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
Status
This Office Action is responsive to the Amendments and Arguments filed 5 December 2025. As directed by applicant, Claims 1-4,7-11, 14, 15, and 18-20 have been amended. Claims 5, 6,12,13,16, and 17 are cancelled and no claims have been added. This is a Final Office Action.
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.
[Examiner’s Note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not teach that limitation].
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 8, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0243618) in view of Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0314389) and Retallick (U.S. Patent 5,658,412).
Regarding claim 1, Heugel discloses electron beam system for the additive manufacture of a workpiece, comprising:
a) a process chamber (Heugel, fig. 1) which can be evacuated;
b) an electron beam generator (21) which is set up in the process chamber directing an electron beam onto laterally different locations of a powder bed made of a powdery material to be processed; wherein
c) at least one prechamber (Heugel, 34, 45, 36)
d) at least one movable receiving device (Heugel, 5) for receiving the powder bed (Heugel, fig. 1, powder 11);
e) a transport device configured to exchange a first movable receiving device, which is initially located in the process chamber, for a second movable receiving device, which is located in the process chamber (¶0027, conveyor belt or the like”, ¶0034 demonstrates moving);
Heugel does not teach wherein the pre-chamber can be evacuated and which can be used during operation of the electron beam system, wherein the at least one prechamber, is continuously connected to the process chamber in a vacuum-tight manner via a sluice door, nor does it disclose “f) an elevator arranged within the at least one pre-chamber and configured to receive at least two movable receiving devices arranged vertically one above the other”.
Now, Heugel does teach that the stations can be gas tight (¶0026), However, Yamada in his additive manufacturing method, teaches a prechamber which can be evacuated and which can be used during operation of the electron beam system (Yamada, ¶0048, figs. 1,2,, “exhausting an atmosphere in the chamber 2”; shaping chamber 2, 52, fig. 3), is continuously connected to the process chamber in a vacuum-tight manner via a sluice door (Yamada, 56). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Heugel with the teachings of Yamada, to evacuate the pre- and processing chambers and have a door between them, in order to prepare the chambers for electron beam processing, and this would allow working with the powder bed in order to be ready to move that or another powder bed through the processing chambers in a state ready to be processed (i.e. in the evacuated state).
And while Heugel in view of Yamada teach all the limitations of the claims above, it still does not teach f) an elevator arranged within the at least one pre-chamber and configured to receive at least two movable receiving devices arranged vertically one above the other”.
Heugel does teach that neighboring modules may be in the “vertical direction” but he does not describe exactly how that is accomplished, but just states, “This alignment apparatus may for example contain spherical head centering, guides, stops and the like.” (Heugel, ¶0034)
However, Retallick teaches having the base go down (like an elevator) after completion of the completion of the 3-D object (fig. 1, movement 11, column 3 lines 39- 52). The advantage having a moving base to different levels would be to have the new object be moved to a place to cool and be removed (Retallick), or generally, to be moved to another chamber, a pre-chamber or post-processing chamber, as in Heugel, to create more product by moving the already made on of the way, getting another container ready, or preparing the newly made object for further processing. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Heugel in view of Yamada with the teachings of Retallick, to have an elevator to move a container and/or object vertically to allow space for another object, in order to have the new object be moved to a place to cool and be removed (Retallick), or generally, to be moved to another chamber, a pre-chamber or post-processing chamber, as in Heugel, to create more product by moving the already made on of the way, getting another container ready, or preparing the newly made object for further processing.
Regarding claim 2, Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an electron beam system wherein the at least one movable receiving device has a construction container (Heugel, fig. 1, with 7, receives the container) which is set up to receive the powder bed, and in which the workpiece can be produced additively (¶0046).
Regarding claim 3, Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further teaches an electron beam system wherein the at least one movable receiving device has a storage container (Heugel, 12) for the powdery material.
Regarding claim 4, Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches an electron beam system wherein the at least one movable receiving device has a powder application device (Heugel, 14) which is set up to remove the powdery material from the storage container to be transferred into the construction container in order to generate the powder bed there for the additive manufacture of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 8, Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches an electron beam system wherein a loading and unloading station (Heugel, 36) is connected to the at least one prechamber, via which the at least one movable receiving device is introduced into the electron beam system or can be removed from this (“this” is interpreted as being “the electron beam system” into which stuff can be introduced or from which stuff can be removed) .
Regarding claim 9, Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick teaches a method for additive manufacture of a workpiece comprising the following steps:
a) providing an electron beam system according to claim 1, (Heugel,¶¶0028, 0060, laser may be substituted for “electron beam”) ;
b) producing a first workpiece in the first movable receiving device by processing the powdery material in the powder bed by means of an electron beam in the process chamber (¶0028, pulverulent build material creates an object in replaceable container);
c) equipping the at least one prechamber with a second movable receiving device and then evacuating the prechamber (¶0034, all done simultaneously with a second replaceable container);
d) transporting the first movable receiving device from the at least one process chamber into the prechamber or into another prechamber (Heugel, fig. 2, ¶¶28-34);
e) transporting the second movable device from the prechamber into the process chamber (Heugel, ¶0034, “The replacement station 36 is configured for the replacement of replaceable containers 5. For example, a replaceable container 5 prepared in the setup station 35 is brought through the unpacking station 34 into the replacement station 36 while an object is being produced in another replaceable container in the manufacturing station 30. At the end of the production of the object, the filled replaceable container is brought from the manufacturing station 30 into the replacement station 36, and the empty replaceable container is brought from the replacement station 36 into the manufacturing station 30, so that the production of a new object can be started immediately. The full replaceable container is then brought into the unpacking station 34, in which the object is unpacked );
f) producing a second workpiece in the second movable receiving device by processing the powdery material in the powder bed by means of an electron beam in the process chamber (¶0034);
However, Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick does not teach
g) cooling of the first workpiece in the first movable receiving device in the prechamber.
However, Retallick does teach cooling of the first movable receiving device in a further chamber below the processing chamber (Retallick, fig. 1, element 15, column 3 lines 49-50, “required slow cool-down of the object occurs in removable container 15”) And while Heugel does not teach the same chamber for cooling, it does teach the possibility of having a cooling chamber (¶0037). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick, to have a second receiving container (5) being transported around the device, being prepared while the first one is being processed, and then being processed while the first one is being even cooled and unloaded, , in order to be more efficient in creating the layered objects (2) , and to have the receiving containers be moving around and being processed and cooling in order to create the most objects in the least amount of time, having them be processed at different chambers at the same time (see Chillscyzn, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0198228, ¶0087, fig. 4, for the efficiency of multiple stations and moving between the different station).
Regarding claim 10, Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick teaches all the limitations of claim 9, as above, but does not further teach a method comprising the step of:
a) removing the first movable device together with the workpiece from the at least one prechamber.
However, Heugel teaches removing the workpiece from the container in the prechamber (Heugel, ¶0028). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Heugel in view of Yamada, to remove the container with the workpiece out of the pre-chamber, in order to remove the container to continue to protect the workpiece, or to remove the container after manufacture of a workpiece to move the container out of the process for replacement or fixing, for instance.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0243618) in view of Yamada (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/ 0314389) and Retallick (U.S. Patent 5,658,412).and further in view of Milshtein (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/ 0291372)
Regarding claim 7, Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach an electron beam system wherein the at least one prechamber and/or the at least one receiving device has at least one temperature measuring device. Milshtein teaches, in his additive manufacturing method, “a system wherein the prechamber and/or the receiving device has at least one temperature measuring device (¶120, “sensor can detect the temperature of the pre-transformed and/or transformed material in the material bed”). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Heugel in view of Yamada and Retallick with the teachings of Milshtein, to have at least one temperature measuring device in the receiving device, in order to take a temperature of the object or powder bed to know when the object has been made or the powder has been melted to know how much more power to add in order to make the workpiece or before damaging the workpiece.
Claim(s) 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0243618) in view of DeMuth (U.S. Patent 10,583,484).
Regarding claim 11, Heugel discloses a system for the additive manufacture of a workpiece comprising:
a) a process chamber (Heugel, 30) which can preferably be evacuated;
b) a construction container (Heugel, 5) in which the workpiece can be produced;
c) a storage container (Heugel, 12) for powdery material;
d) a powder application device (14) configured to transfer the powdery material from the storage container into a powder bed in the construction container;
e) a beam generator (Heugel, 20, 21) configured to direct an energy beam onto laterally different locations of the powder bed in the process chamber; and
But Heugel does not disclose wherein f) at least one movable receiving device that comprises the construction container, the storage container, and the powder application device, wherein the at least one movable receiving device can be transported into and out of the process chamber so that the powder application device can be removed from the process chamber.
