DETAILED ACTION
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/28/2026 has been entered.
Election/Restrictions
Newly submitted claims 16-25 are directed to inventions that lack unity with the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: with respect to the originally claimed and elected invention, the new claims lack unity of invention because even though the inventions of these groups require the technical feature of a configuration to simultaneously translate and rotate a roller at a first translational speed and with a first tangential speed of rotation greater than the first translational speed to spread build material on a surface in a layer, and then simultaneously translate and rotate the roller at a second translational speed and with a second tangential speed of rotation less than the second translation speed to compact the layer of build material on the surface, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of Teulet, US 20120164322 A1, in view of Kimura et al., WO 2020044522 A1, and Meyer et al. (2017), Influence of the ratio between the translation and contra-rotating coating mechanism on different laser sintering materials and their packing density (references of record). Teulet, Kimura, and Meyer render obvious the shared technical feature as set forth in the previous Office Action (Final Rejection dated 01/02/2026, pp. 3-9).
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 Accordingly, claims 16-25 are withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a nonelected invention.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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-6, and 16-25 are currently pending. Claim 7 and 9-15 are canceled. Claims 16-25 are newly added and are withdrawn.
Claim objections are withdrawn.
Claim rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn. New grounds of rejection are necessitated by claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim(s) 1 is/are objected to because of the following informalities: amended claim 1 should recite “non-transitory” with “memory,” consistent with the filed specification ([0012]).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The examined claims are interpreted as corresponding to an apparatus.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Teulet, US 20120164322 A1, in view of Cheng, US 20200047286 A1, Kimura et al., WO 2020044522 A1, and Meyer et al. (2017), Influence of the ratio between the translation and contra-rotating coating mechanism on different laser sintering materials and their packing density (references of record). Copies of Meyer and the Kimura translation provided 09/13/2023 are referenced below.
Regarding claim 1, Teulet discloses a system for a 3D printer (Abstract, [0001]-[0002], [0081]), comprising:
A roller (roller 1, Figs. 1-2, [0038]);
A controlled ([0060]) configuration to control the roller to deposit a layer of unfused build material from which a corresponding layer of an object is to be additively manufactured by the 3D printer (powder deposited by the roller in Figs. 6-7), on top of an existing layer that includes unfused build material (the process being repeated such that spreading is performed on an existing layer, [0022]-[0030]) via a two-pass process (two passes of the roller 1 shown between Figs. 6-7 and Figs. 9-10) comprising:
In a first pass (Figs. 6-7), spreading the layer of unfused build material powder on the existing layer via simultaneously translating and rotating the roller (Figs. 6-7, [0062]-[0064]) at a first translational speed in a first direction and with a first tangential speed of rotation (Figs. 6-7, [0062]-[0064]), where the roller rotates in a counter-rotating direction relative to the first direction (Figs. 6-7, see rotation direction indicated by arrow F1); and
In a second pass (Figs. 9-10), compacting the layer of unfused build material powder that has already been spread on the existing layer in the first pass by simultaneously translating and rotating the roller at a second translational speed in a second direction (Figs. 9-10, [0073]-[0074], depicted embodiment showing the second direction being the same as the first) and with a second tangential speed of rotation (Figs. 9-10, [0073]-[0074]), where the roller rotates in a counter-rotating direction relative to the second direction (Figs. 9-10).
Teulet discloses the operations to simultaneously translate and rotate the roller over the surface in the first pass in the first direction (Figs. 6-7), and then simultaneously translate and rotate the roller over the surface in the second pass in the second direction (Figs. 9-10). As indicated above, in the depicted embodiment, the second direction is the same as the first direction (F5), and therefore not opposite the first direction in which the roller passed to spread the unfused powder and not while returning from the first direction of the first pass. However, Teulet additionally teaches that depending on a type of powder used, compaction can be performed during roller movement along the opposite direction (F7, [0079], see Fig. 8), in a return pass from the first direction (Fig. 8). Furthermore, it was generally known in the art to sequentially operate rollers used for successive powder layer forming/processing in opposite directions across a powder bed (reciprocating motion, see also Kimura, Figs. 3-5). This would be done for predictable gains in efficiency by avoiding having to return the roller back to its original starting position each time before performing a subsequent working pass over a layer and having to raise/lower the build platform to accommodate the non-working return movement.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to perform the second pass in the second direction which was opposite the first direction and while returning in order to perform or start the compacting during the return motion of the roller, as taught by Teulet. Doing so would have been reasonably expected to provide improvements in efficiency by eliminating the need to return the roller to an initial position without working on the powder prior to each operating pass.
Regarding the counter-rotation during compaction, Teulet discloses the compaction step is performed using a counter-rotating roller (see Figs. 9-10), as set forth above. Therefore, while Fig. 8 shows the opposite roller rotation direction relative to the travel direction when the roller is returned without compacting ([0070]-[0072]), it would have been expected that with the modification taught by Teulet above to instead perform compacting during this movement, the roller rotation direction would have been correspondingly switched. Teulet discloses the roller can be rotated in either direction ([0039]). Therefore, in the case it was not necessarily present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to further ensure during the compaction step with the second direction being opposite the first direction that the roller still operated in a counter-rotating direction relative to the travel direction (the second direction) in order to successfully perform compaction as depicted by Teulet.
Teulet discloses control is performed to manage the movements of the device ([0060]) but is silent as to a processor and a memory storing instructions that when executed by the processor cause the processor to control the roller to perform the operations set forth above; however, such control structure is typical in modern 3D printing systems as taught by analogous prior art Cheng. Cheng discloses an additive manufacturing system with roller speed control (Abstract) in which a processor and memory storing instructions are employed to control the various systems of the 3D printer including roller speed control ([0047]-[0048]). In the case it was not necessarily present, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify the 3D printer of Teulet include a processor and memory storing instructions for controlling the roller in order to aid in operation and control of the system as taught by Cheng in an automated manner. Note also that automating a manual activity which accomplishes the same result is generally not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art (MPEP 2144.04(III)).
Regarding a ratio between tangential and translational speeds, Teulet discloses the tangential speed being synchronized with the linear speed of the roller in a range of synchronization ratios that can vary from -100 to 0 and from 0 to 100, depending on the physiochemical nature of the powder material and the desired thickness of the layer ([0048], [0051]). Teulet’s disclosed ratios encompass tangential speeds greater than and less than the relative translational speeds, and the reference teaches that preferred ratios would have been expected to depend on a given material worked on by the apparatus and the extent of the desired effect ([0048], [0051]).
While Teulet describes the speed ratios fully encompassing both conditions (tangential speed of rotation being greater than and/or less than translational speed), Teulet does not specifically require that the first tangential speed of rotation is greater than the first translational speed for the first pass/spreading step and the second tangential speed of rotation is less than the second translational speed for the second pass/compacting step. It is noted that for each action of spreading and compacting, within the conditions described by Teulet, the respective tangential speed can only be greater than, less than, or equal to the respective translational speed, such that there are a finite number of options for the relative speed configuration during the two passes.
In the analogous art of powder bed fusion ([0001]), Kimura describes optimizing translational and tangential speeds of a recoater roller used for depositing a layer of powder material (i.e., spreading) in order to achieve a more uniform powder layer with improved material properties ([0003], [0007], [0027]-[0030]). Kimura teaches that setting the tangential speed of rotation for the recoater roller greater than the respective translational speed leads to smaller surface irregularities and better layer quality ([0032], [0035]-[0036], Figs. 8-9) and improved tensile properties ([0042]-[0043], Fig. 12).
Accordingly, from the options of greater than / less than / or equal to as set forth by Teulet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select, for the spreading step, the first tangential speed of rotation to be greater than the first translational speed, in order to realize the effects of reduced surface irregularities, improved layer quality, and improved tensile properties during the powder layer deposition, as taught by Kimura.
Additionally, in the analogous art (Abstract), Meyer describes adjusting roller tangential speed of rotation (variable contra-rotating speed, or vrot) at constant translational speeds (constant vtrans) for 3D laser sintering and specifically the corresponding effects on packing density, or compaction (Introduction, pp. 1432-1433; Methods, see first two paragraphs of p. 1433, where vrot + vtrans = vres). Meyer discloses a strong influence of the ratio between translation and rotation speeds on packing density (Conclusion, p. 1445) and teaches that higher packing density can be achieved by adjustment of the ratio between translational and rotational speed (Conclusion, p. 1445), where higher compression levels are generally achieved at lower relative rotational (tangential) speeds (“it can be concluded that the values of the packing densities are an inverse result of the contra rotating speeds,” achieved “by changing the ratio between translation and contra rotation,” and “it is generally valid that lower vres speeds [i.e., lower relative vrot as the variable being adjusted] result in higher packing densities and higher speeds [i.e., higher relative vrot] result in lower densities,” pp. 1438-1439; “the lower speed effects a higher compression on the powder material and leads the powder particles to reorder in a more compact way,” p. 1443; “the results point out, that lower resulting speeds [i.e., lower relative vrot] lead to higher packing densities, p. 1444) for common materials used in commercial machines such as polyamides (pp. 1439, 1443-1445).
Accordingly, from the available options of greater than / less than / or equal to as set forth by Teulet, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to additionally select, for the compacting step, the second tangential speed of rotation to be less than the second translational speed, in order to achieve higher compression levels and improved surfaces during the powder compacting, as taught by Meyer.
Regarding the deposited layer being a layer “from which a corresponding layer of a colored, non-monochromatic object is to be additively manufactured,” the examiner notes that no additional process step is specifically required as part of the claim. Similarly, regarding the “existing layer” (i.e., existing prior to the claimed steps) having been treated with a liquid color agent, there is no actual treating step recited and therefore there is also no additional process step specifically required. Regarding the intended effect of spreading “without disturbing the unfused build material treated with the liquid color agent in the existing layer, by not compacting the layer of unfused build material powder during spreading” which is achieved “via simultaneously translating and rotating…” the prior art as set forth above addresses the positively recited step directed to the simultaneous translation and rotating of the roller. As such, the intended effect, as also recited in the associated last wherein clause, is expected to be met by performing the same step. Note that a "whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited" (MPEP 2111.04(I), with respect to “wherein” and “whereby” clauses). As such, regarding the last two “wherein” clauses directed to an ordinary/conventional process as opposed to the claimed process and the corresponding effects, the prior art as set forth above addresses the claimed steps of simultaneously translating and rotating the roller with the relative speeds in the first and second passes. The recited effect does not reflect any new/additional process step such that the clause does not add patentability.
Regarding claim 2, modified Teulet discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Teulet further discloses the second translational speed being the same as the first translational speed (translation speed during compacting may be equal to speed during spreading movements [0073]).
Regarding claim 3, modified Teulet discloses the limitations of claim 1, wherein the two-pass process provides deposition of the layer of unfused build material powder on the existing layer (Teulet: depositing a layer in Figs. 6-7) without disturbing the unfused build material treated with the liquid color agent in the existing layer (see claim 1 above) by dividing spreading and compacting that ordinarily occur in a single pass into two passes instead, with the first pass for spreading and the second pass for compacting (Teulet: spreading and compacting occur in two separate passes, see Figs. 6-7 and 9-10).
Regarding claim 5, modified Teulet discloses the limitations of claim 1. As noted above, Teulet describes suitable speed ratios encompassing the claimed ratio ranges ([0048]), but does not require each claimed ratio range specifically for the respective step. In an example, Teulet describes the relative roller speeds having a ratio of 1 ([0049]-[0051]).
Note that, in view of paras. [0026]-[0027] of the filed specification and claim 1, “the range of less than 1.0 to 0.7” is interpreted to mean the range from a value of less than 1.0 to a value of 0.7, and “the range of greater than 1.0 to 2.0” is interpreted to mean the range from a value of greater than 1.0 to a value of 2.0.
Kimura, as applied to claim 1 regarding the respective spreading speeds, teaches tangential speeds of rotation higher than translational speeds are preferable for the spreading, i.e., the first translational speed being lower than the first tangential speed, or a corresponding value of the ratio between the first translational and first tangential speed being less than 1. Kimura further discloses a ratio between the tangential speed and the translational speed of 1.0 and 2.4 to achieve the described beneficial effects (corresponding to a ratio between the first translational speed and the first tangential speed [inverse] of approximately 1.0 to 0.4) ([0043], Figs. 8-9, 12). Kimura describes further benefits can be achieved by narrowing the ratio further to 1.7 to 2.4 (approximately 0.6 to 0.4) ([0044]), indicating improved effects toward lower values of the range.
The claimed range of a ratio between the first translational speed and the first tangential speed of rotation being less than 1.0 to 0.7 overlaps and lies inside the range disclosed by the prior art of 1.0 to 0.4. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, in view of Kimura, to specify this ratio being in the range of less than 1.0 to 0.7 in order to achieve the described beneficial effects on surface quality and tensile properties with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Kimura.
Furthermore, Meyer, as applied to claim 1 regarding the respective compacting speeds, teaches tangential speeds of rotation lower than translational speeds are preferable for the compacting, i.e., the second translational speed being higher than the second tangential speed, or a corresponding value of the ratio between the second translational and second tangential speed being greater than 1. In the testing described, packing is increased by progressively reducing the tangential speed of rotation vrot from a starting speed of 106 mm/s (translational speed 127 mm/s, ratio of approximately 1.2). Meyer describes achieving progressively higher packing densities by lowering the tangential speed of rotation in steps, to a minimum value beyond which negative effects associated with instability could be seen (p. 1438, Fig. 6). The minimum stable value in testing of vres = 153 mm/s (translational speed 127 mm/s, rotational speed of 26 mm/s) corresponds to a ratio of approximately 4.9, and Meyer describes that optimized ratios can be determined through testing and based on the material being used (pp. 1439, 1445). As set forth above, Meyer describes that compression generally increases as the ratio of translational to tangential speed increases, while the ratio can reach a maximum stable value that should generally be avoided, and optimum ratios for different materials and process conditions can be determined by testing.
The claimed range of a ratio between the second translational speed and the second tangential speed of rotation being greater than 1.0 to 2.0 overlaps or lies inside the range disclosed by Meyer of approximately 1.2 to 4.9 for successfully achieving greater compaction. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP 2144.05 (I). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to specify this ratio being in the range of greater than 1.0 to 2.0, at least the overlapping portion of 1.2 to 2.0, in order to achieve the beneficial effects of improved compaction with a reasonable expectation of success, as taught by Meyer.
Regarding claim 6, modified Teulet discloses the limitations of claim 1, and Teulet further discloses the roller is translatable along an axis of translation that is the same for both passes (Figs. 6-11).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/28/2026 with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (p. 11-12) that the applied combination of Teulet, Kimura, and Meyer does not teach the amended claim language directed to the two-pass process that divides the spreading and compacting that ordinarily occur in a single pass into two passes, with the first for spreading and the second for compacting, and that the relative tangential speeds of rotation are not mere design choice. Applicant argues (p. 12) that the office action finds Kimura to teach having the tangential speed of rotation greater than the translational speed in the first pass to reduce surface irregularities and have better layer quality, while the amended claim language recites spreading without disturbing unfused build material treated with liquid color agent in the existing layer. Applicant argues (p. 12) that Kimura does not have the relative speed for the same reason, and Kimura at best is enabling technology for the first pass of the amended claim language and in combination with Teulet and Meyer does not deprecate the amended claim language regarding the second pass. Applicant argues (p. 12) similarly that Meyer at best is enabling technology for the second pass of the amended claim language and in combination with Teulet and Kimura does not deprecate the amended claim language.
These arguments are not found persuasive against the combination. The combination as applied involves a two-step spreading-then-compacting process wherein the relative speeds are selected as claimed in order to achieve taught advantages. Applicant argues that the specification of relative speeds in the present claim achieves a different advantage via substantially the same process steps. A prima facie obviousness case is not rebutted merely by recognizing additional advantages present but not recognized in the prior art. "The fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious." Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Applicant argues (p. 13) that neither Teulet, Kimura, or Meyer pertains to a two-pass process where the first pass concerns spreading the layer without disturbing unfused build material treated with liquid color agent in the existing layer and the second pass concerns only then compacting the layer that has been spread in the first pass (and not disturbing the unfused layer with the liquid color agent). Applicant again states that (pp. 13-14) Kimura and Meyer describe different reasons for selecting the tangential/translational speed ratios.
These arguments are not found persuasive primarily for the reasons provided above. Applicant’s arguments are directed to an intended effect (not disturbing existing powder, not compacting during spreading) achieved via the positively recited process steps that are performed, but the actual parameters of the specific steps (spreading using a first translational/tangential speed ratio, then compacting using a second speed ratio) are the same. The combination as applied does disclose a two-pass process for spreading and the compacting (a spreading pass and then a separate compacting pass being disclosed by Teulet). Teulet discloses the tangential/translational speed ratios being selected from a range encompassing the claimed ratios. Kimura provides a teaching to reach the claimed tangential/translational speed relationship during a spreading pass to achieve advantageous effects. Similarly, Meyer teaches the claimed tangential/translational speed relationship during a compacting pass to achieve advantageous effects. The recitation of an additional advantage associated with following the suggestion of the prior art does not add patentability to an invention otherwise shown as obvious over the prior art. Note also that a whereby clause in a method claim is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result of a process step positively recited (MPEP 2111.04, the present claim is an apparatus claim but the argued limitations are process steps reflected by the control configuration).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm ET.
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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights