DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 11/03/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 09/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-18 remain pending in the application. Claims 1, 3-7 and 11 are currently amended. Applicant's amendments to the abstract have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 08/06/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the objections previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 08/06/2025. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Final Rejection mailed 08/06/2025.
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” as described in the specification. Based on Figs. 5 and 6, the lock 115 is depicted on the outside of the apparatus. It is therefore unclear how closure members 81 and 103 “form” lock 115 and what the structure and location of the claimed lock is. 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 further objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “113” has been used to designate both “a closure member of the docking port” (page 15, last paragraph) and “a closure member of the connection port” (page 15, last paragraph). The instant specification recites closure member 113 can comprise a closure flap 82, which can correspond to the closure flap 82 of the closure member 81 of the connection port 88 and further recites closure member 113 in the docking port 111 (page 15, last paragraph).
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 claim 1, as best understood based on the instant disclosure and Applicant’s arguments (see 112(b) rejection below), the term “lock” is interpreted as either “a device that keeps a door, window, lid, etc. shut, usually needing a key to open it” or “a state in which the parts of a machine, etc. do not move” as defined by the Oxford Learner’s Dictionary. Under broadest reasonable interpretation, the limitation “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” is interpreted as the closure member in the connection port and the closure member in the docking port stopping the movement of powder in either the feeding station or emptying station since the preamble recites “a connection point for a feeding station and/or an emptying station”.
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.
Claims 1-18 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 “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”. This limitation renders the claim indefinite since it is unclear what is meant by the claimed “form a lock”. Applicant argues that, as seen in at least Figs. 5 and 6, after the connection port 88 has been connected to the docking port 101, a closed lock 115 is formed and that this lock 115 is formed on the one hand by the closure member 81 in the connecting device 48 and on the other hand by the closure member 103 in the docking port 101 (remarks mailed 09/30/2025, pages 10-11). Based on Figs. 5 and 6, the lock 115 is depicted on the outside of the apparatus and it is therefore unclear how closure members 81 and 103 “form” lock 115. Additionally, Applicant argues that after the connection port 88 has been connected to the docking port 101, a closed lock 115 is formed and it is unclear how closure members 81 and 103 are related to the formation of the closed lock 115 after connection port 88 is connected to docking port 101. The structure and location of the claimed “lock” is therefore unclear.
Claims 2-18 depend on claim 1, do not resolve the aforementioned issues, and are thereby also indefinite.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 12-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO 2021/123782 A1 of Healey (as cited in prior Office action and using English equivalent US 2023/0023850 A1 as translation).
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 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) 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 which has a free connection side, 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).
As best understood given the 112(b) rejection for the term “lock” of claim 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 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 therefore meets all the limitations of claim 1.
Regarding claim 2, 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, 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, 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 12 and 13, Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1 as described above.
However, Healey does not explicitly disclose 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 12 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 13.
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 12 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 13.
Regarding claims 14 and 16, 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 is capable of opening and closing the closure members forming a lock, as described in the 102 rejection for claim 1 above, Healey is capable of performing the claimed method steps.
Healey therefore reads on the limitations wherein the 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 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, 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 102 rejection for claim 1 above, Healey is capable of performing the claimed method steps.
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.
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 3-6 and 9-11 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), as applied to the claims above, in view of US 2020/0230941 A1 of Swier (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claims 3-6, Healey teaches the connection point of claim 1 as described above.
However, Healey does not explicitly disclose wherein the closure member of the connection port is in the form of a closure flap arranged in the passage of the connection port or the closure member of the docking port is in the form of a closure flap arranged in the passage of the docking port of claim 3, 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.
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 corresponds to claimed 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 member of the connection port is in the form of a closure flap arranged in the passage of the connection port or the closure member of the docking port is in the form of a closure flap arranged in the passage of the docking port of claim 3, 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 WO 2021/123782 A1 of Healey (as cited in prior Office action and using English equivalent US 2023/0023850 A1 as translation), as applied to the claims above, in view of US 2019/0054686 A1 of Herzog (as cited in prior Office action).
Regarding claim 18, 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 the feeding station and/or emptying station each has a connection point according to claim 1 of claim 18.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/24/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the coupling system of Healey is configured differently and that Healey does not describe the features as recited in independent claim 1, and the additional secondary references are not shown to teach such deficiencies (remarks, pages 10-14).
In response, upon further review based on Applicant’s remarks, the coupling system of Healey is no longer relied on to teach the claimed lock of instant claim 1. Instead, as best understood given the 112(b) rejection for the term “lock” of claim 1 in this Office action, 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 when both valve arrangement 26 and the openable hatch 30 are closed, therefore forming a lock in the hopper of Healey 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).
Conclusion
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