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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/26/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16-19 are directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claims 16-19 are directed to a method and lack unity of invention. The original claims and the new claims (Groups I (claims 8-9, 12-13) and Group II (claims 16-19)) lack unity of invention because even though the group requires the technical feature of piloting a supply volume containing build material to supply a predetermined quantity of the build material to the build material spreader; causing the build material spreader to form the layer of build material on the build area; causing a camera disposed above the printing chamber to capture an image of a layer of overflow build material in a region adjacent to the build area subsequent to formation of the layer of the build material, wherein a portion of the image includes a side of the layer of overflow build material; determining a surface area of an overflow portion of the layer of overflow build material by processing the portion of the image that includes the side of the layer of overflow build material; based on the determined surface area, calculating a volume of excess build material in the overflow portion by multiplying the surface area by a predetermined height; calibrating an adjusted quantity of the build material to be subsequently supplied by the supply volume for a subsequent layer, based on the predetermined quantity of the build material and the calculated volume of excess build material, to reduce excess build material in the subsequent layer; and piloting the supply volume to supply the adjusted quantity of the build material to the build material spreader, wherein determining the surface area of the overflow portion comprises: representing an outline corresponding to the side of the layer of overflow build material as first and second lines and a parabola; dividing an area of the region adjacent to the build area, delimited by an edge of the region and the outline, into a first area above the first line along an axis, a second area above the parabola along the axis, and a third area above the second line along the axis; and calculating the surface area as a sum of the first, second, and third areas. The current prior arts, Jowkar (US2021/0291457 A1) in view of Nault (US2021/0402478 A1) teach these limitations.
Jowkar et al discloses an additive manufacturing device (abstract) comprising:
A supply volume (121) to contain build material [0050];
A print chamber (013) including a build area (031);
A build material spreader (011) that is movable within the print chamber (figure 6);
A camera (015) disposed above the printing chamber to capture an image of a layer of overflow build material [0056] in a region adjacent to the build area, wherein a portion of the image includes a side of the layer of overflow build material (the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function);
A processor (controller [0072]); an
A memory storing instructions ([0055]) that when executed by the processor (when executed by the processor, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities), cause the processor to perform processing to calibrate an amount of build material needed to form a layer of build material to be spread over the build area, wherein the processing comprises:
Piloting the supply volume to supply a predetermined quantity of the build material to the build material spreader [0051];
Causing the build material spreader to form the layer of build material on the build area [0051];
Causing the camera to capture the image of the layer of overflow build material in the region adjacent to the build area subsequent to the formation of the layer of the build material [0051];
determining a surface area of an overflow portion of the layer of overflow build material by processing the portion of the image that includes the side of the layer of overflow build material ( Jowkar discloses utilizing the detector to calculate an amount, volume or area of excess building mater in the excess zone [0037]. One ordinary skill in the art would recognize if the volume and height is known, one can easily calculate surface area. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007);
based on the determined surface area, calculating a volume of excess build material in the overflow portion by multiplying the surface area by a predetermined height (Jowkar already discloses calculating volume with the predetermined height [0037];
calibrating an adjusted quantity of the build material to be subsequently supplied by the supply volume for a subsequent layer, based on the predetermined quantity of the build material and the calculated volume of excess build material, to reduce excess build material in the subsequent layer [0042];
and piloting the supply volume to supply the adjusted quantity of the build material to the build material spreader wherein determining the surface area of the overflow portion comprises representing an outline corresponding to the side of the layer of overflow build material [00401]
Jowkar does not explicitly disclose as first and second lines and a parabola; dividing an area of the region adjacent to the build area, delimited by an edge 90 of the region and the outline, into a first area above the first line along an axis, a second area above the parabola along the axis, and a third area above the second line along the axis; and calculating the surface area as a sum of the first, second, and third areas.
However, it is commonly well known for one ordinary skilled in the art to use integrals to calculate surface areas. Nault discloses using integral calculus calculations in order to determine volume per unit surface area [0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated as first and second lines and a parabola; dividing an area of the region adjacent to the build area, delimited by an edge 90 of the region and the outline, into a first area above the first line along an axis, a second area above the parabola along the axis, and a third area above the second line along the axis; and calculating the surface area as a sum of the first, second, and third areas as taught by Nault, since using integrals to calculate surface area is within he skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claims 16-19 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jowkar (US2021/0291457 A1) in view of Nault (US2021/0402478 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Jowkar et al discloses an additive manufacturing device (abstract) comprising:
A supply volume (121) to contain build material [0050];
A print chamber (013) including a build area (031);
A build material spreader (011) that is movable within the print chamber (figure 6);
A camera (015) disposed above the printing chamber to capture an image of a layer of overflow build material [0056] in a region adjacent to the build area, wherein a portion of the image includes a side of the layer of overflow build material (the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as MPEP 2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function);
A processor (controller [0072]); an
A memory storing instructions ([0055]) that when executed by the processor, cause the processor to perform processing to calibrate an amount of build material needed to form a layer of build material to be spread over the build area, wherein the processing comprises:
Piloting the supply volume to supply a predetermined quantity of the build material to the build material spreader [0051];
Causing the build material spreader to form the layer of build material on the build area [0051];
Causing the camera to capture the image of the layer of overflow build material in the region adjacent to the build area subsequent to the formation of the layer of the build material [0051];
determining a surface area of an overflow portion of the layer of overflow build material by processing the portion of the image that includes the side of the layer of overflow build material (Jowkar discloses utilizing the detector to calculate an amount, volume or area of excess building mater in the excess zone [0037]. One ordinary skill in the art would recognize if the volume and height is known, one can easily calculate surface area. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007);
based on the determined surface area, calculating a volume of excess build material in the overflow portion by multiplying the surface area by a predetermined height (Jowkar already discloses calculating volume with the predetermined height [0037];
calibrating an adjusted quantity of the build material to be subsequently supplied by the supply volume for a subsequent layer, based on the predetermined quantity of the build material and the calculated volume of excess build material, to reduce excess build material in the subsequent layer [0042];
and piloting the supply volume to supply the adjusted quantity of the build material to the build material spreader wherein determining the surface area of the overflow portion comprises representing an outline corresponding to the side of the layer of overflow build material [00401]
Jowkar does not explicitly disclose as first and second lines and a parabola; dividing an area of the region adjacent to the build area, delimited by an edge 90 of the region and the outline, into a first area above the first line along an axis, a second area above the parabola along the axis, and a third area above the second line along the axis; and calculating the surface area as a sum of the first, second, and third areas.
However, it is commonly well known for one ordinary skilled in the art to use integrals to calculate surface areas. Nault discloses using integral calculus calculations in order to determine volume per unit surface area [0055]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated as first and second lines and a parabola; dividing an area of the region adjacent to the build area, delimited by an edge 90 of the region and the outline, into a first area above the first line along an axis, a second area above the parabola along the axis, and a third area above the second line along the axis; and calculating the surface area as a sum of the first, second, and third areas as taught by Nault, since using integrals to calculate surface area is within he skillset of one ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jowkar (US2021/0291457 A1) in view of Nault (US2021/0402478 A1) as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Hayashi (US 20200391439 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Jowkar does not explicitly disclose the build material spreading apparatus of wherein the supply volume includes a first supply chamber and a second supply chamber, the second supply chamber being opposite to the first supply chamber with respect to a platform, the spreader roller being movable between the first and second supply chambers. However, analogous build material spreading apparatus, Hayashi, depicts the supply volume includes a first supply chamber (34 on the left side) and a second supply chamber (34 on the right side), the second supply chamber being opposite to the first supply chamber with respect to a platform (31), the spreader roller (33) being movable between the first and second supply chambers [0033-0034]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the supply volume includes a first supply chamber and a second supply chamber, the second supply chamber being opposite to the first supply chamber with respect to a platform, the spreader roller being movable between the first and second supply chambers, as taught by Hayashi, into the apparatus taught by the combination of Jowkar for the benefit of feeding amount of the powder can be controlled with high accuracy [0024].
Regarding claim 12, Jowkar is silent to first overflow chamber opposite to the platform with respect to the first supply chamber, a second overflow chamber opposite to the platform with respect to the second supply chamber, the camera having a field of view encompassing a first region located between the platform and the first overflow chamber and a second region located between the platform and the second overflow chamber. However, Hayashi depicts first overflow chamber (38) opposite to the platform with respect to the first supply chamber, a second overflow chamber opposite to the platform with respect to the second supply chamber (38) for the benefit of collecting surplus powder [0048].
As for the claim limitation, the camera having a field of view encompassing a first region located between the platform and the first overflow chamber and a second region located between the platform and the second overflow chamber, Hayashi teaches the camera can be used encompass a first region located between the platform and the first overflow chamber and a second region located between the platform and the second overflow chamber [0068]. Further the Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jowkar (US2021/0291457 A1) in view of Nault (US2021/0402478 A1) in view of Hayashi (US 20200391439 A1), as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Buller (US20170355146 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Jowkar teaches wherein the controller is to estimate the quantity of the build material in excess [0037]. As for the quantity of the build in excess from an image of a side of the layer, the side being adjacent to the second supply chamber when the spreader roller moves from the first supply chamber to the second supply chamber, the side being adjacent to the first supply chamber when the spreader roller moves from the second supply chamber to the first chamber, Hayashi discloses first overflow chamber (38) opposite to the platform with respect to the first supply chamber, a second overflow chamber opposite to the platform with respect to the second supply chamber (38) for the benefit of collecting surplus powder [0048].
Further analogous 3d printer art, Buller, discloses a camera that can be used “the image processing can be utilized to adjust a target level of the material bed according to which the leveling mechanism and/or material removal mechanism may level the exposed surface of the material bed” [0068]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the controller is to infer the quantity of the build material in excess from an image of a side of the layer, the side being adjacent to the second supply chamber when the spreader roller moves from the first supply chamber to the second supply chamber the side being adjacent to the first supply chamber when the spreader moves from the second supply chamber to the first supply chamber, as taught by the combination of Jowkar for the benefit of benefit of feeding amount of the powder can be controlled with high accuracy [Hayashi 0024] and for the benefit of collecting surplus powder [Buller 0048].
Response to Arguments
Applicants’ arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Ederer (US2022/0184886 A1)
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights