UNITED TECHNOLOGIES CORPORATION

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Sep 11, 2020

14785915 - (D) (P.T.A.B. Sep. 11, 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.
14/785,915 10/21/2015 Lyutsia DAUTOVA 62082US02-U173-012157 7141
12208 7590 09/11/2020
Kinney & Lange, P.A.
312 South Third Street
Minneapolis, MN 55415
EXAMINER
KIM, YUNJU
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
1742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
09/11/2020 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):
USPatDocket@kinney.com
amkoenck@kinney.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte LYUTSIA DAUTOVA, SERGEY MIRONETS,
AGNES KLUCHA, and WENDELL V. TWELVES
Appeal 2019-006412
Application 14/785,915
Technology Center 1700
Before JEFFREY B. ROBERTSON, N. WHITNEY WILSON, and
JANE E. INGLESE, Administrative Patent Judges.

WILSON, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the
Examiner’s July 6, 2018 decision to finally reject claims 1–19 (“Final
Act.”). 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(a). Appellant identifies the real party in interest as United
Technologies Corporation (Appeal Br. 2).
Appeal 2019-006412
Application 14/785,915

2
CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
Appellant’s disclosure is directed to an additive manufacturing system
which comprises a build chamber, a powder bed additive manufacturing
device disposed in the build chamber, and a powder contamination detection
system (Abstract). The powder contamination detection system is in
communication with an atmosphere in the build chamber (id.). An
analyzer/controller evaluates the resulting powder contamination signals to
identify constituent components of gases, including those indicative of
powder contamination (Spec. 3). Details of the claimed system are set forth
in independent claim 1, which is reproduced below from the Claims
Appendix of the Appeal Brief:
1. An additive manufacturing system comprising:
a build chamber;
a powder bed additive manufacturing device disposed in
the build chamber, the device comprising:
a raw material storage chamber;
a working surface for receiving individual layers
of raw material powder from the storage chamber;
and
an energy source for consolidating the
individual layers of raw material powder into a
freeform object in the build chamber, the
consolidated raw material powder generating a
first gas byproduct corresponding to a composition
of the raw material powder and a second gas
byproduct corresponding to at least one
contaminant in the raw material powder; and
a real-time powder contamination detection system in
communication with an atmosphere in the build chamber and a
sample port, the detection system configured to detect the
second gas byproduct and differentiate the second gas
byproduct from the first gas byproduct to identify at least one
Appeal 2019-006412
Application 14/785,915

3
aspect of contamination of the raw material powder in the build
chamber.
REFERENCES
The prior art relied upon by the Examiner is:
Name Reference Date
Syassen EP 2 730 353 A1 May 14, 2014
Powell et al. US 2006/0203239 A1 September 14, 2006

REJECTION
Claims 1–19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as unpatentable over
Syassen in view of Powell.
OPINION
Appellant argues only independent claims 1 and 12 (see Appeal Br.
Brief filed January 7, 2019, hereinafter “Appeal Br.,” 7–8). Accordingly, we
select claim 1 as representative and decide this appeal based on its rejection
over Syassen in view of Powell.
The Examiner finds that Syassen discloses an additive manufacturing
system comprising each of the claimed limitations, except for the following:
(a) the consolidated raw material powder generates a gas byproduct
corresponding to a contaminant in the raw material powder, (b) the detection
system is configured to detect the second gas byproduct and differentiate the
second gas byproduct from the first gas byproduct to identify at least one
aspect of contamination of the raw material powder in the build chamber; (c)
the powder contamination detection system is a real-time powder
contamination detection system, and the real-time powder contamination
detection system in communication with an atmosphere in the build chamber
Appeal 2019-006412
Application 14/785,915

4
and (d) a sample port (Final Act. 6–7, citing Syassen FIG. 1, and ¶¶ 1, 13,
45–47, and 51). The Examiner then determines that:
[I]n the same field of endeavor, real-time gas sampling
and spectral analysis, Powell et al. teach that semiconductor
manufacturing has adopted various telemetry techniques
utilizing mass spectrometry or spectrographic analysis to
improve the cleaning, conditioning or operation of reaction
chambers . . . , and Reaction chambers that operate at pressures
significantly below atmospheric pressure can be monitored for
contamination with ambient or atmospheric gases.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would consider
that the system would necessitate the detection of the raw
powder material contamination, and it would be obvious to one
of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the
claimed invention to modify the system of Syassen with the
teachings of Powell et al. so that the skilled artisan would
configure the gas detection system of Syassen to detect and
analyze a second gas byproduct corresponding to at least one
contaminant in the raw material powder in order to improve the
cleaning, conditioning or operation of reaction chambers. One
would appreciate that the system of the combination is capable
of differentiating the second gas byproduct from the first gas
byproduct to identify at least one aspect of contamination of the
raw material powder in the build chamber from analyzing the
gas byproducts.
As to (c), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention
to consider that the apparatus of Syassen is capable of
detecting/controlling the gas atmosphere in the build chamber
since Syassen teaches that the control is practiced at least
during each of the laser or particle beam irradiation steps, so
that the skilled artisan would operate the powder contamination
detection system in real-time for the purpose of
detecting/controlling the gas atmosphere in real time in order to
reduce the defect of the object.
As to (d), it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in
the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify
the system of Syassen so that the skilled artisan would make the
Appeal 2019-006412
Application 14/785,915

5
detector outside the build chamber connected by a sample port
to the build chamber in order to take a sample gas from the
build chamber and detect the gas composition, also it would be
obvious since it has been held that the change in form or shape,
without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious
engineering design.

(id. at 8–9, citations omitted).
Appellant argues that Syassen does not provide an indication of how
contamination of the raw material affects the process, and that Syassen does
not suggest any way to recognize or remediate localized contamination of
the raw material powder from the storage chamber (Appeal Br. 7).
Appellant further argues that Syassen is concerned with how the atmosphere
in the build chamber might affect the object being built, but not possible
contamination in the raw material powder (id.).
This argument is not persuasive, essentially for the reasons articulated
by the Examiner at pages 3–4 of the Answer. In particular, while Syassen
might specifically be measuring the composition of the atmosphere in the
build chamber, the rejection is premised on a combination of the teachings
of Syassen and Powell, as set forth in the rejection. That is, a person of skill
in the art would have configured the gas detection system of Syassen as
suggested by Powell to detect and analyze a second gas byproduct
corresponding to at least one contaminant in the raw material powder in
order to improve the cleaning, conditioning or operation of reaction
chambers. Powell explicitly states that the gas that it samples and measures
“may be representative of material supplied to the reaction chamber” (i.e. the
raw material powder) (Powell, ¶ 18).
Appeal 2019-006412
Application 14/785,915

6
Appellant further argues that neither Syassen nor Powell disclose “the
location or extent of raw material contamination” (Appeal Br. 8). However,
as noted above, Powell specifically notes that the material gas may be
representative of raw material contamination, and thus would necessarily
disclose the extent of raw material contamination. Thus, contrary to
Appellant’s argument, Powell specifically indicates that its analysis can be
used to measure raw material contamination.
Accordingly, we determine that Appellant has not demonstrated
reversible error in the rejection.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35 U.S.C.
§
Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed
1–19 103 Syassen, Powell 1–19

TIME PERIOD FOR RESPONSE
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED