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 .
Response to Amendment
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 9-15 are currently pending. Claims 7 and 9-14 remain withdrawn.
Claim objections are withdrawn.
Prior art rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103 are updated in response to claim amendments.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 has been amended such that it is repetitive and circular in its language (particularly the clause beginning “wherein the roller spreads…”). The claim is generally able to be understood but is difficult to read and follow due to the repetition of limitations having essentially the same scope such that the lack of conciseness of the language is objected to. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The specification defines “a roller” to mean one or more rollers, and “the roller” to mean the one or more rollers, unless “single” is recited. See [0034]. Therefore, “a roller” and “the roller” in the claims (except for claim 3 reciting “the roller is a single roller”) is interpreted to encompass one or more rollers.
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, 5-6, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over 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). 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]) in a configuration of the 3D printer system (is part of the system and thus in a configuration of the system) to spread and compact unfused build material powder on a surface (roller 1 being used to spread and compact unfused build material powder 14 on a surface is shown in Figs. 5-11); and
A controller operatively connected to the roller (servo-control device [0060]) and programmed to:
Spread unfused build material powder on the surface in a layer by simultaneously translating and rotating the roller over the surface (Figs. 6-7, [0062]-[0064]) in a first pass at a first translational speed in a first direction and with a first tangential speed of rotation in the first direction (Figs. 6-7, [0062]-[0064]), wherein the roller rotates in a counter-rotating direction relative to the first direction (Figs. 6-7, see rotation direction indicated by arrow F1) and is in contact with the unfused build material powder on the surface (Fig. 7); and then
Compact the layer of unfused build material powder on the surface by simultaneously translating and rotating the roller over the surface including the unfused build material powder in a second pass 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 in the second direction (Figs. 9-10, [0073]-[0074]), wherein the roller rotates in a counter-rotating direction relative to the second direction (Figs. 9-10) and is in contact with the unfused build material powder on the surface (Fig. 10);
Wherein the roller spreads unfused build material powder on the surface by simultaneously translating and rotating in the first pass in the first direction and compacts unfused build material powder on the surface by simultaneously translating and rotating in the second pass in the second direction (steps set forth above) based on the 3D printer being configured with the roller in the configuration of the 3D printer system being a single roller to spread and compact the unfused build material powder and based on the roller spreading the unfused build material powder by translating and rotating in the first pass in the first direction (Teulet discloses the roller is a single roller 1 performing both the spreading and the compacting, Figs. 1-2 and 6-10, thus the operations performed by the roller are based on it being a single roller, and the roller spreads by translating/rotating in the first pass in the first direction as set forth above).
Teulet does not explicitly state that the first and second translational speeds are equal to or greater than 43 cm/s. However, Teulet discloses the first translational speed being generally between 0.05 m/s and 1 m/s ([0055]), corresponding to 5 cm/s to 100 cm/s, a speed range significantly overlapping the claimed range. Teulet teaches the first and second translational speeds being the same ([0073]). 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). In this case, Teulet’s teaching of 5 cm/s to 100 cm/s for the analogous first translational speed, with the second translational speed being the same as the first, results in the claimed range of equal to or greater than 43 cm/s overlapping the range disclosed by Teulet. As such, 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 Teulet, to specify the first and second translational speeds are equal to or greater than 43 cm/s, at least up to 100 cm/s, in order to implement a known suitable speed for the corresponding operational parameter with a reasonable expectation of success.
Teulet discloses the controller is programmed 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.
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]). 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.
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 spreading step and the second tangential speed of rotation is less than the second translational speed for the compacting step. It is noted that for each action of spreading and compacting, 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 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, and Teulet further discloses the roller is a single roller (roller 1, Figs. 1-11) and the controller is programmed to perform the steps of claim 1 in the first pass for spreading (Figs. 6-7) and in the second pass for compacting (Figs. 8-10, [0079], see claim 1).
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 3, and Teulet further discloses the roller is translatable along an axis and the axis of translation is the same for both passes (Figs. 6-11).
Regarding claim 15, it is first noted that the layer of build material is material worked upon by the claimed system (apparatus), and the limitation directed to a value of the layer thickness does not expressly require or imply any particular structure in addition to the addressed structural limitations. A limitation directed to the layer of powder made by the system during its use does not, without more, make the claim patentable. See MPEP 2115. Nevertheless, it is additionally noted that Teulet discloses the layer thickness is minimally about 5 µm, and that the thickness can be greater than 10 µm ([0064]). The claimed layer thickness amount of about 80 µm lies inside the prior art range of greater than 10 µm. As such, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05 (I). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to specify the layer thickness being about 80 µm in specifying a generally expected layer thickness typical in powder bed fusion, as suggested by Teulet. The obviousness conclusion is additionally supported by Kimura, which evidences a layer thickness of about 80 µm to 120 µm was standard ([0020]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/16/2025 with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues (p. 10) that Teulet does not teach the roller spreading the powder in a first direction and compacting the powder while traveling in a second direction opposite to the first direction based on the number of rollers being used and based on the roller spreading the powder by translating and rotating in the first pass in the first direction that is opposite the second direction. Applicant acknowledges (p. 10) that Teulet teaches that it is also possible to spread and/or compact the powder in the second direction. Applicant notes (p. 11) the statement in the Office Action that it is generally well known in the art to operate rollers sequentially in opposite/reciprocating movements, a statement which was evidenced by Kimura. Applicant argues that Kimura does not teach this feature. Applicant also argues (p. 11) that Meyer does not teach this limitation.
These arguments have been considered but are not found persuasive. The arguments do not address that the Office Action relied on Teulet for teaching the operations being in opposite directions. Teulet has been applied for teaching the compacting being performed in the second/opposite/return direction. As apparently acknowledged by Applicant, Teulet teaches that the compacting can be performed in the second/opposite/return direction ([0079]). Accordingly, Teulet teaches this limitation and Kimura was referenced as additional support for the well-known feature of operating powder working rollers in back and forth directions. Meyer was not relied upon for this feature. Teulet additionally discloses the roller being configured as a single roller as set forth above.
As set forth in the prior rejection and response to arguments, Teulet specifically teaches that the compacting step can be performed in the return direction (along F7, [0079], direction shown in Fig. 8), which is opposite the first direction (along F5), and doing so would have been predictably beneficial in terms of obviating an additional return travel step for the roller where the roller does not operate on the powder. Accordingly, Teulet teaches this feature in line with the claim requirements, and thus an obviousness statement was provided based on this teaching. The action further noted that it is well known in the art to sequentially operate a powder-processing roller in opposite directions across a powder bed, and Kimura does evidence that fact. Kimura was not applied for teaching the compaction being performed in the opposite direction, because this limitation is taught by Teulet.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
/SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754