General Electric Company

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardAug 23, 2021

2020005005 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 23, 2021)

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. 15/390,055 12/23/2016 Andrew J. Martin 315948-US-1/GE3D-451 9264 122218 7590 08/23/2021 Dority & Manning, P.A. and GEC-Aviation Post Office Box 1449 Greenville, SC 29602-1449 EXAMINER JONES, JEREMY CONRAD ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1734 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 08/23/2021 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): oc.prosecution@ge.com usdocketing@dority-manning.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE ____________ BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD ____________ Ex parte ANDREW J. MARTIN, MACKENZIE RYAN REDDING, and JUSTIN MAMRAK Appeal 2020-005005 Application 15/390,055 Technology Center 1700 ____________ Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, GEORGIANNA W. BRADEN, and DEBRA L. DENNETT, Administrative Patent Judges. SMITH, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant1 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1–26. 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 General Electric Company. Appeal Br. 3. Appeal 2020-005005 Application 15/390,055 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE Appellant’s invention relates generally to methods for avoiding interference of an energy beam with an emissions plume in additive manufacturing. Spec. ¶ 1. Independent claim 1 is representative of the appealed subject matter and is reproduced below: 1. A method of controlling an additive manufacturing process in which one or more energy beams are used to selectively fuse a powder contained in a build chamber having a gas flow therein in order to form a workpiece, in the presence of one or more plumes generated by interaction of the one or more energy beams with the powder, the method comprising controlling a trajectory of at least one of the plumes, so as to prevent the one or more energy beams from intersecting the one or more plumes. Appeal Br. 18 (Claims App’x). Appeal 2020-005005 Application 15/390,055 3 The following Examiner rejections are presented for our review2: I. Claims 1, 7–14, and 20–26 stand provisionally rejected by the Examiner on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1–3, 8–16, and 21–27 of copending Application No. 15/389,986. Final Act. 2–3. II. Claims 11 and 14 stand rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) as indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter of the invention. Final Act. 3–4. III. Claims 1–4, 6–9, 12–17, 19, 20, 22, and 24–26 stand rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Meidani (US Publication No. 2018/0185961 A1, pub. July 5, 2018).3 Ans. 5–9, Final Act. 11–15. IV. Claims 5, 8, 18, and 21 stand rejected by the Examiner under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as obvious over Meidani in view of Murphree (US Publication No. 2018/0126650 A1, pub. May 10, 2018). Ans. 9–10, Final Act. 15–16. 2 The Examiner has withdrawn the rejection of claims 10 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. § 101; the rejection of claims 11 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(d); the rejection of claims 1–3, 6, 7, 9–16, 19, 20, and 22–26 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Weisner; and the rejection of claims 4, 5, 8, 17, 18, and 21 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Weisner in view of Murphree. Ans. 10. 3 The Examiner entered a new anticipation rejection in the Answer for these claims that were subject to an obviousness rejection in the Final Action. Appeal 2020-005005 Application 15/390,055 4 OPINION Rejections on the Ground of Nonstatutory Double Patenting The Examiner maintains the provisional rejection of claims 1, 7–14, and 20–26 on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as unpatentable over claims 1–3, 8–16, and 21–27 of copending Application No. 15/389,986. Appellant has not identified any reversible error in the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejections. See generally Appeal and Reply Briefs. Therefore, we summarily affirm the Examiner’s obviousness-type double patenting rejection.4 Indefiniteness Claims 11 and 24 The Examiner determines that the claim language of claims 11 and 24 appears to contradict the language of parent independent claims 1 and 14. The Examiner determines one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the term “prevent” of claims 1 and 14 to mean completely preventing an intersection; however, claims 11 and 24 recite that “an intersection of the energy beam with one or more of the plumes is not predicted prior to the intersection occurring.” Final Act. 4; Claims 11, 24. Appellant argues: 4 Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) § 1205.02 (9th ed. Mar. 2014, Rev. November 2015) (“If a ground of rejection stated by the examiner is not addressed in the appellant’s brief, appellant has waived any challenge to that ground of rejection and the Board may summarily sustain it, unless the examiner subsequently withdrew the rejection in the examiner’s answer.”). See 37 C.F.R. § 41.39(a)(1). Appeal 2020-005005 Application 15/390,055 5 [T]he term “prevent” as used in claim 1 refers not only to the act of completely preventing an intersection in the first instance, such that it never occurs, but also to preventing an intersection from continuing once it has initially occurred. This is consistent with the specification. See, for example, paragraph [0047] which states “[a]lternatively, the build beam 56 could be steered away from its nominal path only when an actual intersection has been detected.” With regard to “predicted”, the potential occurrence of an intersection, or stated another way, the time and location of a future potential intersection, may be predicted through some combination of computer modeling and sensing, as described in the present specification. See, for example, paragraphs [0041] and [0042]. Claim 11 is simply saying that the intersection that occurred was not predicted prior to the intersection. Thus, claim 11 is consistent with claim 1. Appeal Br. 9–10. In determining whether a claim is unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b), we look to whether those skilled in the art at the time of the invention would have understood what is claimed when the claim is read in light of the specification. Orthokinetics, Inc. v. Safety Travel Chairs, Inc., 806 F.2d 1565, 1576 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The Specification describes the problem addressed by the described additive manufacturing process is to prevent or avoid interaction between the energy beam and the plume. Spec. ¶ 6. The Specification describes the blockage of the build (energy) beam and/or reduced beam intensity are exemplary detrimental effects that occur when one of the beams intersects a plume. Spec. ¶ 39. The portions of the Specification identified by Appellant do not support the argument that the term “prevent” as used by the claimed invention allows intersection of the energy beam and the plume. Appeal 2020-005005 Application 15/390,055 6 Consequently, in light of the Specification, we find that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that term “prevent” as used in independent claims 1 and 14 refers to completely prevent the one or more energy beams from intersecting the one or more plumes. As a result, the limitation appearing in dependent claims 11 and 14 requiring the intersection of the energy beam and one or more plumes occur is precluded by the language of the independent claims. Accordingly, we sustain the rejection. Prior Art Rejections We have reviewed the arguments for patentability Appellant provides in the Appeal and Reply Briefs as well as what the Examiner provides in the Final Action and the Answer. Based on the foregoing, we affirm the Examiner’s rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(2) and § 103 essentially for reasons the Examiner presents. We add the following for emphasis. Appellant’s arguments focus on the subject matter of independent claim 1 and Appellant relies on these arguments to address the rejections of the remaining claims. See Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 2–4. We, therefore, limit our discussion to independent claim 1. The Examiner finds Meidani teaches a method of controlling an additive manufacturing process that includes controlling and varying the shielding gas flow vector during a processing cycle, or while the processing location is advanced along a processing trajectory. Ans. 5; Meidani ¶ 59. The Examiner finds Meidani also teaches the shielding gas blows the plume away from the laser beam so the laser beam will not or only negligibly be affected by the plume. Ans. 5; Meidani ¶ 60. The Examiner finds Meidani Appeal 2020-005005 Application 15/390,055 7 teaches controlling a trajectory of at least one of the plumes as required by the claimed invention because the shielding gas controls and blows the plume away from the path of the energy beam. Ans. 5. Appellant argues Meidani does not control the trajectory of plumes because Meidani uses a shielding gas flow to blow fumes or other process- by-products over already solidified material (purging). Appeal Br. 15–16; Reply Br. 3. Appellant then argues that in the claimed invention, controlling a trajectory of at least one of the plumes, would require actively exerting influence on the plumes. Reply Br. 3, citing Spec. ¶¶ 49–58. Appellant further argues the blowing of a gas over a solidified object is not controlling the trajectory. We do not find Appellant’s arguments persuasive of reversible error in the Examiner’s anticipation and obviousness determinations. Meidani teaches the detrimental effects—less laser power researching the processing location—that result when a plume interacts with the laser beam. Meidani ¶ 54. To avoid this interaction, Meidani uses a shielding gas to actively control the trajectory of the plume that is formed from the high powered laser. The technique of Meidani, which utilizes the introduction of gas flow to divert the generated plume, is similar to what is described by the present invention in the Specification. Spec. ¶ 52. Appellant has not explained adequately how the technique described in the present Specification is patentably distinct from the technique described by Meidani. A person of ordinary skill in the art following the teachings of Meidani would have been practicing the claimed invention and would have recognized the need to prevent interaction between the energy beam and the plume. Appeal 2020-005005 Application 15/390,055 8 Accordingly, we sustain the appealed prior art rejections of claims 1– 9, 12–22, and 24–26 for the reasons the Examiner presents and for those we provide above. 5 CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 7–14, 20–26 Provisional Nonstatutory Double Patenting 15/389,986 1, 7–14, 20–26 11, 24 112(b) Indefiniteness 11, 24 1–4, 6–9, 12–17, 19, 20, 22, 24– 26 102(a)(2)/103 Meidani 1–4, 6–9, 12–17, 19, 20, 22, 24– 26 5, 8, 18, 21 103 Meidani, Murphree 5, 8, 18, 21 Overall Outcome 1–26 No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1). AFFIRMED 5 In the event of further prosecution, the Examiner should consider including claims 10 and 23 in the prior art rejection. The object of Meidani is to utilize the shielding gas to direct the plume away from interacting with the laser beam. To achieve this objective one must predict possible intersections between the plume and the beam so as to determine the appropriate direction to direct the plume.