. As a
consequence, Appellant argues, one may not rely on the teachings of
Bachmann, which relate to a magnetic field oriented parallel to the surface,
to inform Bencher. Id. This is not persuasive. Figure 1 of Bencher, Figure
3 of Bachmann, and Figure 5 of the Specification all depict a system having
a magnetic field oriented parallel to the surface of the weld pool.
Accordingly, Appellant has not shown that the Examiner erred in
finding that the effects described in Bachmann, including control of molten
flow and reduction of the cross-section of the weld pool, would be inherent
to the system of Bencher. In any event, controlling these variables inclusive
of molten flow rate as broadly recited in claim 20, would have been obvious
since Bachmann evidences that the effect of a magnetic field on flow rate
was known in the art. See, e.g., Bachmann 317 (“The magnitudes and the
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

12
extent of the local maximum of the velocity behind the keyhole is clearly
diminished under the action of the applied magnetic field.”) (emphasis
added).
Appellant separately argues that the rejection of claim 6 is in error.
Appeal Br. 7–8. Claim 6 depends (indirectly) from claim 1 and additionally
requires that “applying the magnetic field to the weld pool includes applying
the magnetic field such that a magnetic induction vector of the magnetic
field is perpendicular to the melt direction at the weld pool.” Id. at 13
(Claims App.). The “melt direction” is the direction traveled by the laser
beam (or other energy source). See Spec. 3 (“The laser beam can be moved
along a melt direction to melt the powder . . . .”).
Bencher teaches that the energy source is scanned across the layer of
feed material as follows:
A beam 124 from the energy source can be scanned across the
layer of feed material, and the power modulated as specified by
a printing pattern stored as a computer aided design (CAD)-
compatible file to selectively control which portions of the layer
of feed material are fused.

* * *
For example, a laser beam 124 from a laser source
136 can be scanned across the platen 106, to selectively heat
any particular area on the surface of the layer of feed material.

Bencher ¶ 34, 36. Bencher additionally teaches an embodiment (shown in
Figure 6) where
two magnet assemblies . . . can generate magnetic fields 202,
212 in two perpendicular directions, both of which are parallel
to the layer 102. In particular, the magnetic field 202 is
produced by magnets 204, 206 positioned on two opposite
lateral sides of the support 102, and the magnetic field 212 is
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

13
produced by magnets 208, 210 on another two opposite lateral
sides of the support 102. By controlling the power applied to
the electromagnets 204, 206 relative to the power applied to the
electromagnets 208, 210, the magnetic field can be applied at
a selectable orientation that is parallel to the layer 120.

Id. ¶ 59 (emphasis added); see also Answer 9.
While the foregoing does not include an explicit teaching of a
magnetic field applied perpendicular to the melt direction, one of ordinary
skill in the art would have readily inferred that Bencher included such. In re
Preda, 401 F.2d 825, 826 (CCPA 1968) (In determining whether a reference
anticipates the subject matter recited in a claim, “it is proper to take into
account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences
which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw
therefrom.”) Cf. In re Schaumann, 572 F.2d 312, 317 (CCPA 1978) (In
order to anticipate, a reference must identify something falling within the
claimed subject matter with sufficient specificity to constitute a description
thereof within the purview of § 102.).
Appellants have not directed our attention to persuasive reasoning or
evidence to establish that the Examiner’s interpretation of Bencher’s
disclosure is unreasonable.
In any event, given the foregoing teachings, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have applied the magnetic field
perpendicular to the melt direction.

Rejection 3. The Examiner rejects claim 2 as obvious over Bencher,
as evidenced by Bachmann, in view of Sagoo. Final Act. 6.
Appeal 2019-004873
Application 14/886,535

14
In arguing against the rejection of claim 2, Appellant relies on its
arguments presented in regard to the rejection of claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10.
As we have not found such arguments to be persuasive, we determine that
Appellant has not shown error with regard to the rejection of claim 2.

CONCLUSION
The Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 as indefinite is summarily
affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 3–7, 9, and 20 as
anticipated and/or obvious is affirmed. The Examiner’s rejection of claim 2
as obvious is affirmed.
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
7 112(b) Indefiniteness 7
1, 3–7, 9,
20
102(a)(1)
/103
Bencher,
Bachmann
1, 3–7, 9,
20

2 103 Bencher,
Bachmann, Sagoo
2
Overall
Outcome
1–7, 9, 20

No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a).

AFFIRMED