However, DeMuth does teach a “powder bed fusion additive manufacturing system” , including “receiving device that comprises the construction container, the storage container, and the powder application device (DeMuth, column 12 lines 3-15, “a powder bed fusion additive manufacturing system (such as that shown in FIGS. 1A, 1B, 2, 3A and 3B, and in fig. 1A, that would be processing unit 140 that includes the walled chamber 148, the bed 144, the material dispenser 142; in fig. 3A, that would be elements 390, 342, 392; and these would be within each of the article processing units of Fig. 3C). Thus, in combination with Heugel, who teaches already moving containers, would then teach, “wherein the at least one movable receiving device can be transported into and out of the process chamber so that the powder application device can be removed from the process chamber “, so that it would be advantageous to have storage and application systems within each of the container as they are moved, in order to be able to move them around and fill them with different powder without contamination, and there may be multiple processes at once, each with their own powder application. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Heugel in view of DeMuth, to have the claimed components within the same receiving device, and movable out of the processing unit, in order that to be able to move them around and fill them with different powder without contamination, and there may be multiple processes at once, each with their own powder application.
Regarding claim 14, Heugel in view of Demuth teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein the at least one movable receiving device is designed to accommodate construction containers and/or storage containers with different dimensions. However, Heugel already teaches that a container may not even be used and just have the workpiece be created on the “production platform” (¶0058). Further, adjustments to the replaceable container, and how much pulverant it may contain or use, would be according to the desired size of the 3-d workpiece to be created Thus, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the shape/size of the replaceable container, and that the device would then be configured to handle construction containers of different sizes, such as with higher sides, in order to accommodate larger replaceable containers, which can accommodate different amounts of pulverant/powder, depending on the desired 3-d workpiece to be created.
Regarding claim 15, Heugel in view of DeMuth teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, but does not further teach a system wherein all components coming into contact with a process that is performed in the process chamber can be removed from the process chamber. However, it would be desirable to have the parts be separable in order to remove and fix different parts, in order that the device be able to be fixed and continue to work, no matter what part may malfunction. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Heugel in view of DeMuth, to have any of its components be removable, in order to clean or fix or replace any part, in order to increase the life of the device and be able to fix or clean any part of the device so that the device may continue to work efficiently, in case any piece needs fixing or malfunctions (see MPEP 2144.04(IV)A)
Regarding claim 18, Heugel in view of DeMuth teaches all the limitations of claim 11, as above, and further teaches a system wherein the at least one movable receiving device comprises a support frame which has at least two thermally decoupled sections (¶0048, generate two independently controlled beams).
Regarding claim 19, Heugel in view of DeMuth teaches all the limitations of claim 18, as above, but does not further teach wherein the construction container and the powder application device are attached to different sections of the support frame. And while this is not explicit, the construction container has wall and is able to be lowered (within DeMuth) and the powder application device is able to move and within the bed (DeMuth, fig. 1), and thus must be attached at different sections
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Heugel (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/ 0243618) in view of Wakelam (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2020/ 0061653)
Regarding claim 20, Heugel in view of DeMuth teaches a method for the additive manufacture of a workpiece, comprising the steps of:
a) providing a system according to claim 11 (see rejection of claim 11, above);
b) producing a workpiece by processing the powdery material by means of an energy beam (22) in the process chamber (¶0015, 0060, electron beam) ; and
But Heugel does not teach “c) removing the powder application device from the process chamber.”
However, in its Additive manufacturing method, Wakelam teaches “c) removing the powder application device from the process chamber. (Wakelam, ¶0038, “ thus removing the powder application device 26 from the interior volume 21 of the chamber 20”; in the case of Wakelam, this also includes removing the “storage container”. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Heugel in view of Wakelam, to remove the powder application device from the process chamber after the application of powder, in order that any processing withing the chamber is not disturbed by the powder application device, nor that the powder application device has any more exposure to the electron beam as necessary in order to maintain the good working order of the device for as long as possible.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 and 11 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. Please see attached form PTO-892.
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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights