Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Note that the claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus are viewed as recitation of intended use and are given little patentable weight (Please see MPEP 2114 R1-2115 R2 for further details).
Claims 25, 71, 74-80, 82, 87, and 90-96 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over of Dave et al. (US 2016/0199911 A1, hereinafter Dave), O’Neill (US 2014/0186205 A1, hereinafter O’Neill) in view of Nevarez et al. (US 2017/0225198 A1, hereinafter Nevarez), Cox (US 2006/0214335 A1, hereinafter Cox), Swartz et al. (US 2018/0264732 A1, hereinafter Swartz), Heugel et al. (US 2010/0192806 A1, hereinafter Heugel), and Crear et al. (US 2017/0232552 A1, hereinafter Crear).
Regarding Claims 25, 71, 74-80, 82, 87, and 90-96, Dave teaches in [0073]-[0088] a conceptual framework for metal powder reuse in additive manufacturing comprising in-process verification using in-process sensor amounts that determines if a level of contamination is above an acceptable level, and either reuses the material if acceptable or flags the material (i.e. discards the material) if not acceptable.
From there, though not explicitly taught by Dave, Dave would thus suggest that to a person having ordinary skill and ingenuity in the art, it would follow clearly that to implement the system of in-process verification, there would need to be a chamber that accepts the metal powder (necessary to have a place for verification), characterizes it based the amount of contamination (part of the verification process), and controls the destination of either acceptable or unacceptable product based on that that result (necessary for the decision of reusing or flagging the product). Furthermore, while not explicitly recited in Dave, but per common sense and has been previously established on the record, it is well-known that when diverting material to one of two destinations, ports that selectively open to the each of the two destinations depending on the controller results is a way to accomplish such diversion, and thus it would have been obvious to install such ports dedicated to reusing and re-routing the powder based on the level of contamination detected as desired by Dave, particularly since this one of a limited number of finite and predictable ways one could separate material into two portions based on acceptability and thus be obvious to try.
However, if one is not persuaded by the common sense of the above implications, the following previously-cited references confirm that such aspects are known in the art:
In analogous art pertaining to metal recycling, O’Neill teaches a reconditioning apparatus for a powder-bed fusion system that comprises a reducing chamber 28 that accepts a metal powder 24, and therefore it would have been obvious to include a reducing chamber that accepts Dave’s metal powder.
While O’Neill envisions further steps to ensure the reconditioned powder is appropriate for re-use (see [0019] that allows for sieving and other further steps to ensure suitability), O’Neill and Dave are silent on a specific checking system as claimed.
In analogous art pertaining to metal recycling, Nevarez teaches in [0073] that in addition to sieving, when recycling used powder, the powder can also be checked for contamination to ensure it is suitable for reuse.
In analogous art pertaining to metal recycling, Cox teaches in Figure 5 that one method of handling powder for recycling is to send suitable material to one storage bin, and unsuitable material to another to segregate the good from the bad.
In analogous art pertaining to metal recycling, Swartz teaches in [0053] that a known way to operate multiple streams of powder is to have a controller determine which path needs to be open and closed to allow material to flow to the intended destination.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to check for contamination per Nevarez and, further per Cox and Swartz, control the system so contaminated material is segregated in a separate bin from suitable material.
As Cox shows a material stream having two exit points in bins 264 and 266, a person having ordinary skill and ingenuity in the art would have been motivated to include similar bifurcating paths in this combination to transport material to different bins, with one of the obvious design choices being two ports toward the end of the chamber – one port for each bin – so that contaminated material could be directed to one bin and suitable material to the other, with the appropriate ports being opened and closed to control flow per Swartz.
However, while the previous combination is silent on an appropriate environment for the process and also on teaching basing the recycling decision on flowability, Heugel in analogous art pertaining to recycling 3D printing material teaches in [0068] that an inert atmosphere is advantageous atmosphere for such high reactive powder material and further teaches a more specific scheme for recycling metal powder that evaluates for flowability as in [0048] and [0068], and for contamination more generally as in [0044] and [0064], including per [0068] providing inert air to the chamber (of which argon is an obvious variant) to minimize powder reactivity (also thereby establishing/suggesting an environmental system decreasing exposure to two substances that change a material property of the metal powder, for instance oxygen and water), and the chamber can also be suctioned (at least implying a vacuum pump that can create a vacuum environment) in order to obtain powder for printing with desired characteristics, and thus it would have been obvious to include a scheme evaluating flowability and contamination in the previous combination as a characteristic for recycling per Heugel, and to include a chamber that can be vacuumed and filled with inert gas (and thus capable of injecting an inert gas that is heavier than air into the chamber so that air remains in the chamber above the inert gas) to protect against powder degradation.
