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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 11/11/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the reference numbers are handwritten and hard to decipher. 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “at least one powder conveying unit” of claim 10; and the “at least one powder processing unit” of claim 10 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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: “into mixing container” should read --into a mixing container--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 31 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said mixing container is co is located” is incorrect. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 32 is objected to because of the following informalities: “said mixing container is co is located” is incorrect. 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);
“means of additive manufacture” as set forth in claim 10 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: “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 1-10 and 21-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outlet of the first means of transport and/or metering" in line 17. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the outlet of the second means of transport and/or metering" in lines 17-18. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 1 recites a method of using the apparatus (“in that the first powder is supplied…”) in lines 10-16 which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II). Claims 2-10 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites a method of using the apparatus (“such that the first powder in the mixing container falls…”) in lines 5-8 which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 3 uses the term “designed as” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “designed as” and whether it is meant to be the be the specific elements following it or similar or like the elements or include the elements, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. Claim 4 is also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of its dependency on claim 3.
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 4 recites a method of using the apparatus which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 7 uses the term “designed as” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “designed as” and whether it is meant to be the be the specific elements following it or similar or like the elements or include the specific elements, thereby rendering the scope of the claim unascertainable. 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.
Claim 10 recites that the powder conveying unit comprises a device according to claim 1; however, the powder conveying unit is recited as supplying powder to at least one container. It is unclear whether “at least one container” of claim 10 is the same or different as “a first container” of claim 1 or “a second container of claim 1”. If it is the same container, it is unclear how the powder conveying unit comprises the device, when it is supplying powder to the device. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention.
Claim 10 recites a method of using the apparatus which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 21 recites the limitation, “a first container” in line 8. It is unclear whether “a first container” of line 8 is the same or different as “a first container” as recited in line 2 of the claim. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 22-36 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 21.
Claim 21 recites a method of using the apparatus in lines 16-20 which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II). Claims 22-36 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 21.
Claim 23 recites the arrangements “are configured to include…”. It is unclear whether those limitations are part of the claim because “configured” only requires the arrangements are capable to include those following limitations. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 25, 27 and 29 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 23.
Claim 23 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. Claims 25, 27 and 29 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 23.
Claim 24 recites the arrangements “are configured to include…”. It is unclear whether those limitations are part of the claim because “configured” only requires the arrangements are capable to include those following limitations. As such the claim is indefinite for failing to distinctly claim the invention. Claims 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 24.
Claim 24 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. Claims 26, 28, 30, 32, 34 and 36 are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) by virtue of their dependency on claim 24.
Claim 25 recites a method of using the apparatus which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 26 recites a method of using the apparatus which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 35 recites a method of using the apparatus (“are used with” which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
Claim 36 recites a method of using the apparatus (“are used with” which renders the claim indefinite. A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus is indefinite. See MPEP §2173.05(p)(II).
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, 10, 21-24, 27, 29 and 33 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 supplied by means of the first means of transport and/or metering, and the second powder is 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 the outlet of the first means of transport and/or metering and the 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).
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 falls 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 is designed as one or more of a vibrating channel, a vibrating duct, a vibrating metering channel, a vibrating metering duct, or a switchable vale 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 container, and/or at least one powder processing unit, in which the powder or the powder mixture is processed by means of additive manufacture, characterized in that the powder conveying unit comprises or is created from a device according to claim 1 (abstract; page 2; page 3, step a; page 4; page 6; figure 1; figures 3 and 4, reference #116).
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. a first container; 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. a second container; 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);
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); 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); and wherein said first and second powders pass through at least one screen prior to entering the mixing container (figures 5 and 6, reference #123), and said at least one screen is located at or above said inlet of said mixing container (figure 1, reference #12 above reference #40) (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
wherein said outlets of said first and second powder transport and/or metering are positioned at or above said inlet of said mixing container (figure 1, reference #13 outlets above reference #40 entrance).
Regarding claim 22, Wu discloses wherein said outlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement is arranged 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 pass through said inlet of said mixing container (see figures 1 and 2, reference #12 and 13).
Regarding claim 23, Wu discloses wherein said first and/or second transport and/or metering arrangements are configured to includes one or more of 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). IT is noted that the limitation uses the term “configured” which only requires the arrangements be capable to include the ducts/channels/valve and does not require the structural limitations of the duct or channel or valve.
Regarding claim 24, Wu discloses wherein said first and/or second transport and/or metering arrangements are configured to includes one or more of 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). IT is noted that the limitation uses the term “configured” which only requires the arrangements be capable to include the ducts/channels/valve and does not require the structural limitations of the duct or channel or valve.
Regarding claim 27, Wu discloses wherein at least one vibration- decoupling unit is arranged a) upstream of said inlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, b) said inlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, c) upstream of said inlet of said second transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, and/or d) at said inlet of said second transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport (figures 3 and 4, reference #114).
Regarding claim 29, Wu discloses wherein at least one vibration- decoupling unit is arranged a) behind said outlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, b), at said outlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, c) behind said outlet of the second transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, and/or d) at said outlet of said second transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport (figure 1, reference #12).
Regarding claim 33, Wu discloses wherein in said mixing container incudes an outlet for said mixture of said first and second powders and an oversize granulate outlet (see figures 9-12).
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, 25, 26, 28 and 30 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 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 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).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Wu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. While the reference discloses wherein in that a quantity of said first powder supplied to the mixing container is controlled and/or regulated by said first transport and/or metering arrangement and in that a quantity of said second powder supplied to the mixing container is controlled and/or regulated by the second transport and/or metering arrangement (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 a quantity of said first powder supplied to said mixing container is controlled and/or regulated by vibrational excitation of said first transport and/or metering arrangement (figure 1, reference #4, 8 and 14) and/or a quantity of said second powder supplied to said mixing container is controlled and/or regulated by vibrational excitation of said second transport and/or metering arrangement (figure 1, reference #6 with 8 and 14 on right not labeled; column 5, lines 42-55); and wherein said vibrational excitation of said second transport and/or metering arrangement is independent of said vibrational excitation of said first transport and/or metering arrangement (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).
Regarding claim 28, Wu in view of Gillia et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein at least one vibration- decoupling unit is arranged a) upstream of said inlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, b) said inlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, c) upstream of said inlet of said second transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, and/or d) at said inlet of said second transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport (figures 3 and 4, reference #114).
Regarding claim 30, Wu in view of Gillia et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. The reference as modified further discloses wherein at least one vibration- decoupling unit is arranged a) behind said outlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, b), at said outlet of said first transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, c) behind said outlet of the second transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport, and/or d) at said outlet of said second transport and/or metering arrangement as viewed in the direction of transport (figure 1, reference #12).
Claim(s) 7, 8 and 31 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 is designed as a vibrating 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 is designed as a vibrating 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]).
Regarding claim 31, as stated in the rejection to claim 21, the screen is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations in claim 31 which attempt to further limit the screen are not positive structural limitations. However, in order to further compact prosecution Wu discloses wherein said at least one screen is located at or above said inlet of said mixing container (figures 5 and 6, reference #123 (which is part of reference #12 is shown above entrance to reference #40 in figure 1). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the screen is configured as a vibrating screen which is subjected to vibrational excitation in a controllable and/or regulatable manner.
Maas et al. teaches another powder feeding system (abstract). The reference teaches wherein the screen is configured as a vibrating screen which is subjected to 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 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]).
Claim(s) 9 and 35 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]).
Regarding claim 35, Wu discloses all the limitations as set forth above. However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein said first and/or second container include or are used with 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/or second container include or are used with 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]).
Claim(s) 32 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wu in view of Gillia et al. as applied to claims 26, 28 and 30 above, and further in view of Maas et al.
Regarding claim 32, Wu in view of Gillia et al. discloses all the limitations as set forth above. As stated in the rejection to claim 21, the screen is not a positively recited structure of the claims, and therefore the limitations in claim 32 which attempt to further limit the screen are not positive structural limitations. However, in order to further compact prosecution Wu discloses wherein said at least one screen is located at or above said inlet of said mixing container (figures 5 and 6, reference #123 (which is part of reference #12 is shown above entrance to reference #40 in figure 1). However, the reference does not explicitly disclose wherein the screen is configured as a vibrating screen which is subjected to vibrational excitation in a controllable and/or regulatable manner.
Maas et al. teaches another powder feeding system (abstract). The reference teaches wherein the screen is configured as a vibrating screen which is subjected to 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 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 34, Wu in view of Gillia et al. and 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) 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 claim 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/or second container include or are used with 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/or second container include or are used with 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]).
Conclusion
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