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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments/remarks filed on 02/12/2026 have been fully considered.
With respect to 112(a) rejections, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections with the exception of the limitation “wherein the powder drive system drives the first powder in contact with the support surface in a second direction having a first component opposite the first direction and a second component opposite the powder bed”.
According to Applicant, support for the amendment is found in [0059] of Applicant’s specification. Examiner respectfully disagrees. [0059] of Applicant’s specification reads:
PNG
media_image1.png
110
656
media_image1.png
Greyscale
[0059] clearly describes that the backward component is along the first direction, and therefore, the backward component is in the same direction as the first direction 201. Additionally, Fig. 1 shows that the backward component 201 is in the same direction as the first direction 101. Thus, Applicant’s disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claimed limitation. Thus, the 112a rejection is maintained. Examiner recommends Applicant to amend the specification and drawings to clearly label the claimed first direction, second direction, first component, and second component.
PNG
media_image2.png
311
482
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Furthermore, Applicant’s amendments introduced new 112a rejections set forth below.
With respect to 112(b) rejections, Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous rejections. However, Applicant’s amendments introduced new 112b rejections set forth below.
With respect to the claim rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. § 103, Applicant’s arguments are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection presented in this Office action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a first deposition device arranged to deposit … and a second deposition device arranged to deposit ..” in claim 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0151-0152] and Fig. 22 of Applicant’s published application.
“a powder drive system arranged to transport the powder in contact with the support surface towards an outlet” in claim 1 with the corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0109-0112] and Fig. 1 of Applicant’s published application.
“agglomerating system arranged to agglomerate at least one portion of the powder bed” in claim 12 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0046-0047] of Applicant’s published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Other Claim Interpretations:
The term “cutting line” has been interpreted below as described in at least [0015] and [0110] of Applicant’s published application.
The term “support surface” and guide has been interpreted below as described in at least [0016] and [0117] of Applicant’s published application.
The term “powders” has been interpretated below as described in [0050] of Applicant’s published application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-3, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 recites the newly added limitation “a guide forming, with the support surface, a powder-tight channel connected to an outlet” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. Applicant has not pointed out where the amended claim is supported, nor does there appear to be a written description of the claim limitation “a guide forming, with the support surface, a powder-tight channel connected to an outlet” in the application as filed. See MPEP §§ 2163.04 and 2163.06. Examiner recommends Applicant to explain how the specification has implicit/explicit support for the limitation.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the powder drive system drives the first powder in contact with the support surface in a second direction having a first component opposite the first direction and a second component opposite the powder bed” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. [0059] of Applicant’s specification clearly describes that the backward component of the second direction is in the same direction as the first direction. Additionally, Fig. 1 shows that the backward component 201 is in the same direction as the first direction 101. Thus, the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the claimed invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 2161.01 I, 2163.03 VI, and 2181 IV. Examiner recommends Applicant to amend the specification and drawings to clearly describe and label the claimed first direction, second direction, first component, and second component.
Claim(s) 2-3, 12, and 18 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a guide located at least partially opposite the support surface and arranged to channel at least one portion of the first and second powders” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. According to Applicant’s disclosure ([0021] of Applicant’s specification and Fig. 1), only one guide is provided per leveling system. According to Applicant’s disclosure ([0150-0159] of and Figs. 22-23a of Applicant’s published application), the guide of the leveling system 1a configured to channel/transport the first powder is NOT arranged to channel at least one portion of the first and second powders. . Examiner notes that Applicant is confusing the functions of two separate leveling systems 1a and 1b. Thus, the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the claimed invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 2161.01 I, 2163.03 VI, and 2181 IV.
Claims 3 and 18 recite the limitation “the powder drive system comprises a suction device arranged to suck at least one portion of the first and second powders in contact with the support surface towards the outlet” which fails to comply with the written description requirement. According to Applicant’s disclosure ([0150-0159] of and Figs. 22-23 of Applicant’s published application), the powder drive system comprising a suction device of the leveling system 1a configured to transport/suck the first powder is NOT arranged to suck at least one portion of the first and second powders. Examiner notes that Applicant is confusing the functions of two separate disclosed leveling systems 1a and 1b. Thus, the inventor has not provided sufficient disclosure to show possession of the claimed invention as required by 35 U.S.C. 112(a). See MPEP §§ 2161.01 I, 2163.03 VI, and 2181 IV.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-3, 12, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the powder drive system drives the first powder in contact with the support surface in a second direction having a first component opposite the first direction and a second component opposite the powder bed” which is indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s specification for the same reasons set forth in the 112a rejection above. [0059] of Applicant’s specification clearly describes that the backward component of the second direction is in the same direction as the first direction 201. Additionally, Fig. 1 shows that the backward component 201 is in the same direction as the first direction 101. See MPEP § 2173.03
Claim(s) 2-3, 12, and 18 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 1 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “a guide located at least partially opposite the support surface and arranged to channel at least one portion of the first and second powders” which is indefinite. Is the guide of claim 2 same or different from the guide of claim 1? The limitation also contradicts/broadens the limitation “drive system arranged to transport the first powder in contact with the support surface towards the outlet via the powder-tight channel” of claim 1. Is the guide arranged to channel/transport the first powder or a portion of both the first and second powders? According to Applicant’s disclosure ([0021] of Applicant’s specification and Fig. 1), only one guide is provided per leveling system. According to Applicant’s disclosure ([0150-0159] of and Figs. 22-23a of Applicant’s published application), the leveling system 1a configured to channel/transport the first powder is NOT arranged to channel at least one portion of the first and second powders. Thus, the limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Claims 3 and 18 recite the limitation “the powder drive system comprises a suction device arranged to suck at least one portion of the first and second powders in contact with the support surface towards the outlet” which is indefinite. The limitation contradicts/broadens the limitation “drive system arranged to transport the first powder in contact with the support surface towards the outlet via the powder-tight channel” of claim 1. Is the powder drive system arranged to transport/suck the first powder or a portion of both the first and second powders? According to Applicant’s disclosure ([0150-0159] of and Figs. 22-23a of Applicant’s published application), the powder drive system comprising a suction device of the leveling system 1a configured to transport/suck the first powder is NOT arranged to suck at least one portion of the first and second powders. Thus, the limitation is also indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-3, 12, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tenhouten (US 20180311769 – of record) in view of Okane (JP 2015196254 with English machine translation – of record) in view of Prakash (US 20200101663 – of record).
Regarding claim 1, Tenhouten discloses a system (P0001, Figs. 4A-B) comprising:
a first deposition device (413) arranged to deposit a first powder (416) at selected locations in an unmixed state and a second deposition device (415) arranged to deposit a second powder (417) at select locations in an unmixed state, so as to form a powder bed (403) comprising the first powder and the second powder, wherein the first powder and the second powder are of varying material compositions or particle sizes (P0057-0065, claims 4-5, Figs. 4A-C), and
a levelling system (leveler) for levelling the powder bed by levelling the first powder (P0062, Figs. 4A-C). However, Tenhouten fails to disclose the features of the claimed leveling system.
PNG
media_image3.png
479
606
media_image3.png
Greyscale
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing systems and solving the problem of improving levelling by preventing accumulation of surplus powder in the cutting device (pg. 3, pg. 6), Okane discloses a levelling system for levelling a powder bed (4), the levelling system comprising:
a cutting device comprising a cutting line (24a: Fig. 3) and a support surface (lower side of suction nozzle 41: Figs. 2-3), wherein the cutting line is … coupled to the support surface (24a is fixed/attached to the bottom side of suction nozzle 41: pg. 5, Fig. 3) and arranged to cut the powder bed so that the cut powder comes into contact with the support surface and does not return to the powder bed when the cutting device is displaced in a first direction relative to the powder bed (24a is arranged to cut/level the powder bed 4 so that the cut powder 31 comes into contact with the lower side of suction nozzle 41 and does not return to the powder bed 4 when the cutting device is displaced in a first annotated direction d1 relative to the powder bed: pg. 5, Figs. 2 and 4; Figs. 2-4 clearly show that the cut powder does not return to the powder bed 4),
a guide (upper side of suction nozzle 41: Figs. 2-3) forming, with the support surface, a powder-tight channel connected to an outlet (the upper and lower, i.e. opposite, sides of suction nozzle 41 are capable of forming powder-tight channel 41a connected to an outlet of the suction nozzle: Figs. 2-4; while Okane does not mention the term “powder-tight”, the internal channel of suction nozzles is inherently air-tight and powder-tight; furthermore, the opposite sides of suction nozzle 41 read on the claimed powder tight powder-tight channel in view of [0117] of Applicant’s published application),
PNG
media_image4.png
217
314
media_image4.png
Greyscale
a powder drive system (suction device 40) arranged to transport the powder in contact with the support surface towards the outlet via the powder-tight channel (41a) to prevent return of the cut powder to the powder bed (pg. 5, Figs. 2-4; Figs. 2-4 clearly show that the cut powder does not return to the powder bed 4), wherein the powder drive system drives the powder in contact with the support surface in a second direction having a first component opposite the first direction and a second component opposite the powder bed (40 is capable of driving the powder in contact with the bottom side of the suction nozzle 41 in a shown slanted direction inherently having a first component annotated as d2 opposite the first direction d1 and a second component annotated as d3 opposite the powder bed when the slanted direction/vector is divided into theoretical components: See annotated Fig. 4 below) for yielding the benefit(s) of improving levelling by preventing accumulation of surplus powder in the cutting device, surprising generation of irregularities in the layers of powder, and/or increasing speed (Abstract, pg. 2).
PNG
media_image5.png
479
640
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Tenhouten in view of Okane by replacing the levelling system of Tenhouten with the leveling system of Okane for yielding the predictable benefit(s) of improving leveling by capturing leveled/cut powder on a support surface and sucking/removing the captured/accumulated powder from the support surface, surprising generation of irregularities in the layers of powder, and/or increasing speed as suggested by Okane. See MPEP §§ 2143 I B, 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
The combination of Tenhouten in view of Okane, as applied above, differs from the claimed invention in that combination is silent about the type of coupling/attaching between the cutting line and the support surface.
However, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that mechanical coupling is one of the well-known and limited options to couple the cutting line and the support surface desirable to allow disassembly and replacement of the cutting line as it is expected that the cutting line wears off faster than the support surface. In fact, as evidenced by prior art of record (Schmidbauer or Herzog), the technique of mechanically coupling a cutting line to a support surface for the benefit(s) of enabling deflection of the cutting line and facilitating replacements is well-known in the art.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing systems, Prakash discloses the technique of mechanically coupling a cutting line (131) to a support surface (200) for the benefit(s) of enabling deflection and/or removability of the cutting line (P0057, 0059, Figs. 2B and 13).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to further have modified the system of the combination in view of Prakash by mechanical coupling the cutting line to the support surface for the benefit(s) of enabling deflection of the cutting line, allowing removability of the cutting line, and/or facilitating replacements as suggested by Prakash and ordinary knowledge in the art. See MPEP §§ 2143 I A, 2143 I C, 2143 I G, and/or 2144 II.
Regarding claim 2, Okane further discloses wherein the guide is located at least partially opposite the support surface and arranged to channel at least one portion of the powder into contact with the support surface as it travels towards the outlet (pg. 5, Figs. 3-4) for the benefit(s) of preventing accumulation in large quantities of excess powder material at the cutting line and support surface (pg. 6, Fig. 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 18, Okane further discloses wherein the powder drive system comprises a suction device (suction unit 42) arranged to suck at least one portion of the powders in contact with the support surface towards the outlet (pg. 5, Fig. 4).
Regarding claim 12, Tenhouten further discloses wherein the system is a three-dimensional printing system (P0001-0002, Figs. 4A-B) comprising an agglomerating means (409) arranged to agglomerate at least one portion of the powder bed after the powder bed has been levelled by the levelling system (P0060, claims 1 and 20, Figs. 4A-C).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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.
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Akira (JP 2016155337A – FOR of record) discloses a relevant system (Abstract and Figs. 1-4).
Masaya (JP 2018118442A – FOR of record) discloses a relevant system (Abstract and Fig. 5A).
Okane (WO 2015151834 with English machine translation – of record) discloses a relevant deposition device (22 + 42) capable of depositing a plurality of powders (16, 30) at selected locations and a relevant levelling system comprising a cutting device (36) with a cutting line (36a) and a support surface (36b), the cutting line arranged to cut the powder bed so that the cut powder comes into contact with the support surface when the cutting device is displaced in a first direction relative to the powder bed, and a powder drive mechanism (suction device 37) arranged so as to drive the powder in contact with the support surface towards an outlet (Abstract, Figs. 1-3, all pages of the English translation).
PNG
media_image6.png
355
577
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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 on 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.
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights