DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on November 21, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments to the claims, filed November 21, 2025, are acknowledged. Claim 22 is amended.
Claims 13-20 remain withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, Group II, directed to a method, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely elected with traverse in the reply filed on August 31, 2023.
Claims 1-9 and 11-22 are pending, and Claims 1-9, 11-12 and 21-22 are currently considered in this office action.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation, “fusion/binder” source, is interpreted to be a source which may be any of a fusion source, a binder source, or both a fusion and a binder source.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22 recites the limitation "the top side" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-4, 8-9, 11-12 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by McCarren (US 20170291260 A1, previously cited as US 10239157 B2).
Regarding Claim 1, McCarren discloses a system for building three-dimensional objects (Abstract), the system comprising:
a powder tank comprising a bottom wall and one or more walls extending outwardly form the bottom wall to define a volume for containing a powder material, the powder material being contained within the powder tank above the bottom wall (Fig. 1, powder reservoir 17; para. [0014]),
a cylindrically-shaped substrate rotatable about a rotational axis, the substrate extending axially through at least a portion of the powder tank such that rotation of the substrate relative to the powder tank about the rotational axis results in a layer of powder material being deposited relative to at least a portion of an outer surface of the substrate and such that the outer surface of the substrate contacts the powder material (Fig. 1, rotatable substrate 28 which extends through reservoir 17 and contacts powder P; para. [0024]; para. [0027]-[0028]);
a fusion/binder source configured to cause the powder material deposited relative to the substrate to be fused or adhered together (Fig. 1, directed energy sources 51 and 61);
a computing system configured to control an operation of the fusion/binder source as the substrate is rotated about the rotational axis to generate a three-dimensional object relative to the outer surface of the substrate (Fig. 1, computer 70; para. [0021]),
wherein, the substrate is positioned above the bottom wall of the powder tank and extends axially through at least a portion of the powder tank such that a portion of the powder material is contained with the powder tank at a location between the substrate and the bottom wall of the powder tank (Fig. 1).
Additionally, regarding the limitations:
“for containing a powder material, the powder material being contained within the powder tank above the bottom wall”,
“such that rotation of the substrate relative to the powder tank about the rotational axis results in a layer of power material being deposited relative to at least a portion of an outer surface of the substrate and such that the outer surface of the substrate contacts the powder material”,
“to cause the powder material deposited relative to the substrate to be fused or adhered together”, and
“such that a portion of the powder material is contained within the powder tank at a location between the substrate and the bottom wall of the powder tank”,
the claims are directed to an apparatus (system), and the currently claimed limitations are functional limitations and further directed to the material worked up on (powder material) and therefore also intended use limitations. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114(I) and (II). Additionally, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim, and "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115.
In the instant case, the powder reservoir and the rotating substrate of McCarren are capable of performing the claimed functions of holding powder in the powder reservoir and rotating the substrate within the powder reservoir such that powder contacts the substrate surface and a layer of powder on the substrate surface may be fused, and therefore claim limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 2, McCarren discloses wherein a model associated with the three-dimensional object is accessible by the computing system and wherein the computing system is configured to selectively activate or deactivate the fusion/binder source to generate the three-dimensional object in accordance with the model (para. [0024] and para. [0032], computer issues instructions to fuse predetermined locations to form airfoils). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in the locations and sequencing (model) required to build up the air-foil would be accessible by the computing system in order to issue instructions on predetermined fusing locations).
Regarding Claim 3, McCarren discloses comprising at least one position sensor configured to generate data associated with at least one of a circumferential position or an axial position of a substrate (para. [0021], tracked on all three axis, reads on circumferential and axial position).
Regarding Claim 4, McCarren discloses wherein a model associated with the three-dimensional object is accessible by the computing system and wherein the computing system is configured to selectively activate or deactivate the fusion/binder source to generate the three-dimensional object in accordance with the model (para. [0024] and para. [0032], computer issues instructions to fuse predetermined locations to form airfoils). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in the locations and sequencing (model) required to build up the air-foil would be accessible by the computing system in order to issue instructions on predetermined fusing locations).
McCarren further discloses wherein the computing system uses sensor position data to confirm the correct fusing position (para. [0021]), which reads on wherein the computing system is configured to selectively activate or deactivate the fusing source to generate the three dimensional object in accordance with the model and the data received from the at least one position sensor.
Regarding Claim 8, McCarren discloses wherein the three-dimensional object is built-up radially in layers relative to the outer surface of the substrate as the substrate is rotated about the rotational axis (Fig. 3-5).
Additionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus (system), and the currently claimed limitation is a functional limitation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
In the instant case, the apparatus of McCarren is capable of performing the claimed function of radially building up layers during substrate rotation, and McCarren has the same apparatus structure (rotating build surface) as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, McCarren discloses wherein the fusion/binder source is configured to cause the powder material to be fused or adhered together a target zone aligned with an axial section of the substrate relative to which the layer of powder material has been deposited (Fig. 1 and 3-4, target areas 52),
the system further comprising a substrate drive configured to axially actuate the substrate relative to the target zone (para. [0030], indexing motor 29).
Regarding Claim 11, McCarren discloses wherein the fusion/binder source comprises a beam generating device configured to direct an energy beam towards the layer of powder material to fuse the powder material together (Abstract, beam of energy).
Regarding Claim 12, McCarren discloses wherein the energy beam comprises a laser beam or electron beam (para. [0016]; para. [0028]).
Regarding Claim 22, McCarren discloses wherein system is configured to deposit the powder material on the top side of the substrate (see also Fig. 3, target area 52 is on the top side (top half section) of the cylindrical substrate). Additionally, McCarren discloses wherein powder may be at any level of the substrate, above or below, so long as the powder line intersects the workpiece and so that a powder layer can be fused to the workpiece (para. [0027]). A powder layer above the workpiece would therefore be powder deposited on the top side of the substrate, as claimed.
Further, the claims are directed to an apparatus (system), and the currently claimed limitation “configured to deposit the powder material on the top side of the substrate” is a functional limitation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
In the instant case, the apparatus of McCarren is capable of depositing powder on the top surface of the substrate (see explanation above), and the claim limitations have been met.
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 unpatentable over McCarren (US 20170291260 A1, previously cited as US 10239157 B2), as applied to Claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 5, McCarren discloses a scraper to remove unwanted powder from the surface of the substrate as the substrate rotates (para. [0014]; Fig. 2), which reads on a powder gate to regulate a thickness of the layer of powder material deposited relative to the at least portion of the outer surface of the substrate as the substrate is rotated relative to both the powder tank and the powder gate. McCarren does not expressly disclose wherein the scraper is movable relative to the outer surface of the substrate to regulate, but discloses wherein the powder gate is selectively applied during the process (para. [0014]; para. [0025], Fig. 2-4, scraper is applied to the substrate mandrel 28 and rim portion 44’, and not applied during the building of airfoils 46’). Thus, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that the scraper is movable relative to the outer surface of the substrate as claimed in order to apply the scraper at select times and to only select portions of the build during the additive manufacturing process.
Additionally, the claimed limitation “to regulate a thickness of the layer of powder material deposited relative to the at least portion of the outer surface of the substrate as the substrate is rotated” is a functional limitation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
In the instant case, the scraper of McCarren is capable of regulating a thickness of the powder relative to the substrate (removing powder from the substrate surface regulates the thickness to 0), and the claimed limitation has been met.
