Sciperio, Inc

Patent Trials and Appeals BoardMay 28, 2021

2020003880 (P.T.A.B. May. 28, 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. 15/711,968 09/21/2017 Kenneth H. Church Sciperio-P0008 2932 133690 7590 05/28/2021 Goodhue, Coleman & Owens, P.C. 12951 University Ave Suite 201 Clive, IA 50325 EXAMINER MILLER, JR, JOSEPH ALBERT ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER 1715 NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE 05/28/2021 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): USPTO@dockettrak.com docketing@goodhue.com eofficeaction@appcoll.com PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07) UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD Ex parte KENNETH H. CHURCH, PAUL DEFFENBAUGH, CASEY PERKOWSKI, CHARLES MICHAEL NEWTON, and SAMUEL LEBLANC Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 Technology Center 1700 Before JEFFREY T. SMITH, JENNIFER R. GUPTA, and SHELDON M. MCGEE, Administrative Patent Judges. GUPTA, Administrative Patent Judge. DECISION ON APPEAL1 1 In this Decision, we refer to the Specification filed September 21, 2017; the Final Office Action dated October 24, 2019 (“Final Act.”); the Appeal Brief filed January 30, 2020 (“Appeal Br.”); the Examiner’s Answer dated February 28, 2020 (“Ans.”); and the Reply Brief filed April 28, 2020 (“Reply Br.”). Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 2 Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 134(a), Appellant2 appeals from the Examiner’s decision to reject claims 1, 2, 4–14, 16–18, and 21–25.3 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b). We AFFIRM IN PART. CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER The claims are directed to a method and system for manufacturing an object using selective laser sintering and fused deposition of materials. Spec. 1, ll. 10–13. Independent claims 1 and 24, reproduced below with emphasis to highlight a key disputed limitation, are illustrative of the claimed subject matter: 1. A method of additive manufacturing of an object comprising: extruding material using an extruder to form a layer of the object; directing laser energy from a laser to a region for material deposition, the region for material deposition being located on the layer of the object; further extruding additional material using the extruder at the region of material deposition; sensing temperature within the region of the material deposition; 2 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 Sciperio, Inc. Appeal Br. 4. 3 Claim 20 was canceled in the Amendment filed September 6, 2019, 8. We note that claims 21–23 improperly depend from canceled claim 20. See Appeal Br. 31–32 (Claims App.) Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 3 electronically controlling the laser energy using the temperature so as to sufficiently heat the region for material deposition prior to extruding the material; and actively cooling the additional material. Appeal Br. 29 (Claims App.) (with formatting added). 24. A system for additive manufacturing of an object, comprising: an extruder for extruding a material onto a surface of a previously extruded layer of the material in order to build the object layer by layer; a laser for directing laser energy onto the surface of the previously extruded layer of the material; a heat detector for sensing temperature at the surface; a cooling unit; a control system operatively connected to the extruder, the heat detector, the cooling unit and the laser; wherein the control system is configured to control the directing of the laser energy onto the surface of the previously extruded layer of the material based on the temperature at the surface sensed using the heat detector to heat a region of the surface prior to extruding the material onto the surface and to control the cooling of the material using the cooling unit. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.) (with formatting and emphasis added). REJECTIONS The Examiner maintains the following rejections on appeal (Ans. 3– 9): Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 4 Rejection 1: Claims 1, 2, 4–6, 12, 16, 21, and 23–254 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok,5 Naware,6 and Schenzle7 alone or in combination with Paternoster;8 Rejection 2: Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok, Naware, and Schenzle, alone or in combination with Paternoster, and Costin;9 Rejection 3: Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok, Naware, and Schenzle, alone or in combination with Paternoster, and Buller;10 Rejection 4: Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok, Naware, Schenzle, and Costin, alone or in combination with Paternoster, and Buller; Rejection 5: Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok, Naware, and Schenzle, alone or in combination with Paternoster, and Komatsu;11 Rejection 6: Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok, Naware, and Schenzle, alone or in combination with Paternoster, and Dietrich;12 4 As discussed above, claim 20, which is listed in the Examiner’s statement of the rejection (Final Act. 11), was canceled in the Amendment filed September 6, 2019, 8. Supra note 2. 5 Mok et al., US 2002/0129485 Al, published Sept. 19, 2002. 6 Naware, US 2016/0096326 Al, published Apr. 7, 2016 7 Schenzle et al., US 2015/0283749 Al, published Oct. 8, 2015. 8 Paternoster et al., US 2015/0202826 Al, published July 23, 2015. 9 Costin et al., US 2009/0266804 A1, published Oct. 29, 2009. 10 Buller et al., US 2015/0367415 A1, published Dec. 24, 2015. 11 Komatsu et al., US 2010/0148387 A1, published June 17, 2010. 12 Dietrich et al., US 2015/0048553 A1, published Feb. 19, 2015. Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 5 Rejection 7: Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok, Naware, and Schenzle, alone or in combination with Paternoster, and Dietrich and Komatsu; Rejection 8: Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok, Naware, and Schenzle, alone or in combination with Paternoster, and Philippi;13 and Rejection 9: Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 over Mok,14 Naware, and Schenzle, alone or in combination with Paternoster, and Napadensky.15 DISCUSSION We review the appealed rejections for error based upon the issues Appellant identifies, and in light of the arguments and evidence produced thereon. Cf. Ex parte Frye, 94 USPQ2d 1072, 1075 (BPAI 2010) (precedential) (cited with approval in In re Jung, 637 F.3d 1356, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (“[I]t has long been the Board’s practice to require an applicant to identify the alleged error in the examiner’s rejections”)). After review of the cited evidence in light of the Appellant’s and the Examiner’s opposing positions, we determine that the Appellant has not identified reversible error in the Examiner’s rejections except where otherwise explained below. Thus, where we affirm the Examiner’s 13 Philippi et al., US 2009/0152771 A1, published June 18, 2009. 14 Based on claim 22’s dependency, it appears the Examiner intended to also rely on Mok in this rejection. As such, we include Mok in the statement of the rejection. 15 Napadensky et al., US 2010/0191360 A1, published July 29, 2010. Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 6 rejections, we do so for the reasons expressed in the Final Office Action, the Answer, and below. Rejection 1 – Obviousness over Mok, Naware, and Schenzle alone or further in view of Paternoster Because Appellant’s argument focus on independent claims 1 and 24 (Appeal Br. 13–25), we do the same in our discussion below. Claim 1 The Examiner finds that Mok teaches a method for additive manufacturing an object that includes claim 1’s “extruding” and “directing laser energy” steps, but is silent regarding claim 1’s “sensing,” “electronically controlling” and “actively cooling” steps. Final Act. 2–3 (citing Mok ¶¶ 3–6, 136–137). Regarding the “sensing” and “actively cooling” steps, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have sensed the temperature within the region of the material deposition and actively cooled the deposited material based on Naware’s teaching of sensors that measure/control the temperature (heating and cooling) of a build plate to effectively heat and cool the fabricated article. See Final Act. 2–3 (citing Naware ¶ 32); see also Ans. 9–11 (citing Naware ¶¶ 7–9, 12–13). The Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have preheated the surface of the substrate before extrusion based on Schenzle’s teaching of using a laser for preheating a surface in a method of additive extrusion manufacturing. Final Act. 3 (citing Schenzle ¶ 29–30). Regarding the “electronically controlling” step, the Examiner finds that one of ordinary skill in the art would have electronically controlled Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 7 Mok’s laser for heating the region for material deposition based on Paternoster’s teaching that a control unit is “effective for controlling the powers of the lasers” used for manufacturing a three-dimensional object layer by layer. Final Act. 3 (citing Paternoster ¶ 21). Appellant argues that Naware teaches sensing a temperature of a region of a heated/cooled build plate, but fails to teach “sensing a temperature within the deposition region” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 13. Appellant argues that because claim 1 recites “the region for material deposition being located on the layer of the object,” the claim excludes the region for material deposition from being on a surface of a build plate. Id. Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. As Appellant correctly points out, Naware teaches sensors housed in temperature control modules in the build plate. Naware ¶ 32. Naware teaches an article is fabricated on the build plates, and as the Examiner finds, Naware teaches the temperature controlled build plates allow “portions of the article to be selectively cooled or heated.” Id. ¶ 13. By sensing the temperature at the build plate, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that Naware’s sensors would also sense the temperature of the article. Appellant argues that Naware teaches cooling a region of a build plate and not “cooling the additional material” which, as defined by claim 1, is on a previously extruded layer. Appeal Br. 14. Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. As Appellant admits, Naware teaches cooling the build plate. Naware ¶ 32. By cooling the build plate that the additional material is being added to, one of ordinary skill in the art would have Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 8 understood that heat will transfer through the object and result in “active cooling” of the additional material. See Ans. 11–12. Appellant argues that Mok’s disclosure regarding laser cladding does not teach “extruding material using an extruder to form a layer of the object[,] directing laser energy from a laser to a region for material deposition, the region for material deposition being located on the layer of the object” as recited in claim 1. Appeal Br. 17. Appellant argues that claim 1’s laser heats an already created layer of the object whereas in Mok, the laser heats powder to create a layer of the object. Id. at 19. Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Mok discloses a process of making a three- dimensional metal object that includes dispensing powder-form metal build material using a powder extruder and performing laser cladding. Mok ¶¶ 136–137. Mok’s disclosure supports the Examiner’s finding that Mok teaches “extruding material using an extruder to form a layer of the object[, and] directing laser energy from a laser to a region for material deposition” as required by claim 1. Appellant argues further that one skilled in the art would not have been led to combine Schenzle with Mok because they are directed towards different methodologies—Schenzle is directed to coating an existing object, such as a metallic or plastic part, whereas Mok is directed to building an object layer by layer with powder. Appeal Br. 19. Regardless of the teachings of Schenzle, Mok teaches applying heat in the form of a laser. Mok ¶ 117. Thus, Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 9 Appellant argues that Paternoster does not teach the step of “electronically controlling the laser energy using the temperature so as to sufficiently heat the region for material deposition prior to extruding the material.” Appeal Br. 23. Appellant’s argument does not identify reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection because Appellant is attacking the references individually when the rejection is based upon a combination of prior art disclosures. In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 426 (CCPA 1981) (“[O]ne cannot show non-obviousness by attacking references individually where, as here, the rejections are based on combinations of references”). The Examiner relies upon Paternoster only for teaching of an electronic control/feedback loop to control the laser of Mok. Final Act. 3 (citing Paternoster ¶ 21). The Examiner finds that Mok already teaches a laser to heat the material. Mok ¶¶ 136–137. Appellant does not argue that one of ordinary skill in the art would not have been capable of controlling Mok’s laser and temperature sensors based on Paternoster’s teachings. Because Appellant’s arguments do not identify reversible error, we sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 1, 2, 4–6, 12, 16, 21, and 23 over Mok, Naware, Schenzle, and Paternoster. Claims 24 and 25 Claim 24 is directed to a system for additive manufacturing an object where the system requires, among other things, a control system is configured to the directing of the laser energy onto the surface of the previously extruded layer of the material based on the temperature at the surface sensed using the heat detector to heat a region of the Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 10 surface prior to extruding the material onto the surface and to control the cooling of the material using the cooling unit. Appeal Br. 32 (Claims App.). The Examiner finds that “all elements of the system and control system are taught per the . . . combined teachings” discussed with respect to claim 1. Final Act. 4. Appellant argues that the Examiner failed to establish a prima facie case of obviousness because the Applicant is left to guess as to how the references are being applied and the rationale for combining specific elements from specific references. Appeal Br. 24. The Examiner responds in the Answer that “[t]he claimed controller steps are the same as those claimed in the process, and therefore are fully addressed – the only missing piece in the claim rejection being an explicit statement that Mok teaches a control system to control the claimed (and taught) elements.” Ans. 16. The Examiner finds that Mok teaches the use of a control system (Mok ¶¶ 7, 21, 67–69, 78, 79) and fully explains the computer control system and its specific use in a solid free-form fabrication (SFF) system (id. ¶¶ 93–110). Appellant argues in the Reply Brief that claim 24’s controller system is not identical to the controlling step in claim 1’s process. Appeal Br. 30. Appellant’s argument identifies reversible error in the Examiner’s rejection. The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that the meaning of the phrase “configured to” generally means “made to,” “adapted to,” and “designed to,” though it can be used more broadly to mean “capable of” or “suitable for.” In re Man Mach. Interface Techs. LLC, 822 F.3d 1282, 1286 (Fed. Cir. Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 11 2016) (citing In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1379 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (quoting Aspex Eyewear, Inc. v. Marchon Eyewear, Inc., 672 F.3d 1335, 1349 (Fed.Cir.2012) (referencing dictionaries)). Based on our review of the Specification (e.g., Spec. 7, Fig.1), we determine that a person skilled in the art would understand that claim 24’s “control system” is specially designed or programmed to accomplish the specific purpose recited in the “configured” clause of claim 24—“to control the directing of the laser energy onto the surface of the previously extruded layer of the material based on the temperature at the surface sensed using the heat detector to heat a region of the surface prior to extruding the material onto the surface and to control the cooling of the material using the cooling unit.” Consistent with our claim interpretation above, to establish a prima facie case of obviousness with respect to claim 24, Mok’s control system must be designed to control the directing of the laser energy onto the surface of the previously extruded layer of the material based on the temperature at the surface sensed using the heat detector to heat a region of the surface prior to extruding the material and to control the cooling of the material using the cooling unit. The Examiner finds that Naware, not Mok, teaches control of the temperature during additive manufacturing, i.e., sensing the temperature within the region of material deposition and actively cooling the material. Final Act. 2–3; Ans. 16. Indeed, the Examiner acknowledges that Mok does not teach sensing a temperature within the deposition region, preheating the region for deposition, or electronically controlling the laser energy using the temperature. Final Act. 2. Thus, Mok’s disclosure identified by the Examiner is insufficient to establish that Mok’s control system is Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 12 “configured to control the directing of the laser energy . . . to heat a region of the surface prior to extruding the material onto the surface and to control the cooling of the material using the cooling unit” as recited in claim 24. For the reasons above, we do not sustain the Examiner’s § 103 rejection of claims 24 and 25. Rejections 2–9 – Obviousness over Mok, Naware, Schenzle, alone or further in view of Paternoter, and other references Appellant does not present substantive patentability arguments addressing the separate § 103 rejections of claims 7, 8–11, 13, 14, 17, 18, and 22. Appeal Br. 25–27. Thus, we summarily sustain the rejections of those claims. CONCLUSION In summary: Claim(s) Rejected 35 U.S.C. § Reference(s)/Basis Affirmed Reversed 1, 2, 4–6, 12, 16, 21, 23–25 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Paternoster 1, 2, 4–6, 12, 16, 21, 23 24, 25 7 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Paternoster, Costin 7 8, 10 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Paternoster, Buller 8, 10 9 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Costin, Paternoster, Buller 9 11 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Paternoster, Komatsu 11 Appeal 2020-003880 Application 15/711,968 13 13 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Paternoster, Dietrich 13 14 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Paternoster, Dietrich, Komatsu 14 17, 18 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Paternoster, Philippi 17, 18 22 103 Mok, Naware, Schenzle, Paternoster, Napadensky 22 Overall Outcome 1, 2, 4–14, 16–18, 21– 23 24, 25 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 IN PART