However, the previous combination is silent on there being a vent that allows air displaced in the chamber by the environmental system to be vented into environment surrounding the chamber.
In analogous art pertaining to recycling 3D print material, Crear teaches in [0037] that when introducing gas into a chamber, it is known to allow gas to escape, and thus it would have been obvious to include a vent as claimed in order to allow gas to escape as needed upon the introduction of inert air.
Claims 26-28, 81 (as applied to Claim 25 above) and Claims 83-85 and 97 (as applied to Claim 82 above) are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dave, O’Neill, Nevarez, Cox, Swartz, Heugel, and Crear, and further in view of Miserlis (US 6,117,207 A, hereinafter Miserlis).
Regarding Claims 26-28, 81, 83-85, and 87, the previous combination teaches the method and apparatus as applied above, but is silent on metal atomizers as a way to recover the powder routed away from immediate reuse.
In analogous art pertaining to additive manufacturing, Miserlis teaches that a method for powder recovery is a metal atomizer 16, at least implying a vacuum furnace that heats metal powder.
Therefore, given the desire to reuse as much powder as possible, it would have been obvious to use a metal atomizer and vacuum furnace that heats the metal powder to recover the rerouted powder that the previous combination does not immediately reuse by attaching a metal atomizer as a decontamination component to the rerouted powder port to reclaim that powder, and to heat recycled bad parts into the liquid metal for reclamation.
Claims 29 and 86 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dave, , O’Neill, Nevarez, Cox, Swartz, Heugel, and Crear as applied to Claim 25 and 82 above, respectively, and further in view of Williams et al. (WO 2018/022046 A1, hereinafter Williams, and wherein the citations below reference the equivalent PGPUB of US 2019/0134897 A).
Regarding Claims 29 and 86, the previous combination teaches the method and apparatus as applied above, but is silent on controlled remixing as a way to reuse the rerouted powder.
In analogous art pertaining to additive manufacturing, Williams teaches throughout the whole document (see for instance [0038]-[0039] mixing new powder with recycled powder]) supplying powder through a mixing apparatus that determines the proper ratio of powder that would otherwise not be acceptable to use to blend with new metal powder so that the otherwise-unusable powder can be used.
Therefore, given the desire to reuse as much powder as possible and Dave’s desire for in-process solutions, it would have been obvious to use a ratio blender per Williams incorporated in the previous combination’s system as a second chamber so that the otherwise-unusable powder can be used.
Claims 130-131 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dave, O’Neill, Nevarez, Cox, Swartz, Heugel, and Crear as applied to Claim 25 above, and further in view of Hajek (US 5,092,267 A, hereinafter Hajek).
Regarding Claim 130, the previous combination teaches the apparatus as applied above, but is silent with respect to air locks and vents at the chamber.
In analogous art pertaining to powder recovery, Hajek teaches a known powder transport configuration in Column 3 Line 66 – Column 4 Line 13 and the Figures wherein an air-lock 54 and vent 56 configured to allow a powder collection chamber to be sealed off from powder transport/handling sections and accessed while maintaining the environment in the powder transport and the handling section, and alternately vented outside the chamber.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to incorporate an air-lock and vent in the previous combination as claimed, as such a combination would be a combination of known elements to achieve the predictable result of a sealed chamber, consistent with the previous combination’s motivation to seal off sensitive material with inert gas.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed February 18, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The examiner has re-applied the references that had been previously applied to address Applicant’s complaints about what should be considered common sense or common knowledge. Applicant may now argue that too many references have been applied. However, In response to applicant's potential argument that the examiner has combined an excessive number of references, reliance on a large number of references in a rejection does not, without more, weigh against the obviousness of the claimed invention. See In re Gorman, 933 F.2d 982, 18 USPQ2d 1885 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
Additionally, the Examiner maintains that Heugel’s disclosure of an inert atmosphere being advantageous would motivate providing a means to provide such atmosphere to the necessary chamber, means that would broadly be characterized as an environmental system comprising an inert gas system capable of injecting an inert gas that is heavier than air into the chamber. Applicant’s arguments do not attempt to explain why this would not be an obvious conclusion to the suggestion that inert atmosphere be used.
Finally, Crear is simply teaching a basic physics point that ventilation is a way to let unwanted gas escape, and thus the Examiner maintains such a basic point could readily and obviously be applied to a combination that supplies an inert gas and whose goal would be to replace an existing gas with that inert gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights