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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 9/20/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE102021004708.7 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers are handwritten and hard to decipher; and the drawings appear to be bad photocopies with blurry lines that are missing in places rending the outline of structures unclear. 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.
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 Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “and b) said second means” should read --and b) between said second means--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
“a first means of powder transport and/or metering” as set forth in claim 1 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f); and
“a second means of powder transport and/or metering” as set forth in claim 1 is interpreted under 35 USC 112(f).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “vibration-decoupling units” in claim 1, and “at least one vibration-decoupling unit” in claims 5, 6, and 27-30 because it uses the generic placeholder “unit” that is coupled with functional language “vibration decoupling” and is not preceded by a structural modifier; “a weighing device” in claims 9, 35 and 36 because it uses the generic placeholder “device” that is coupled with functional language “weighing” and is not preceded by a structural modifier; “at least one powder conveying unit” as set forth in claim 10 because it uses the generic placeholder “unit” that is coupled with functional language “powder conveying” and is not preceded by a structural modifier; “a first powder transport and/or metering arrangement”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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 "to at least partially isolate vibrations” in lines 18 and 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is no previous recitation in the claim of the first and second means producing vibrations, and therefore it is unclear how vibration-decoupling units partially isolate vibrations that have not been previously set forth as existing. Claims 2-9 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 3 appears to be insufficient in structure to provide the narrative functional effect of vibration. A “channel” and/or “duct” does not inherently have structure to be capable to provide “vibration”. A channel and duct only has natural capability to allow passage of material, thus the claim appears incomplete in structure to warrant the mode of a vibration effect. Claim 4 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
Claim 5 recites the limitation, “at least one vibration unit is arranged…”. It is unclear whether “at least one vibration unit” of claim 5 is the same or different as “vibration-decoupling units” as recited in claim 1. It is unclear whether this is an additional vibration unit that is arranged in one of the locations as recited in claim 5 in addition to the vibration decoupling units located in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 6 recites the limitation, “at least one vibration unit is arranged…”. It is unclear whether “at least one vibration unit” of claim 5 is the same or different as “vibration-decoupling units” as recited in claim 1. It is unclear whether this is an additional vibration unit that is arranged in one of the locations as recited in claim 5 in addition to the vibration decoupling units located in claim 1. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 7 recites the limitation, “the screen…includes a vibratable screen” in lines 1-2. It is unclear whether the vibratable screen is a second additional screen or a description of “the screen”. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claim 8 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
Claim 7 appears to be insufficient in structure to provide the narrative functional effect of vibration. A “screen” does not inherently have structure to be capable to provide “vibration”. A screen only has natural capability to “screen”, thus the claim appears incomplete in structure to warrant the mode of a vibration effect. Claim 8 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 7.
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.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], 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.
Claim 31 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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 21 requires the vibratable screen position in said mixing container, while claim 31 which depends upon claim 21 changes the position of the vibratable screen to be positioned as said inlet of said mixing container. 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 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, 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 21 requires the vibratable screen position in said mixing container, while claim 32 which depends upon claim 21 changes the position of the vibratable screen to be positioned as said inlet of said mixing container. 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 6 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wu (CN105618755A) (with page numbers referring to machine translation).
Regarding claim 1, Wu discloses a device for production and metering of a powder mixture for an additive manufacturing process (figures 1 and 2), wherein the powder mixture for the additive manufacturing process comprises a first powder arranged in a first container (figure 2, reference #2), and a second powder arranged in a second container (figure 2, reference #1 and 11), characterized:
in that an inlet of a first means of powder transport and/or metering is arranged at an outlet of the first container (figure 2, second reference #13, not labeled, connected to bottom reference #2), and an inlet of a second means of powder transport and/or metering is arranged at the outlet of the second container (figure 2, reference #13),
in that the first powder is configured to be supplied by means of the first means of transport and/or metering, and the second powder is configured to be supplied by means of the second means of transport and/or metering in a controllable and/or regulatable manner (figures 1 and 2, reference #13), such that the first and second powders are deposited into mixing container (figures 1 and 2, reference #40), and wherein the first and second powders pass through at least one screen prior to entering the mixing container (figures 5 and 6, reference #123) (these limitations are directed to a manner of operating disclosed device, and 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.” Wu is capable of operating as disclosed (see figures 1 and 2, reference #11, 12, 13 and 40, pages 6-7) (it is further noted that the mixing container and screen, being part of the process limitations means they do not have patentable weight in the apparatus claim and thus are not positively recited structural limitations required to be disclosed by the reference), and
in that an outlet of the first means of transport and/or metering and an outlet of the second means of transport and/or metering are arranged in or above the mixing container and above the at least one screen (figure 5, reference #121 above reference #123), and
vibration-decoupling units arranged a) between said first and second means of transport and/or metering arrangements as to at least partially isolate vibrations between said first means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement (figures 5 and 6, #122) (pipe 122 separate the powder branch pipes (first and second means of transport) which would isolate any vibrations caused between the pipes), and b) said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said mixing container to at least partially isolate vibrations between said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said mixing container (figures 5 and 6, #124) (connecting seat 124 separated second metering means (#122) from the mixer which would isolate any vibrations from the metering means to the mixer)).
Regarding claim 2, Wu discloses wherein in that the outlet of the first means of transport and/or metering is arranged above the outlet of the second means of transport and/or metering such that the first powder in the mixing container is configured to fall in a controllable and/or regulated manner onto the outlet of the second means of transport and/or metering, or into the region of the outlet of the second means of transport and/or metering (figure 2, reference #13, not labeled, connected to reference #2 outlet above reference #13 outlet). It is noted that the limitation is directed to the material or article worked upon and the intended use of the means of transport and/or metering which does not further limit an apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Wu discloses wherein in that the first and/or the second means of transport and/or metering includes a vibrating channel, a vibrating duct, a vibrating metering channel, a vibrating metering duct, or a switchable valve that can be operated in a timed manner (figures 3 and 4, reference #113 and 117 (switchable valve 113 operated in a time manner by motor 117).
Regarding claim 5, Wu discloses wherein in that at least one vibration-decoupling unit is arranged a) upstream of the inlet of the first means of transport and/or metering as viewed in the direction of transport, b)at the inlet of the first means of transport and/or metering as viewed in the direction of transport, c) upstream of the inlet of the second means of transport and/or metering as viewed in the direction of transport, and/or d) at the inlet of the second means of transport and/or metering as view in the direction of transport (figures 3 and 4, reference #114).
Regarding claim 6, Wu discloses wherein in that at least one vibration-decoupling unit is arranged a)behind the outlet of the first means of transport and/or metering as viewed in the direction of transport, b) at the outlet of the first means of transport and/or metering as viewed in the direction of transport, c) behind the outlet of the second means of transport and/or metering as viewed in the direction of transport, and/or d) at the outlet of the second means of transport and/or metering as viewed in the direction of transport (figure 1, reference #12).
Regarding claim 10, Wu discloses a device for the management of a powder or a powder mixture for the additive manufacture of a manufactured part, wherein the device comprises at least one powder conveying unit, which supplies the powder or the powder mixture to at least one first or second container (abstract; page 2; page 3, step a; page 4; page 6; figure 1; figures 3 and 4, powder adding plug 116).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gillia et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,010,272).
Regarding claim 4, Wu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses wherein in that the quantity of powder of the first powder is supplied to the mixing container is configured to be controlled and/or regulated by the first means of transport and/or metering and in that the quantity of powder of the second powder is supplied to the mixing container is configured to be controlled and/or regulated by the second means of transport and/or metering (figures 3 and 4, reference #113 and 117), the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the control is by the vibrational excitation.
Gillia et al. teaches another device for depositing a powder mixture for forming an object (title). The reference teaches wherein in that the quantity of powder of the first power is supplied to the mixing container is controlled and/or regulated by the vibrational excitation of the first means of transport and/or metering (figure 1, reference #4, 8 and 14) and in that the quantity of powder of the second power is supplied to the mixing container is controlled and/or regulated by the vibrational excitation of the first means of transport and/or metering (figure 1, reference #6 with 8 and 14 on right not labeled; column 5, lines 42-55) and wherein the vibrational excitation of the second means of transport and/or metering is independent of the vibrational excitation of the first means of transport and/or metering (figure 6, reference #104, S1 and S2; column 2, lines 39-46; column 5, lines 42-55; column 8, lines 39-47; column 9, lines 33-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the vibrational excitation of Gillia et al. on the first and second means of transport and/or metering of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for depositing a powder mixture for forming an object. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because delivering powder by vibrations makes it possible to control the mass flow rate of powder escarping from each dispensing means, depending on the frequency and on the amplitude of the vibrations of the delivery means to perfectly control the composition of the obtained object (Gillia et al. column 2, lines 39-46).
Claim(s) 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Maas et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2017/0297060).
Regarding claim 7, Wu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the screen includes a vibratable screen. As stated in the rejection to claim 1, the screen is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations in claim 7 which attempt to further limit the screen are not positive structural limitations.
However, in order to further compact prosecution, Maas teaches another powder feeding system (abstract). The reference teaches wherein in that the screen in the mixing container includes a vibratable screen which is subjected to a vibrational excitation in a controllable and/or regulatable manner (reference #3 and 33; [0032]; [0038]; [0043]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the screen of Wu to be designed as a vibrational screen as taught by Maas. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach powder feeding systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the screen vibrating jolts the product on the screen to reduce the accumulation of the product on the screen and promote movement of material through the screen to the proper outlet (Maas et al. [0005]; [0041]).
Regarding claim 8, Wu in view of Maas et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein in that the mixing container has an outlet for the powder mixture and an oversize granulate outlet (Wu figures 9-12; Maas et al. figure 2, reference #31 and 32, [0041]).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Swier et al. (U.S. Patent Pub. No. 2019/0184641).
Regarding claim 9, Wu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein in that the first and/or second container has a weighing device for purposes of recording wight of the container contents.
Sweir et al. teaches another powder feed device for additive manufacturing (abstract; [0001]). The reference teaches wherein in that the first and/or second container has a weighing device for purposes of recording wight of the container contents (figure 2, reference #212 and 214; [0023]; [0031]; [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the weighing device of Sweir et al. on the first and second containers of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach powder feed devices for additive manufacturing. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the ratio of the first material to second material and overall rates may be checked with load cells by the vessel load-cell feedback to ensure accurate mixing (Sweir et al. [0023]).
Claims 21, 22, 27, 28, 31 and 32 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gillia et al. and Maas et al.
Regarding claim 21, Wu discloses a device for metering a powder mixture (figures 1 and 2); said powder mixture includes a first powder arranged in a first container (figure 2, reference #2) and a second powder arranged in a second container (figure 2, reference #1);
said device includes: a. a first powder transport and/or metering arrangement that includes an inlet and an outlet (figure 2, reference #13, not labeled, below reference #2);
b. a second powder transport and/or metering arrangement that includes an inlet and an outlet (figure 2, reference #13);
c. an outlet of said first container is positioned at or adjacent to said inlet of said first powder transport and/or metering arrangement (figure 2, reference #2);
d. an outlet of said second container is positioned at or adjacent to said inlet of said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement (figure 2, reference #1); said outlet of said first powder transport and/or metering arrangement is positioned above said outlet of said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement (see figures 1 and 2, reference #12 and 13);
e. a mixing container; said mixing container is positioned at or below said outlets of said first and second powder transport and/or metering arrangements (figure 1, reference #40, below reference #12 and 13); said first and second powder transport and/or metering arrangements are configured to convey said first and second powders to an inlet of said mixing container (figures 1 and 2, reference #13; page 7); said mixing container includes a powder outlet and an oversize powder outlet; said powder outlet is sized to allow properly sized powder to exit said mixing container, said oversize powder outlet is configured to enable powder that cannot pass through said powder outlet to exit said mixing container via said oversize powder outlet (see figures 9-12); and
wherein said first and second powder transport and/or metering arrangements control a rate of flow of said first and second powders into said mixing container (figures 3 and 4, reference #113 and 117; pages 5-7).
However, Wu does not explicitly disclose said first powder transport and/or metering arrangement includes a first vibratable channel configured to cause said first powder to move in a controlled manner from said inlet to said outlet of said first powder transport and/or metering arrangement during vibration of said first vibratable channel; said first powder transport and/or metering arrangement includes a first vibration motor configured to cause vibration of said first vibratable channel; said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement includes a second vibratable channel configured to cause said second powder to move in a controlled manner from said inlet to said outlet of said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement during vibration of said second vibratable channel; said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement includes a second vibration motor configured to cause vibration of said second vibratable channel; said first and second vibratable channels are configured to be vibrated independently of one another.
Gillia et al. teaches another device for depositing a powder mixture for forming an object (title). The reference teaches said first powder transport and/or metering arrangement includes a first vibratable channel configured to cause said first powder to move in a controlled manner from said inlet to said outlet of said first powder transport and/or metering arrangement during vibration of said first vibratable channel (figures 1 and 6, #4, 8 and 14; column 5, lines 42-47); said first powder transport and/or metering arrangement includes a first vibration motor configured to cause vibration of said first vibratable channel (figure 1, generator 8; column 5, lines 42-55); said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement includes a second vibratable channel configured to cause said second powder to move in a controlled manner from said inlet to said outlet of said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement during vibration of said second vibratable channel (figures 1 and 6, #6, with 8 and 14 on the right not labeled; column 5, lines 42-55); said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement includes a second vibration motor configured to cause vibration of said second vibratable channel (figure 1, #6 includes generator 8 on right, not labeled; column 5, lines 42-55); said first and second vibratable channels are configured to be vibrated independently of one another (figure 6, controller 104 with independent control lines S1 and S2 to each transport and/or metering arrangement; column 2, lines 39-46; column 5, lines 42-55 (each delivery device has a generator 8); column 8, lines 39-47; column 9, lines 33-41).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the first and second vibrating channels and first and second vibration motors of Gillia et al. on the first and second means of transport and/or metering of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach devices for depositing a powder mixture for forming an object. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because delivering powder by independent vibrations makes it possible to control the mass flow rate of powder escarping from each dispensing means, depending on the frequency and on the amplitude of the vibrations of the delivery means to perfectly control the composition of the obtained object (Gillia et al. column 2, lines 39-46).
While Wu discloses said mixing container includes a screen to receive said first and second powders that exit said outlet of said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement (figure 1, mixing container 40 includes screen in powder feeder 12, shown in figure 5 as #123), Wu fails to disclose the screen is a vibratable screen with a third vibration motor; said vibratable screen is positioned in said mixing container to receive said first and second powders that exit said outlet of said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement; said third vibration motor that is configured to cause vibration of said vibratable screen and to cause homogeneous mixing of said first and second powders as said first and second powders pass through said vibratable screen.
Maas et al. teaches another powder feeding system (abstract). The reference teaches said mixing container includes a vibratable screen (figure 2, screen 3; [0032]; [0038]; [0043]) and a third vibration motor (figure 2, ultrasonic generator 33; [0038]); said vibratable screen is positioned in said mixing container to receive said first and second powders that exit said outlet of said second powder transport and/or metering arrangement (figure 2, outlet of material from 26 to screen 3 in mixing container 21; [0041]); said third vibration motor that is configured to cause vibration of said vibratable screen and to cause homogeneous mixing of said first and second powders as said first and second powders pass through said vibratable screen (figure 2, screen 3 and generator 33; [0041])
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to modify the screen of Wu to be a vibratable screen with third vibration motor as taught by Maas et al. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach powder feeding systems. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the screen vibrating jolts the product on the screen to reduce the accumulation of the product on the screen and promote movement of material through the screen to the proper outlet (Maas et al. [0005]; [0041]).
Regarding claim 22, Wu in view of Gillia et al. and Maas et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Wu as modified further discloses wherein said outlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement is arranged directly above said outlet of said second transport and/or metering arrangement such that said first powder falls on and mixes with said second powder prior to said first and second powders passing through said inlet of said mixing container (Wu see figures 1 and 2, reference #12 and 13).
Regarding claim 27, Wu in view of Gillia et al. and Maas et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Wu as modified further discloses vibration-decoupling units arranged a) between said first and second means of transport and/or metering arrangements as to at least partially isolate vibrations between said first means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement (figures 5 and 6, #122) (pipe 122 separate the powder branch pipes (first and second means of transport) which would isolate any vibrations caused between the pipes), and b) said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said mixing container to at least partially isolate vibrations between said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said mixing container (Wu figures 5 and 6, #124) (connecting seat 124 separated second metering means (#122) from the mixer which would isolate any vibrations from the metering means to the mixer)); and Gillia et al. further teaches vibration-decoupling units between the feeding systems and between the feeding system and screen/mixing container in order to avoid oscillation-related deteriorations in components of the systems (Gillia et al. [0047]).
Regarding claim 28, Wu in view of Gillia et al. and Maas et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Wu as modified further discloses vibration-decoupling units arranged a) between said first and second means of transport and/or metering arrangements as to at least partially isolate vibrations between said first means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement (figures 5 and 6, #122) (pipe 122 separate the powder branch pipes (first and second means of transport) which would isolate any vibrations caused between the pipes), and b) said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said mixing container to at least partially isolate vibrations between said second means of transport and/or metering arrangement and said mixing container (Wu figures 5 and 6, #124) (connecting seat 124 separated second metering means (#122) from the mixer which would isolate any vibrations from the metering means to the mixer)); and Gillia et al. further teaches vibration-decoupling units between the feeding systems and between the feeding system and screen/mixing container in order to avoid oscillation-related deteriorations in components of the systems (Gillia et al. [0047]).
Regarding claim 31, Wu in view of Gillia et al. and Maas et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Wu as modified further discloses wherein said vibratable screen is positioned at said inlet of said mixing container (Wu figure 1, powder feeder 12 at inlet to mixing container 40, includes screen in powder feeder 12, shown in figure 5 as #123; Maas et al. figure 2, outlet of material from 26 to screen 3 is at inlet to mixing container 21; [0041]).
Regarding claim 32, Wu in view of Gillia et al. and Maas et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. Wu as modified further discloses wherein said vibratable screen is positioned at said inlet of said mixing container (Wu figure 1, powder feeder 12 at inlet to mixing container 40, includes screen in powder feeder 12, shown in figure 5 as #123; Maas et al. figure 2, outlet of material from 26 to screen 3 is at inlet to mixing container 21; [0041]).
Claim(s) 35 and 36 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gillia et al. and Maas et al. as applied to claims 32 and 34 above, and further in view of Sweir et al.
Regarding claims 35 and 36, Wu in view of Gillia et al. and Maas et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein said first and second container each include a weighing device that is used to record a container weight of said first and/or second containers.
Sweir et al. teaches another powder feed device for additive manufacturing (abstract; [0001]). The reference teaches wherein said first and second container include a weighing device that is used to record a container weight of said first and/or second containers (figure 2, reference #212 and 214; [0023]; [0031]; [0036]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the time of filing to provide the weighing device of Sweir et al. on the first and second containers of Wu. One of ordinary skill in the art would reasonably expect such a combination to be suitable given that both references teach powder feed devices for additive manufacturing. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to do the foregoing because the ratio of the first material to second material and overall rates may be checked with load cells by the vessel load-cell feedback to ensure accurate mixing (Sweir et al. [0023]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues Wu fails to disclose the configuration of the vibration-decoupling units. Examiner finds this argument unpersuasive. Applicant has failed to explain why Wu fails to disclose this configuration, and merely makes the conclusory statement without providing any evidence. As explained above, Wu discloses all the limitations as set forth above, including the vibration-decoupling units (see #122 and 124 and their location with respect to the meters 121 and mixing container 40.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH INSLER whose telephone number is (571)270-0492. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, Claire X Wang can be reached at 571-270-1051. 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.
/ELIZABETH INSLER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1774
Prosecution Insights