Claims 1-2, 5, 8-9, 11-12 and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (previously cited, US 20150190962 A1) in view of McCarren (US 20170291260 A1, previously cited as US 10239157 B2) with evidence by Usami (US 20170232673 A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Yang discloses a system for building three-dimensional objects (Abstract), the system comprising:
a powder tank comprising a bottom wall and one or more walls extending outwardly form the bottom wall to define a volume for containing a powder material, the powder material being contained within the powder tank above the bottom wall (Fig. 1, powder tank 12, powder M; para. [0027]),
a cylindrically-shaped substrate rotatable about a rotational axis, the substrate extending axially parallel with powder tank such that rotation of the substrate relative to the powder tank about the rotational axis results in a layer of powder material being deposited relative to at least a portion of an outer surface of the substrate and such that the outer surface of the substrate contacts the powder material (para. [0024]; para. [0026]-[0027]; Fig. 1, rotatable object 10 which is a cylindrical substrate and which contacts powder M; see also Fig. 4, showing the cross-section such that one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the example of object 10 (substrate) in Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 to be a cylinder – see also para. [0026] describing a bar-like shape having a non-planar surface, which reads on cylindrically-shaped substrate; para. [0027] and para. [0029], describing wherein powder contacts the outer surface of the substrate and wherein van der walls force attaches the powder after the metal powder is in contact with the semi-finished object 10), wherein, the substrate is positioned above the bottom wall of the powder tank and extends axially across the powder tank such that a portion of the powder material is contained within the powder tank at a location between the substrate and the bottom wall of the powder tank (see Fig. 1, object 10/substrate is located above the bottom wall, contacts the powder within the tank and extends with the length of the powder tank, such that powder material is located between the bottom wall and the surface of the substrate);
a fusion/binder source configured to cause the powder material deposited relative to the substrate to be fused or adhered together (Fig. 1, laser L; para. [0036], radiation source); and
a computing system configured to control an operation of the fusion/binder source as the substrate is rotated about the rotational axis to generate a three-dimensional object relative to the outer surface of the substrate (para. [0042]).
Yang depicts wherein the substrate surface abuts the powder tank (Fig. 1), and discloses wherein the powder makes contact with the substrate (para. [0029]). Yang further discloses that if the object 10 were to remain still, the material supply module (powder tank 120) would provide material to a first region R1, which on the top surface shown on the substrate (para. [0037]; see Fig. 1, R1 is positioned on the top surface).
Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the substrate would be situated within the powder tank in order to achieve these functions (making contact with powder, and powder deposition on the top surface of the substrate in static position); however, Yang does not expressly disclose wherein a portion of the substrate is situated within the powder tank, and thereby axially extending through at least a portion of the powder tank, as claimed.
McCarren discloses a rotating substrate which is situated in a powder reservoir and extends at least partially through the powder reservoir in order to deposit powder on the substrate surface for fusing (Fig. 1). McCarren discloses wherein the powder level relative to the substrate may be any level, including below and further above the substrate, so long as the powder contacts the substrate (para. [0027]).
Usami demonstrates wherein a charged roller is able to collect a layer of powder by rotating through a powder reservoir (Fig. 3B; para. [0062]; para. [0049]). While Usami is directed to a different type of additive process of forming and transposing powdered images in layers from rollers, Usami demonstrates an expectation of success of a charged substrate forming a powder layer when rotating through a powder reservoir.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have rearranged the substrate of Yang to be situated in the powder tank, and therefore extending axially through the powder tank as claimed, as taught by McCarren, thereby forming the powder layer disclosed by Yang and as further demonstrated by Usami. One would be motivated to do this in order ensure contact with the powder to form the powder layer, and in order to form a powder layer on any given or desired area of the substrate at the same time and not just the bottom portion of the substrate as depicted in Fig. 1 of Yang. Additionally, it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04.VI.C).
Additionally, regarding the limitations:
“for containing a powder material, the powder material being contained within the powder tank above the bottom wall”,
“such that rotation of the substrate relative to the powder tank about the rotational axis results in a layer of power material being deposited relative to at least a portion of an outer surface of the substrate and such that the outer surface of the substrate contacts the powder material”,
“to cause the powder material deposited relative to the substrate to be fused or adhered together”, and
“such that a portion of the powder material is contained within the powder tank at a location between the substrate and the bottom wall of the powder tank”,
the claims are directed to an apparatus (system), and the currently claimed limitations are functional limitations and further directed to the material worked up on (powder material) and therefore also intended use limitations. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114(I) and (II). Additionally, expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim, and "[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115.
In the instant case, the rotating substrate and the powder reservoir of Yang in view of McCarren are capable of performing the claimed functions of holding powder in the powder reservoir and rotating the substrate within the powder reservoir such that powder contacts the substrate surface and a layer of powder on the substrate surface may be fused, and therefore claim limitations have been met.
Regarding Claim 2, Yang discloses wherein a model associated with the three-dimensional object is accessible by the computing system and wherein the computing system is configured to selectively activate or deactivate the fusion/binder source to generate the three-dimensional object in accordance with the model (para. [0042]-[0043], wherein laser is selectively activated to sinter different portions by the control module; para. [0045]). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that in the repeated steps of rotating the object/substrate, providing powder to the substrate, and providing the radiation source, the control unit has deactivated the energy source for the steps of rotating the object/substrate and providing powder to the substrate.
Regarding Claim 5, Yang discloses a scraper (powder gate) which is moveable relative to the outer surface of the object/substrate to regulate a thickness of the layer of powder material deposited relative to the at least a portion of the outer surface of the substrate/object as the substrate is rotated relative to both the powder tank and the scraper (powder gate) (para. [0033]-[0034], wherein scraping effects may occur when both the object/substrate and the scraping member are both moved).
Additionally, the claimed limitation “to regulate a thickness of the layer of powder material deposited relative to the at least portion of the outer surface of the substrate as the substrate is rotated” is a functional limitation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
In the instant case, the scraper of Yang is capable of regulating a thickness of the powder relative to the substrate while the substrate is rotating, and the claimed limitation has been met.
Regarding Claim 8, Yang discloses wherein the three-dimensional object is built-up in layers relative to the outer surface of the substrate as the substrate is rotated about the rotational axis (para. [0036]; para. [0042]-[0044]; see also para. [0047], wherein process of providing powder material, rotating the substrate, and providing radiation source L is repetitively performed). One of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that building up an object which is rotated about an axis reads on wherein the object is built-up radially.
Additionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus (system), and the currently claimed limitation is a functional limitation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
In the instant case, the apparatus of Yang is capable of performing the claimed function of irradiating the powder layer as the object is rotating in a continuous manner (para. [0043]-[0044]), and Yang has the same structure (rotating build surface) as claimed.
Regarding Claim 9, Yang discloses wherein the fusion/binder source is configured to cause the powder material to be fused or adhered together a target zone aligned with an axial section of the substrate relative to which the layer of powder material has been deposited (para. [0036] and para. [0042], wherein substrate is rotated to align a target zone (region 12) with the energy source module),
the system further comprising a substrate drive configured to axially actuate the substrate relative to the target zone (Fig. 1-2, para. [0024] and para. [0032], pushing member 111 and holder 112 are actuated by power supply 150 to rotate the object/substrate). A device which is electrically powered to cause the substrate to rotate reads on a substrate drive.
Regarding Claim 11, Yang discloses wherein the fusion/binder source comprises a beam generating device configured to direct an energy beam towards the layer of powder material to fuse the powder material together (para. [0036], wherein energy source module 130 supplies (generates) an energy beam (laser) and controls the focal length to direct the energy beam; see Fig. 1, energy source module 30 which directs laser source).
Regarding Claim 12, Yang discloses wherein the energy beam comprises a laser beam (para. [0036], laser light source).
Regarding Claim 21, Yang discloses wherein the powder gate is configured to regulate the thickness of the layer of powder material before the powder material is fused or adhered together by a fusion/binder source (para. [0033] and Fig. 1, scraping member 121, wherein scraping member controls thickness and the uniformity of the stacked powder material M; one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that stacked powder material refers to the powder prior to the material being fused).
Regarding Claim 22, Yang discloses wherein the system is configured to deposit powder on the top side of the substrate (para. [0037], material supply module 10 can also provide the material M to the first region R1; see Fig. 1, wherein region R1 is the top side of the substrate). One of ordinary skill in the art would also appreciate that the substrate is rotating and powder deposited on the substrate will become powder deposited on a top side of the surface of the substrate with rotation. Additionally, the substrate surface reads on the broadest most reasonable interpretation of top sipe (top most or outermost surface) of the substrate.
Further, McCarren discloses wherein the powder is deposited on the top side of the substrate and wherein powder may be at any level of the substrate including above the substrate, and therefore on the top side of the substrate (Fig. 3, target area 52 is on the top side (top half section) of the cylindrical substrate; para. [0027] and teaching above in claim 1). A powder layer above the workpiece would be powder deposited on the top side of the substrate, as claimed.
Additionally, the claims are directed to an apparatus (system), and the currently claimed limitation “configured to deposit the powder material on the top side of the substrate” is a functional limitation. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987). See also MPEP 2114(I) and (II).
In the instant case, the apparatus of Yang and McCarren is capable of depositing powder on the top surface of the substrate (see explanation above), and the claim limitations have been met.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (previously cited, US 20150190962 A1) and McCarren (US 20170291260 A1, previously cited as US 10239157 B2) with evidence by Usami (US 20170232673 A1), as applied to Claim 1, in further view of Ljungblad (previously cited, US 20150306819 A1).
Regarding Claim 3, Yang teaches wherein the control unit is able to determine the position and rotation angle of the energy source relative to the object/substrate (para. [0039] and para. [0042]-[0043]), but does not expressly disclose a position sensor configured to generate the data associated with the circumferential position or axial position of the substrate.
Ljungblad teaches a position sensor such as a camera or a interferometer which is configured to measure distance and generate data associated with at least one of a circumferential position or an axial position of a rotating cylindrical substrate in order to adjust the position of the laser beam source (para. [0033]; para. [0112]-[0113], position of the outer surface reads on data associated with at least one of a circumferential position of an axial position of the substrate). Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that the sensor would be capable of measuring the position of the substrate directly.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used a position sensor to generate data associated with the circumferential position or axial position of the substrate, as taught by Ljungblad, for the invention disclosed by Yang, in order to determine and adjust the position of the energy source relative to the substrate (see teachings above by Ljungblad), as also desired by Yang.
Regarding Claim 4, Yang discloses wherein the computation control unit calculates the required data corresponding to the shape and profile of the to-be-formed object, and outputs the control signals correspondingly to the energy source module in order to adjust the direction and location of the energy source module and to activate the laser source (para. [0042]; para. [0047]; shape and profile of the object reads on model). Yang discloses wherein such data input includes the location of the sintered layer, or the rotation angle of the object (para. [0043]-[0044], one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the location and dimension of the sintered layer and/or the rotation angle of the object would read on the position of the object/substrate).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have configured and used the position sensor of Ljungblad, which measures and provides input data on the distance/location of the substrate (see teachings above in Claim 3), for the input data used by the computation control unit of Yang, in order to properly adjust the direction, location (position) and activation of the energy source, as taught by Yang and Ljungblad (see Ljungblad para. [0113]), thereby performing the apparatus functions disclosed by Yang.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (previously cited, US 20150190962 A1) and McCarren (US 20170291260 A1, previously cited as US 10239157 B2) with evidence by Usami (US 20170232673 A1), as applied to Claim 1, respectively, in further view of Ruiz (previously cited, US 20180244033 A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Yang discloses wherein the power supply is coupled to the powder supply module and wherein the powder gate is configured to move (para. [0034]; Claim 4), but fails to disclose a gate actuator configured to move the powder gate (scraper) relative the outer surface of the substrate.
Ruiz teaches a leveler and/or cutter, which functions to produce a layer of material comprising a predetermined height (para. [0017]). Ruiz further teaches an actuator, controlled by a controller, which operates the leveler and/or cutter in a radial direction with respect to the center of a cylindrical surface member, enabling the leveler and/or cutter to be moved to a position with reference to an outer surface of the object being constructure about member 22, and thereby allowing the leveler and/or cutter to perform its intended function (para. [0017]-[0016]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used an actuator connected to the computing system (controller) to operate the powder gate (scraper) of Yang such that it is moved to a position with reference to an outer surface of the substrate, as taught by Ruiz, in order to enable the movement of the scraper to the desired position thereby allowing the scraper to perform its intended functional of producing a powder layer of a predetermined height (see teachings by Ruiz above).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed November 21, 2025, with respect to Claim 1, and dependent claims thereof, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over Yang have been fully considered. Upon further consideration, the rejection is withdrawn, and a new rejection(s) is made under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) over McCarren and under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Yang in view of McCarren with evidence by Usami, as detailed above.
Regarding Yang:
Applicant argues that Yang discloses and illustrates a gap between the powder tank and the substrate, and that the powder material M is not in contact with the substrate or semi-finished object as show in Fig. 4 (Remarks, Pg. 8-9). Applicant argues that the powder of Yang ‘flies’ to the substrate by electrostatic force (Remarks, Pg. 11).
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Yang expressly discloses wherein “the metal powder is attached to the semi-finished object 10 through a van der Waals force after the metal powder is in contact with the semi-finished object 10” (para. [0029]), such that the metal powder first contacts the object and then attaches and remains attached through van der Waals force. This is illustrated in Fig. 1 wherein the substrate abuts (contacts) the powder in the powder tank. Additionally, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that Fig. 4 is an exploded view of the apparatus and that powder is not traversing a great distance (flying) to become attached to the substrate. Yang does not use the language ‘gap’ and does not disclose a distance between the powder tank and the substrate/object being built. Nonetheless, a new ground(s) of rejection is made over Yang in view of McCarren wherein the substrate may be situated within the powder tank (see details above).
Applicant argues that a gap and spatial separation is required for a potential difference and to sustain electrostatic attraction. Applicant argues direct contact or immersion between the powder source and substrate would neutralize the electrostatic force (Remarks, Pg. 9-10).
This argument is not found persuasive.
Applicant provides no evidence to support that Van der Wall forces and electrostatic attraction requires a gap between the powder source and the substrate. Additionally, Usami, as cited above, demonstrates that immersing the substrate in a powder tank would not change the principle mode of operation and that there is an expectation of success to form a powder layer on a rotating substrate within a powder reservoir (see rejection above).
Applicant argues that Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 of Yang do not depict a bottom wall or extending walls (Remarks, Pg. 10-12).
Applicant questions how it would be possible for material to be contained in the powder tank above the bottom wall in the structure of Yang (Remarks, Pg. 12).
Applicant argues that mechanical contact pressure is not relevant to Yang and therefore is silent towards a bottom wall and extending walls to contain the powder (Remarks, Pg. 11).
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Fig. 1 and Fig. 4 clearly show a bottom wall and extending side walls which hold powder (see shaded bottom wall below material M and see lines extending from this wall denoting the side walls of the tank holding the material M and wherein material M is held and situated on top of the bottom (shaded) wall).
Regarding ‘mechanical contact powder’, this is not a currently claimed feature and not commensurate in scope with the claims.
Applicant argues that Yang is silent towards a system wherein powder is deposited on a top side of the substrate as a result of rotation of a substrate (Remarks, Pg. 12).
Applicant argues that one would require hindsight in order to modify Yang (Remarks, Pg. 13).
These arguments are not found persuasive.
Yang discloses powder deposition on a substrate, which rotates, such that powder deposited is on a top side of the substrate through rotation (powder deposited will be on the top side of the substrate after rotation). Additionally, the substrate surface reads on the broadest most reasonable interpretation of top side (top most or outermost surface) of the substrate, and McCarren further discloses powder deposited directly on the top of the substrate (see rejection above).
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hays (previously cited, US 11167477 B1): wherein rotation of the cylinder substrate which receives a layer of powder returns unused powder by rotating back into a powder supply hopper (Fig. 1; Col. 10, lines 65-67). While the rotation of cylinder 12 of Hays is not a building substrate, one of ordinary skill in the art would appreciate the applicability of Hays returning unused powder from a rotating cylinder back to a powder tank as being suitable for a cylinder which is a build surface wherein a powder layer is applied.
Ruiz (previously cited and cited above, US 20180244033 A1, further teachings): further teaches a cylindrical build surface may comprise a substrate drive configured to both rotate the substrate and to axially actuate the substrate relative to a target zone (Fig. 1C). Ruiz teaches that this allows for different post-printing treatment operations along the same cylinder substrate.
Krebs (previously cited, US 20160311022 A1): teaches an apparatus for manufacturing a three-dimensional object on a cylindrical substrate, wherein the substrate rotates through a material tank of granulated solid particles (Fig. 2B; para. [0045]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CATHERINE P SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4428. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00-4:00 MT.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on (571)-272-3458. 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.
CATHERINE P. SMITH
Patent Examiner
Art Unit 1735
/CATHERINE P SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights