DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 14-18 remain pending in the application and are presented for examination on the merits. Claims 3, 12, and 13 have been canceled. No new claims have been added. Applicant's amendments to the drawings have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/06/2026 with the exception of the drawing objections included in this Office action. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 03/06/2026.
Examiner’s Note
Due to the various 112(a) and 112(b) issues described in this Office action, the Examiner invites Applicant to consider writing an independent claim for the feeding station embodiment and another independent claim for the emptying station embodiment to facilitate identifying potential allowable subject matter. As currently written, amended claim 1 recites “a connection point […] to a feeding station and/or emptying station” (emphasis added) in the preamble, but further recites limitations for both stations without support in the instant disclosure, as outlined in the 112(a) rejections in this Office action. Furthermore, as presently claimed, it is difficult to ascertain what the invention is (see 112(b) rejection herein) and therefore the instant claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Information Disclosure Statement
One (1) information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 06/09/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the IDS is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show “the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port form a lock for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding and in the emptying station for discharging powdered building material” (emphasis added) as described in the specification. Based on Figs. 5 and 6, and as argued by Applicant (remarks, page 13), in the feeding station 52 (shown in Fig. 5), the lock is formed by closure member 81 in connecting device 48 and closure member 103 in docking port 101 (emphasis added, page 14 of instant specification) and, in the emptying station 51 (shown in Fig. 6) closure member 81 in connection port 88 forms a lock 115 with closure member 113 in docking port 101 in the emptying station (emphasis added, page 16 of instant specification). Therefore, the drawing does not show the claimed ““the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port form a lock for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding”, since the feeding station lock is formed between closure member in connecting device and closure member in docking port, rather than closure member in the connection port and closure member in the docking port, as presently claimed. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “50” has been used to designate both “connection point” (third paragraph, line 1 of page 10) and a “connecting device” (third paragraph, line 2 of page 10).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” In this case, claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 14-17 are drawn to a “connection point” and claim 18 is drawn to “an installation”. The claimed connection point and installation are interpreted as apparatuses. The instant claims are therefore not further limited by manner of operating the claimed apparatus (e.g. “for connecting a connecting device”, “for powdered building material”, “for producing three-dimensional components”, “for opening and closing the closure member”, “for moving up and down”, “form a sluice lock”) nor by the material or article worked upon (e.g. “powdered building material”).
Regarding the claimed “docking port” and “connection port” of the instant claims, these limitations are interpreted as applying to either feeding station or emptying station in view of the limitation “feeding station and/or emptying station” in the preamble, unless otherwise specified by the claim.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 1 recites the limitations "a passage in the docking port" (emphasis added) and "the passage of the docking port" (emphasis added). A passage “of the docking port” and a passage “in the docking port” are not necessarily the same. In contrast, claim 1 recites the limitation “passage of the connection port”. The limitation “passage of the connection port” is also recited in claims 4 and 7 and the terminology is consistent throughout the claims.
It is suggested to keep the terminology consistent across claims for clarity and use "of the" or "in the" consistently. Appropriate correction is required.
A similar claim objection was made in the Final Rejection mailed 08/06/2025, but the objection was updated to reflect claim amendments of 06/05/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a), 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that support for amended claim 1 “can be seen in at least FIGS. 5 and 6 of the current application” (remarks, page 15). However, the figures do not support nor does there appear to be a written description of at least the following claim limitations:
“a connection point for connecting a connecting device” (emphasis added),
“a further motor is provided, which opens and closes the passage of the connection port” (emphasis added),
“having a guide for moving up and down at least the docking port or the connecting port” (emphasis added),
“wherein, after the connection port has been connected to the docking port, the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port form a sluice lock for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding and in the emptying station for discharging powdered building material” (emphasis added), and
“sluice lock” (emphasis added).
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a connection point for connecting a connection device”, which is similar to the limitation a) with the difference of “connection device” instead of “connecting device” and is similarly missing support in the instant disclosure.
Regarding limitation a), the instant specification recites “connection point for an installation” (Title) or “connection point of a feeding station and/or of an emptying station” (page 1), but not “for connecting a connecting device” of amended claim 1 or “for connecting a connection device” of amended claim 18.
Regarding limitation b), the instant specification recites the motor opens and closes the closure member and can be moved up and down the docking port (emphasis added, page 16), but does not recite opening and closing the passage of the connection port (emphasis added).
Regarding limitation c), the instant specification recites “docking port can be moved up and down relative to a guide of the feeding station” (emphasis added, page 13) and “docking port of the emptying station can be moved up and down by a guide” (emphasis added, page 16), but does not recite a guide for moving up and down the connecting port as claimed.
Regarding limitation d), the instant specification and Figs. 5 and 6 recite that in the feeding station 52 (shown in Fig. 5), the lock is formed by closure member 81 in connecting device 48 and closure member 103 in docking port 101 (emphasis added, page 14 of instant specification) and, in the emptying station 51 (shown in Fig. 6) closure member 81 in connection port 88 forms a lock 115 with closure member 113 in docking port 101 in the emptying station (emphasis added, page 16 of instant specification). Therefore, there is not sufficient support for the claimed ““the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port form a lock for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding”, since the feeding station lock is formed between closure member in connecting device and closure member in docking port, rather than closure member in the connection port and closure member in the docking port, as presently claimed.
Regarding limitation e), the instant specification recites the broader term “lock” which does not provide support for the narrower limitation “sluice lock” as currently amended.
Claims 2, 4-11, and 14-18 are rejected due to their dependence on rejected claim 1.
Claims 1, 2, 4-11, and 14-18 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 “A connection point for connecting a connecting device to a feeding station and/or an emptying station for powdered building material of a building station, unpacking station and/or sieve station which are combinable to form an installation for producing three-dimensional components by layer-by- layer solidification by means of a beam acting on the powdered building material”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite. While the limitation appears to read as a preamble, it is difficult to understand how much of the preamble is setting forth structural limitations and how much of the preamble is merely intended use, which does not hold patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See MPEP 2114 and 2115. As currently written, the preamble is missing a phrase such as “wherein the improvement comprises”, or a similar transitional phrase. See MPEP 608.01(i)(e)(2) and MPEP 2111.03(I-III).
Claims 2, 4-11 and 14-17 do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “A connection point for connecting a connecting device to a feeding station and/or an emptying station for powdered building material of a building station, unpacking station and/or sieve station which are combinable to form an installation for producing three-dimensional components by layer-by- layer solidification by means of a beam acting on the powdered building material”. The claim then further recites the claimed connection point having various components, including a docking port, a passage, a motor, a closure member, and a guide. The claim is indefinite because it is unclear whether the claim is drawn to a connection point, or to an apparatus including a connection point and the rest of the claimed components. As shown in Figures 5 and 6, connection point 50 is merely a component in the entire apparatus shown in either figure and therefore connection point 50 does not “have” a docking port, a passage, a motor, a closure member, and a guide, as claimed. The instant claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired.
Claims 2, 4-11 and 14-17 do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite. Claim 18 is similarly indefinite since the claimed installation includes the limitation “wherein a connection point for connecting a connection device to the feeding station and/or the emptying station according to claim 1 is provided” and it is unclear what the connection point according to claim 1 entails.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the closure member of the docking port and the closure member of the connection port of the connecting device are closed in a starting position”. Claim 1, on which claim 2 depends, recites the limitation “the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port form a sluice lock for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding and in the emptying station for discharging powdered building material”. Since the closure member of the docking port and the closure member of the connection port already form a lock in claim 1, closing them in a starting position in claim 2 fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 7-8, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2021/123782 A1 of Healey (as cited in prior Office action and using English equivalent US 2023/0023850 A1 as translation) in view of “The Premier Valve in Dry Material Handling” (Nonpatent Literature, YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQkpFISrcZo, accessed 17 August 2026) of Plattport.
Regarding claim 1, Healey teaches a coupling system for an additive manufacturing process, comprising: a conduit for the transfer of material between a container and a further component of the additive manufacturing process; and one or more actuators for controlling operation of the conduit; wherein the conduit comprises first and second portions connected via an extendable intermediate portion; and wherein the one or more actuators are operable to act on at least a portion of the conduit to extend or retract the intermediate portion to control the length of the conduit (Abstract).
Healey teaches a docking arrangement (10, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connection point) for a manufacturing process such as an additive manufacturing process ([0055]-[0056]; for additive manufacturing processes reads on claimed for producing three-dimensional components by layer-by-layer solidification by means of a beam acting on the powdered building material). Healey teaches the docking arrangement (10, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connection point) includes a dock (11, Fig. 1) to which a container in the form of a hopper (12, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding and/or emptying station for powdered building material) may be coupled and which may contain powder supplied to the machine ([0056]). Healey teaches material from one hopper or an additive manufacturing machine may be passed through a sieve before being deposited in the hopper (12, Fig. 1) wherein the docking arrangement (10, Fig. 1 reads on claimed connection point) may be adapted to receive a sieve ([0062], the sieve not shown in the figures reads on the claimed a sieve station).
Healey therefore meets the limitation a connection point for connecting a connecting device to a feeding station and/or an emptying station for powdered building material of a building station, unpacking station and/or sieve station which are combinable to form an installation for producing three-dimensional components by layer-by-layer solidification by means of a beam acting on the powdered building material of claim 1.
Note that the limitation “for a feeding station and/or an emptying station for powdered building material of a building station, unpacking station and/or sieve station which are combinable to form an installation for producing three-dimensional components by layer-by-layer solidification by means of a beam acting on the powdered building material” is an intended use limitation that does not impart any structural limitations to the claimed connection point. “If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction.” See MPEP §2111.02 (Il).
Healey teaches hopper (12, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding and/or emptying station for powdered building material) is provided with an openable hatch (30, Fig. 1, reads on claimed docking port and a closure member which opens and closes a passage in the docking port) in an upper surface providing access to the interior of the container (14, Fig. 1) of the hopper to deliver powdered material to the hopper and replenish the material therein ([0062]). Healey teaches the openable hatch (30, Fig. 1, reads on claimed docking port and a closure member which opens and closes a passage in the docking port; the apparatus of Healey has a “passage” in the docking port since powder can flow through the openable hatch) has a free connection side above it and can be connected to a hopper (12, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding and/or emptying station for powdered building material) below (see Fig. 1).
Healey therefore reads on the limitation having a docking port provided on the feeding station and/or emptying station which has a free connection side, having a passage in the docking port and having a closure member which opens and closes a passage of the docking port of claim 1.
Healey teaches the illustrated hopper (12, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding station) is provided with a valve arrangement (26, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connection port) for controlling flow of material out of the container (14, Fig. 1, reads on claimed cartridge container) of the hopper. Healey teaches the outlet (16, Fig. 1) may be coupled and secured to an inlet (18, Fig. 1) on the dock (11, Fig. 1). The coupling between the outlet (16, Fig. 1) of the hopper and the inlet includes a coupling system (80, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connecting device) and a locking mechanism (100, Fig. 1) ([0058]). Healey teaches the coupling system facilitates coupling to allow material from the container (14, Fig. 1, reads on claimed cartridge container) of the hopper (12, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding station) to be supplied to a further component of the manufacturing process via the dock ([0058]). Healey teaches the outlet valve (26, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connection port) is controlled via an operating handle (50, Fig. 1, reads on claimed closure member which is provided on the connection port and opens and closes a passage of the connection port) which may be used to open and/or close the outlet valve of the valve arrangement through rotation of a lever (52, Fig. 1) of the operating handle ([0060]). Healey teaches the valve arrangement (26, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connection port) is connectable to the openable hatch (30, Fig. 1, reads on claimed docking port and a closure member which opens and closes a passage in the docking port) and a container (14, Fig. 1, reads on claimed cartridge container) opposite the valve arrangement (see Fig. 1).
Since Healey teaches valve arrangement 26 controls flow of material out of the container 14 of the hopper 12 via the operating handle 50, one of ordinary skill in the art understands the powdered material of Healey will be stopped inside hopper 12, therefore forming a lock in the hopper, between valve arrangement (26, reads on claimed connection port) controlled via operating handle 50 (reads on claimed closure member which opens and closes a passage in the connection port) and openable hatch (30, Fig. 1, reads on claimed docking port and a closure member which opens and closes a passage in the docking port).
Healey therefore meets the limitation having a docking port provided on the feeding station and/or emptying station which has a free connection side, having a closure member which opens and closes a passage in the docking port, having a connection port of a connecting device, which connection port is connectable to the docking port and, opposite the connection port, receives a cartridge container, having a closure member which is provided on the connection port and opens and closes a passage of the connection port, wherein, after the connection port has been connected to the docking port, the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port form a lock for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding and in the emptying station for discharging powdered building material of claim 1.
Note that the limitation “for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding and in the emptying station for discharging powdered building material” is an intended use limitation that does not impart any structural limitations to the claimed connection point. If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.
Healey teaches the conduit comprises first and second portions connected via an extendable intermediate portion; and wherein the one or more actuators are operable to act on at least a portion of the conduit to extend or retract the intermediate portion to control the length of the conduit ([0006], extendable intermediate portion reads on claimed having a guide for moving up and down at least the docking port or the connecting port).
Healey therefore reads on the limitation having a guide for moving up and down at least the docking port or the connecting port of claim 1.
Regarding the circumferences of claim 1, the circumference of the openable hatch in the hopper, and of the valve arrangement of Healey, which corresponds to the circumference of the docking port in the feeding station and of the connection port, despite the dimensions not being disclosed, impacts the connection of the openable hatch to the hopper and to the valve arrangement, as taught by Healey. The circumferences of two connecting pieces have a finite number of solutions: (1) both circumferences are the same size, (2) circumference A is larger than circumference B, or (3) circumference B is larger than circumference A. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand that making one circumference larger than the other would make it possible to connect two pieces to each other by making one fit within the other.
The Supreme Court decided that a claim can be proved obvious merely by showing that the combination of known elements was obvious to try. In this regard, the Supreme Court explained that, “[w]hen there is a design need or market pressure to solve a problem and there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, a person of ordinary skill in the art has a good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp.” An obviousness determination is not the result of a rigid formula disassociated from the consideration of the facts of the case. Indeed, the common sense of those skilled in the art demonstrates why some combinations would have been obvious where others would not. Therefore, choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation for success, is likely to be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 – 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, E.). Here, it would have been obvious to choose either (2) circumference A is larger than circumference B, or (3) circumference B is larger than circumference A, with a reasonable expectation for success.
Healey therefore reads on the limitation wherein the docking port in the feeding station is configured to be larger in circumference than the connection port of the connecting device, so that the connection port in a connection position at the feeding station engages into the docking port of claim 1 and wherein the docking port in the emptying station is configured to be smaller in circumference than the connection port of the connecting device, so that the connection port in a connection position relative to the emptying station engages externally around the docking port of claim 1.
However, Healey does not explicitly teach the closure member of the docking port is in the form of a closure flap arranged in the passage of the docking port, having a motor for opening and closing the closure member in the docking port of claim 1, the closure member of the connection port is in the form of a closure flap arranged in the passage of the connection port and a further motor is provided, which opens and closes the passage of the connection port of claim 1, and wherein, after the connection port has been connected to the docking port, the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port form a sluice lock for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding and in the emptying station for discharging powdered building material of claim 1.
Plattport teaches a double flap airlock valve for handling dry materials (Title, Description). Plattport and Healey are considered analogous art since they are similarly concerned with solving the problem of handling dry powdered materials inside an apparatus.
Plattport teaches double flap airlock valves enable material flow of dry materials while maintaining system pressure differentials (0:00-0:15). Plattco teaches two flaps are controlled independently to open and close the flaps as needed to allow material flow and prevent leakage (0:26-1:00), jamming, and material build-up (1:16-1:26). Plattco teaches various valves from full opening to low profile designs depending on dimension requirements (1:28-1:40). Plattco teaches double flap airlock valves reduce maintenance time, increase efficiency, and lower costs (Description). Plattco shows the flaps are rotatable and can be moved by the use of a motor or driver member to control the individual flaps, as seen in the video during the 0:10-0:19 timestamp.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the apparatus of Healey to include the double flap airlock valves and motors of Plattport to enable material flow while maintaining system pressure differentials, prevent leakage, jamming, and material buildup, and reduce maintenance time, increase efficiency and lower costs, as taught by Plattport. One of ordinary skill in the art understands the flaps of Plattport form a sluice lock.
Modified Healey therefore reads on the limitations the closure member of the docking port is in the form of a closure flap arranged in the passage of the docking port, having a motor for opening and closing the closure member in the docking port of claim 1, the closure member of the connection port is in the form of a closure flap arranged in the passage of the connection port and a further motor is provided, which opens and closes the passage of the connection port of claim 1, and wherein, after the connection port has been connected to the docking port, the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port form a sluice lock for the powdered building material in the feeding station for feeding and in the emptying station for discharging powdered building material of claim 1.
Modified Healey therefore meets all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, modified Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1 as described above. Since Healey teaches the closure members may open and close, the apparatus of Healey is capable of having the closure members being closed in a starting position.
Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
Healey therefore meets the limitation wherein the closure member of the docking port and the closure member of the connection port of the connecting device are closed in a starting position of claim 2.
Regarding claim 7, modified Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1 as described above.
Healey teaches the container (14, Fig. 1) may include powder for the additive manufacturing process and comprises an upper cylindrical portion above a frustroconical portion, leading to an outlet (16, reads on claimed passage in the connection port) ([0057]) to allow material from the container to be supplied to a further component of the manufacturing process ([0058]). Healey teaches the valve arrangement (26, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connection port) merges into an outlet (16, Fig. 1, reads on claimed passage). Healey therefore reads on the limitation wherein a front end of the connection port merges into the passage in the connection port of claim 7.
However, Healey fails to explicitly state to wherein a front end of the connection port has an internal insertion slope which merges into the passage in the connection port.
The front end of the valve arrangement of Healey (26, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connection port) will inherently have an internal insertion slope which, despite the slope not being explicitly disclosed, impacts the material supply from the container and valve arrangement to the outlet, as taught by Healey. Since the apparatus of Healey delivers powder from the hopper and past the conduit, Healey reads on the limitation wherein a front end of the connection port has an internal insertion slope which merges into the passage in the connection port of claim 7.
Regarding claim 8, modified Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1 as described above.
Healey teaches the valve arrangement (valve arrangement 26 reads on claimed connection port, Fig. 1) is surrounded by a free annular space (see empty space surrounding valve arrangement 26 in Fig. 1, which is open to docking arrangement 10 which reads on claimed connection point).
Healey therefore meets the limitation wherein the connection port is surrounded by a free annular space which is configured to be open to a connection point of a housing of the connection port of claim 8.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, modified Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
In this case, since modified Healey is capable of opening and closing the closure members forming a lock, as described in the 103 rejection for claim 1 above, Healey is capable of performing the claimed method steps.
Healey therefore reads on the limitations wherein the sluice lock formed after the connecting device has been positioned at the feeding station is activatable to open in two successive steps, wherein the closure member in the docking port of the feeding station opens before the closure member in the connection port of the connecting device of claim 14 and wherein the sluice lock formed after the connecting device has been positioned at the emptying station is activatable to open in two successive steps, wherein the closure member in the connection port of the connecting device opens before the closure member of the docking port of the emptying station of claim 16.
Regarding claims 15 and 17, modified Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1 as described above.
Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.”
In this case, since Healey teaches a cartridge container, feeding station and/or emptying station, and is capable of opening and closing closure members to form a lock, as described in the 103 rejection for claim 1 above, Healey is capable of performing the claimed method steps.
Modified Healey therefore reads on the limitation wherein, after the cartridge container has been emptied via the feeding station, the lock closes in the reverse order to which it opened of claim 15 and wherein, after the cartridge container has been filled via the emptying station, the lock closes in the reverse order to which it opened of claim 17.
Claims 4-6 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over WO 2021/123782 A1 of Healey (as cited in prior Office action and using English equivalent US 2023/0023850 A1 as translation) in view of “The Premier Valve in Dry Material Handling” (Nonpatent Literature, YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQkpFISrcZo, accessed 17 August 2026) of Plattport, as applied to the claim 1 above, in view of US 2020/0230941 A1 of Swier (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claims 4-6, modified Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1 as described above.
While the video of Plattport teaches rotatable flaps, as detailed above in the 103 rejection for claim 1, Plattport does not explicitly teach specific pivot pin configurations.
Swier teaches a supply station for dispensing build material from a build material container (Abstract), which is used for 3D printing ([0001]). Swier is considered analogous art to the claimed invention since it is similarly concerned with stations for powdered material for additive manufacturing.
Swier teaches supply stations may include a new supply station (112, Fig. 6) for the addition of new build material, and a recycle supply station (114, Fig. 6) for the addition of recycled build material ([0056], supply stations read on feeding station and are analogous to hopper 12 of Healey).
Swier teaches an auger valve (448, Fig. 34, corresponds to claimed connection port) with a diverter flap (3402, Fig. 34, reads on claimed closure member of the connection port is in the form of a closure flap) wherein a diverter gear (3202, Fig. 34) is rotated to move a diverter flap in the diverter valve (3110, Fig. 34) to direct the build material to the bottom opening (3106, Fig. 34, corresponds to claimed passage) or to the front opening (3108, Fig. 34) ([0193]-[0195]). While the diverter flap is shown in the recycling station (114, Fig. 6), a similar mechanism may be included in the dispense valve mechanism (446, Fig. 6, which would also correspond to the claimed connection port) of the new supply station (112, Fig. 6) ([0105]).
Swier teaches the diverter flap (3402, Fig. 34, reads on claimed closure member of the connection port is in the form of a closure flap) is mounted in the housing so as to be rotatable about a pivot pin, and the pivot pin is oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the passage (see annotated Fig. 34 below where diverter flap 3402 is within a housing and has pivot pins oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the passage).
PNG
media_image1.png
793
633
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Swier teaches the diverter flap (3402, Fig. 34, reads on claimed closure member of the connection port is in the form of a closure flap) has a pivot pin extending outside the housing (see annotated Fig. 34 where pivot pin extends outside the housing). Swier teaches a rack gear (3502, Fig. 35) may be attached to the actuating mechanism (1104, Fig. 35, reads on claimed a driver member which is connectable to a drive) to engage with the diverter gear (3302, Fig. 35), for example, in a rack and pinion configuration, and move the diverter flap (3402, Fig. 34), as the actuating mechanism (1104, Fig. 35) is moved along the horizontal axis ([0195]). Swier teaches a valve motor (3504, reads on claimed drive), or other powered actuation mechanism may be used to drive the actuating mechanism with precise movement control ([0196]).
Swier teaches the pivot pin of the closure flap is mounted in the housing (see annotated Fig. 34 above). Swier teaches the seal ring (3706, Fig. 39-43) is configured to retain build material as it is transferred between the diverter valve mechanism (456, which contains the claimed pivot pins and passage) and a build material container ([0201]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the closure member of Healey with the closure flap, pivot pins, driver member, and seal of Swier to allow for directing build material to a container with precise movement and to retain build material as it is transferred to a build material container, as taught by Swier.
Modified Healey therefore reads on the limitations wherein the closure flap of the connection port is mounted in a housing of the connection port so as to be rotatable about a pivot pin, and the pivot pin is preferably oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the passage of the connection port or the closure flap of the docking port is mounted in the docking port so as to be rotatable about a pivot pin, and the pivot pin is oriented perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the passage of the docking port of claim 4, wherein the closure flap of the connection port has a pivot pin extending outside the housing of the connection port and having a driver member which is connectable to a drive or the closure flap of the docking port has a pivot pin extending outside the docking port and having a driver member which is connectable to a drive of claim 5, and wherein the pivot pin of the closure flap of the connection port is mounted in said housing and is sealed facing the passage by at least one seal of the connection port or wherein the pivot pin of the closure flap of the docking port is mounted in said housing and is sealed facing the passage by at least one seal of the docking port of claim 6.
Regarding claims 9-11, modified Healey teaches the connection point of claim 8 as described above.
However, Healey does not explicitly disclose wherein at least one seal surrounding the connection port is provided on the outer circumference of the connection port and facing into the free annular space of claim 9, wherein at least two seals which are spaced apart from one another and are different from one another are provided on the connection port of claim 10, and wherein one of the at least two seals is provided closer to an end face of the connection port than the at least one further seal of claim 11.
Swier teaches a compliant seal (3702, Fig. 37) may include a guide ring (3704, Fig. 37, reads on claimed seal and is on the outer circumference of auger valve 448, which corresponds to claimed connection port, and is facing a free annular passage as seen in Fig. 39 and 37) to direct a build material container into contact with a contact surface of a seal ring (3706, Fig. 37, reads on claimed seal) and that the seal ring is configured to retain build material as it is transferred between the diverter valve mechanism (456, Fig. 37, diverter valve mechanism 456 contains diverter flap 3402, reads on claimed closure member of the connection port is in form of closure flap, and auger valve 448, which corresponds to the claimed connection port as seen in Fig. 34, [0089]) and a build material container ([0201]). Swier teaches the compliant seal (3702, Fig. 37) may be used in the dispense valve mechanism (446, Fig. 6) of the new supply station (112, Fig. 6), or the diverter valve mechanism (456, Fig. 37) of the recycle supply station (114, Fig. 6), or both ([0203]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the connection port of Healey with the seals of Swier to retain a build material as it is transferred between the connection port and further components, as taught by Swier. As seen in Fig. 37, guide ring 3704 and seal ring 3706 are located one in front of the other and therefore read on the limitation wherein one of the at least two seals is provided closer to an end face of the connection port than the at least one further seal.
Modified Healey therefore reads on the limitation wherein at least one seal surrounding the connection port is provided on the outer circumference of the connection port and facing into the free annular space of claim 9, wherein at least two seals which are spaced apart from one another and are different from one another are provided on the connection port of claim 10, and wherein one of the at least two seals is provided closer to an end face of the connection port than the at least one further seal of claim 11.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over over WO 2021/123782 A1 of Healey (as cited in prior Office action and using English equivalent US 2023/0023850 A1 as translation) in view of “The Premier Valve in Dry Material Handling” (Nonpatent Literature, YouTube video, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aQkpFISrcZo, accessed 17 August 2026) of Plattport, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of US 2019/0054686 A1 of Herzog (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 18, modified Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1, as described above.
Healey teaches a coupling system for an additive manufacturing process comprising: a conduit for the transfer of material between a container and a further component of the additive manufacturing process; and one or more actuators for controlling operation of the conduit wherein the conduit comprises first and second portions connected via an extendable intermediate portion (Abstract, [0006], claim 1, coupling system for an additive manufacturing process with a conduit and components corresponds to an installation; additive manufacturing processes are known to include “producing three-dimensional components by layer-by-layer solidification by means of a beam acting on the powdered building material”).
Healey therefore reads on the limitation an installation, in particular for producing a three-dimensional component by layer-by-layer solidification by means of a beam acting on a powdered building material of claim 18.
Healey teaches the dock (11, Fig. 1) may correspond to a machine of an additive manufacturing process (not shown in the figure, but reads on claimed building station and one of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect it to include a process chamber to produce components) and the hopper (12, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding station since it may contain powder to be supplied to the apparatus) ([0056]). Healey teaches in some instances, material from a further hopper may be deposited into the hopper (12, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding station) using the docking arrangement (10, Fig. 1, reads on claimed connection point) where the inlet (18, Fig. 1) and optionally conduit (20, Fig. 1) serve as an inlet to hopper and a separate hopper is docked on the dock (11, Fig. 1) ([0062]). Healey teaches the container (14, Fig. 1, reads on claimed cartridge container) may include powder for the additive manufacturing process. Healey teaches material from one hopper or an additive manufacturing machine may be passed through a sieve before being deposited in the hopper (12, Fig. 1, reads on claimed feeding station) wherein the docking arrangement (10, Fig. 1 reads on claimed connection point) may be adapted to receive a sieve ([0062], the sieve not shown in the figures reads on claimed sieve station which would be upstream from the hopper, which reads on the claimed feeding station, see Fig. 1). Healey teaches the hopper is arranged upstream of the sieve station (see Fig. 1, hopper 12 is upstream from the dock 11 where material from an additive manufacturing machine may be passed through a sieve). Healey teaches the feeding station has a connection point according to claim 1, as described above (see Fig. 1, docking arrangement 10 reads on claimed connection point of claim 1 is connected to hopper 12 and container 14 which read on claimed feeding station and emptying station respectively).
However, Healey does not explicitly disclose having an emptying station arranged downstream of the process chamber for discharging processed building material of claim 18.
Herzog is similarly concerned with a system for additive manufacturing of three-dimensional objects (Abstract) using powdered material ([0008], construction material may be a metal powder, plastic powder, and/or ceramic powder which would all correspond to the claimed powdered building material).
Herzog teaches an emptying section to empty construction material from a reception space of a functional unit moved into the emptying section (reads on claimed emptying station), which comprises at least one suitable emptying device (13, Fig. 2) ([0019]). Herzog teaches the emptying device may comprise at least one conveyor device for conveying construction material to be emptied from a respective reception space ([0019]). Herzog teaches the emptying device (13, Fig. 2, which is part of the emptying section which reads on claimed emptying station) is downstream of the process chamber (11, Fig. 2, which corresponds to the claimed process chamber in the building station of the installation) (see Fig. 2 where the emptying device 13 is downstream of process chamber 11). Herzog teaches the emptied construction material (corresponding to the claimed processed building material) may be stored, separated from one another if using multiple materials, or processed further ([0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the installation of Healey with the emptying station of Herzog to empty construction material to store, separate, or further process the construction materials, as taught by Herzog.
Modified Healey therefore reads on the limitation which installation consists at least of: a building station which comprises a process chamber in which the component is producible layer by layer on a substrate plate in a building module by selectively solidifying the building material, and having a feeding station arranged upstream of the process chamber in a powder circuit of the building station for feeding fresh or cleaned building material, and having an emptying station arranged downstream of the process chamber for discharging processed building material, and/or having an unpacking station which comprises an unpacking chamber in which the component is removable from the building module, and having an emptying station arranged downstream of the unpacking chamber in a powder circuit of the unpacking station for discharging processed building material, and/or having a sieve station which comprises a sieve device for separating oversized particles and/or impurities from processed building material, and having a feeding station arranged upstream of the sieve device in a powder circuit of the sieve station for feeding processed building material, and an emptying station arranged downstream of the sieve device for discharging cleaned building material, wherein a connection point for connecting a connection device to the feeding station and/or emptying station according to claim 1 is provided of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1, 12 and 13 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.
Applicant argues that Healey does not teach a closing member driven by a motor and that Healey teaches port 16 has the same inner diameter as the port of the connector 18 (remarks, pages 15-17).
In response, the closing member driven by a motor is taught by Plattport in the new grounds of rejection in this Office action. Regarding the diameters of port 16 and 18, Healey teaches outlet 16 is positioned within the inlet 8 ([0085]), and therefore does not teach the same inner diameter, as argued by Applicant. Additionally, outlet 16 of Healey is mapped as reading on the claimed “passage in the connection port”, not as the “connection port” of which the circumferences are claimed in amended claim 1.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MAYELA ALDAZ whose telephone number is (571)270-0309. The examiner can normally be reached Monday -Thursday: 10 am - 7 pm and alternate Friday: 10 am - 6 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/M.A./Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights