Ex Parte Keremes et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Nov 28, 2017

13362396 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 28, 2017)

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.
13/362,396 01/31/2012 John J. Keremes 60326US02; 1855
67097-2631 PUS 1
26096 7590 11/30/2017
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS, P.C.
400 WEST MAPLE ROAD
SUITE 350
BIRMINGHAM, MI 48009
EXAMINER
HERNANDEZ-DIAZ, JOSE
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1717
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
11/30/2017 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):
ptodocket @ cgolaw. com
cgolaw@yahoo.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte JOHN J. KEREMES, JEFFREY D. HAYNES, YOUPING GAO,
DANIEL EDWARD MATEJCZYK, and JOEL G. LANDAU
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, BEVERLY A. FRANKLIN, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.
INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Appellants1 request our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of a final
rejection of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-112. We have jurisdiction over this appeal
under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
1 Appellants identify the real party in interest as United Technologies
Corporation. Appeal Brief filed February 12, 2016 (“App. Br.”), 1.
2 Appellants canceled claims 12-18 in an amendment filed with the Appeal
Brief.
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants claim an additive manufacturing process. App. Br. 2-3.
Claim 1 illustrates the subject matter on appeal and is reproduced below:
1. An additive manufacturing process comprising:
defining a boundary surrounding a periphery of a desired
part geometry;
depositing material onto a base plate;
directing energy to portions of the deposited material for
forming a retaining wall along the defined boundary and the
desired part geometry;
retaining deposited material between the retaining wall
and the periphery of the part; and
directing energy onto completed surfaces of the retaining
wall and conducting heat through the retaining wall and the
retained deposited material between the retaining wall and the
part.
App. Br. 8 (Claims Appendix) (emphasis added).
The References
Benda US 5,393,482 February 28, 1995
Allaman US 2008/0241404 A1 October 2, 2008
Clark US 2009/0039570 A1 February 12, 2009
The Reiections
The Examiner sets forth the following rejections in the Final Office
Action entered August 24, 2015 (“Final Act.”), and maintains the rejections
in the Answer entered September 21, 2016 (“Ans.”):
I. Claims 1, 5-7, 9, and 10 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Clark in view of Benda; and
II. Claims 3, 4, and 11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Clark in view of Benda and Allaman.
2
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
DISCUSSION
Upon consideration of the evidence relied upon in this appeal and
each of Appellants’ contentions, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections of
claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) for the reasons set forth in
the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below.
Rejection I
Claims 1 and 5
Appellants argue claims 1 and 5 together on the basis of claim 1, to
which we limit our discussion. App. Br. 3-5; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv).
Clark discloses an additive manufacturing process that involves
building an integral support around a component while forming the
component. Clark Abstract, 2, 14, 32. Specifically, Clark discloses a
type of additive manufacturing, referred to as “powder bed processing” or
“laser sintering,” which involves depositing a layer of powdered metal onto
a bed (base plate), translating a laser across the surface of the bed to
consolidate the powder at select locations (directing energy to portions of the
deposited material for forming a desired part geometry), and repeating this
process until the component is complete. Clark 2, 6, 9; Fig. 2. Clark
discloses building an integral frame extending around the component
(retaining wall) while manufacturing the component using this same
deposition method (defining a boundary surrounding a periphery of a desired
part geometry and directing energy to portions of the deposited material for
forming a retaining wall along a defined boundary). Clark ^ 32, 33.
Clark discloses that the frame and component are connected via a
series of struts 54, and Clark discloses that the frame and struts conduct heat
to and from the component. Clark 33, 45, 48, 51. Appellants do not
3
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
dispute the Examiner’s finding that “Clark necessarily teaches” that powder
would be retained between the frame (retaining wall) and the periphery of
the component (part) during the manufacturing process. Compare Final Act.
4, with App. Br. 3-5.
The Examiner finds that Clark does not explicitly teach directing
energy onto completed surfaces of the frame (retaining wall), and
conducting heat through the frame (retaining wall) and the retained
deposited material between the frame (retaining wall) and the component
(part). Final Act. 4. The Examiner relies on Benda for suggesting these
features missing from Clark’s explicit disclosures. Final Act. 4-6.
Benda discloses that sintering is a known process involving raising the
temperature of a layer of powdered material to its softening point (a
temperature less than the melting point) by heating the material with a laser
(causing the particles of the powder to fuse together in the heated region),
spreading another layer of powder over the sintered layer, and repeating the
process until a part is complete. Benda col. 1,11. 34-38, 44-54. Benda
discloses that sintered layers tend to curl undesirably due to a thermal
gradient (temperature difference) between the focal point of the laser beam
at the sintering location and the surrounding material, and Benda discloses a
dual-beam laser sintering device that addresses this problem. Benda col. 1,
11. 55-59; col. 2,11. 47-58.
Benda discloses that the device includes a tightly focused laser beam
that sinters the powder (sintering beam), and a more broadly focused laser
beam (defocused beam) that heats the area surrounding the tightly focused
sintering beam to a level below the sintering temperature. Benda Abstract;
col. 2,11. 15-23, 47-58; Figs. 10, 12. Benda discloses that the sintering
4
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
beam propagates within the defocused beam, and the defocused beam
overlaps the sintering beam at the surface of the powder. Benda col. 2,11.
24-29. Benda further discloses the circular cross-section of the defocused
beam has a diameter about ten times greater than that of the sintering beam.
Benda col. 8,11. 36-41. Benda discloses that use of the defocused beam
reduces the temperature gradient between the sintering location and the
surrounding material, resulting in reduced curling. Benda col. 2,11. 51-57.
The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have
been led at the time of Appellants’ invention to utilize a defocused laser
beam as disclosed in Benda during the powder bed processing procedure
disclosed in Clark to reduce curling of the sintered layers. Ans. 11.
Appellants argue that Benda discloses using the defocused laser beam
in an area surrounding the focused beam so as to heat “portions of the part
that are soon to be melted by the focused beam.” App. Br. 3. Appellants
contend that Benda does not disclose directing the defocused beam to
“locations that are not being sintered by the smaller beam,” and does not
disclose using the defocused laser beam to heat “other parts or areas, and
certainly not an outer wall.” App. Br. 3—4. Appellants further argue that
modification of Clark’s process to include a defocused beam as disclosed in
Benda “simply teaches another means of melting the powder material to
form a part,” and does not teach heating outer walls surrounding a part
during fabrication. App. Br. 4.
However, as discussed above, Clark discloses forming the frame
(retaining wall) using the same process that is used to form the component,
which involves translating a laser across the surface of the powder bed to
consolidate powder at select locations. As the Examiner correctly finds, one
5
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
of ordinary skill in the art would have understood from these disclosures that
completed surfaces of the component and the frame where the laser had been
incident on the powder (areas of consolidated powder) would trail the path
of the laser as it translates across the bed. Ans. 9-10. In view of Benda’s
disclosure that the defocused beam heats an area surrounding the tightly
focused sintering beam having a circular cross-section about ten times
greater than that of the sintering beam, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that incorporating use of a defocused laser beam as
disclosed in Benda into Clark’s process would result in the defocused beam
heating (directing energy to) completed surfaces of the frame (areas of
consolidated powder forming the frame) in the area surrounding the
sintering laser as the sintering laser moves away from the completed
surfaces (consolidated powder) across the bed, as recited in claim 1. Ans.
11; KSRInt’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 418 (2007) ([A]n
obviousness analysis “need not seek out precise teachings directed to the
specific subject matter of the challenged claim, for [an examiner] can take
account of the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in
the art would employ.”; see also In re Preda, 401 F. 2d 825, 826 (CCPA
1968) (“[I]t 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.”).
Claim 1 does not recite any particular length of time for directing
energy onto completed surfaces of the retaining wall, nor does it recite the
point in time during the manufacturing process when energy is directed onto
completed surfaces of the retaining wall. Accordingly, contrary to
Appellants’ arguments, the combined disclosures of Clark and Benda would
6
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
have suggested that completed surfaces of Clark’s frame (retaining wall)
extending around Clark’s component would be heated (energy directed to)
during Clark’s additive manufacturing process modified as suggested by
Benda to incorporate use of a defocused laser, as recited in claim 1.
We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 1 and 5
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 6
Claim 6 depends from claim 1 and recites heating the retaining wall to
a desired temperature greater than ambient temperature and less than a
temperature required to melt the retained deposited material between the
retaining wall and the part for conducting heat through the retained
deposited material to the part.
Appellants argue that “[njothing in Benda or Clark disclose[s] or
teach[es] such features.” App. Br. 5. Appellants contend that features for
improving melting of material as disclosed in Benda would not have led one
of ordinary skill in the art to heat external walls at temperatures below a
melting point of the material. Id.
However, as discussed above, Benda discloses that sintering is a
conventional process involving raising the temperature of a layer of
powdered material to its softening point, which is a temperature less than the
melting point. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art reasonably would
have understood that use of Benda’s defocused laser during Clark’s process
would result in the defocused laser beam heating (directing energy to)
completed surfaces of the frame to a temperature greater than ambient
temperature and less than the melting temperature of powder retained
7
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
between the frame (retaining wall) and the periphery of the component
(part), as recited in claim 6.
In addition, as discussed above, Clark discloses that the frame and
component are connected via a series of stmts, and discloses that the frame
and stmts conduct heat to and from the component. Based on this
disclosure, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that during
Clark’s process modified as suggested by Benda (discussed above) when the
defocused laser beam heats (directs energy to) completed surfaces of the
frame, heat would be conducted to the component (part).
We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claim 6 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claim 7
Claim 7 depends from claim 1 and recites heating the retaining wall
with a defocused laser.
Appellants argue that each and every disclosed instance of the
defocused beam in Benda corresponds with an area surrounding the sintering
beam that is creating a melt pool. App. Br. 5. Appellants contend that a
portion of the defocused beam trailing the sintering beam would always
correspond to movement or direction of the sintering beam, and would not
focus energy at “different areas separate from the sintering beam.” Id.
However, as discussed above, one of ordinary skill in the art would
have understood that incorporating use of a defocused laser beam as
disclosed in Benda into Clark’s process would result in the defocused beam
heating (directing energy to) completed surfaces of the frame (retaining
wall) in the area surrounding the sintering laser. Claim 7 does not require
the defocused laser to focus energy at “different areas separate from the
8
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
sintering beam.”/« re Self, 671 F.2d 1344, 1348 (CCPA 1982)
(“[Appellant’s arguments fail from the outset because . . . they are not based
on limitations appearing in the claims.”). We accordingly sustain the
Examiner’s rejection of claim 7 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Claims 9 and 10
Appellants argue claims 9 and 10 together. Therefore, we select claim
9 as representative. App. Br. 6; 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv). Claim 9
depends from claim 1 and recites heating the retaining wall with heating
elements supported within walls of a chamber surrounding the retaining
wall.
Benda discloses that a technique known in the art for obviating the
problem of curled sintered layers caused by a thermal gradient between the
focal point of a sintering laser and the surrounding material is to heat the
entire powder bed to a temperature less than the sintering temperature.
Benda col. 1,11. 60-64. In view of this disclosure, the Examiner finds that
one of ordinary skill in the art would have used a combination of known
methods during Clark’s process to reduce the thermal gradient between the
focal point of the sintering laser and the surrounding material. Final Act. 6-
7. Thus, the Examiner finds that in addition to utilizing a defocused laser
beam as disclosed in Benda, one of ordinary skill in the art also would have
heated the entire powder bed, as further disclosed in Benda. Id. The
Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood
that the entire powder bed could be heated by disposing heating elements
along the walls and base of the powder bed. Id.
Appellants argue that Benda discloses using a defocused laser beam
with a focused laser beam to improve fabrication of a part at the point where
9
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
a melt pool is formed. App. Br. 6. Appellants contend that “[njothing in
Benda teaches use of the defocused beam for other purposes, and certainly
not in any manner separate from the focused beam at the point where the
meld pool is formed.” Id.
However, Benda’s disclosure of heating an entire powder bed to
reduce curling by reducing the thermal gradient between the focal point of a
sintering laser and the surrounding material would have led one of ordinary
skill in the art to heat the entirety of the powder bed used during Clark’s
process modified as suggested by Benda (discussed above), in addition to
using a defocused laser as disclosed in Benda. One of ordinary skill in the
art reasonably would have used conventional heating means to heat the
powder bed, such as heating elements disposed within walls of a chamber
surrounding the retaining wall, as recited in claim 9.
We accordingly sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 9 and 10
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Rejection II
To address this rejection, Appellants rely on the arguments made for
Rejection I (discussed above), and argue that the additional reference applied
in this rejection fails to cure the deficiencies of Clark and Benda. App. Br.
6. Because we are unpersuaded of reversible error in Rejection I for the
reasons discussed above, Appellants’ position as to this rejection is also
without merit.
DECISION
We affirm the Examiner’s rejections of claims 1, 3-7, and 9-11 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a).
10
Appeal 2017-001215
Application 13/362,396
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
11