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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 September 30th, 2025, has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on September 16th, 2025, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on July 23rd, 2025.
Rejection of claim 2 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) and 112(d)
Rejections of claims 1, 2 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 are withdrawn in light of the amendments
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments in view of the amendments, see remarks filed September 16th, 2025, with respect to the rejections of claims 1, 2 and 4-8 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new grounds of rejection is made in view of Steege et al. (US 20230373158 A1).
Applicant argues Günther teaches away from the claimed invention because it emphasizes forming a porous model using a particular (i.e. powder) build material, not a slurry build material, as claimed. Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details. Günther discloses the vacuum system is capable of use with build material comprising a mix of solid and liquid components ([0025]; build material comprises particulate material and binder fluid), as such would be capable of use with a build material slurry. Furthermore, as evidenced by Steege et al. (US 20230373158 A1) Fig. 17 and specification paragraph [0268], such vacuum systems are capable of use with build material slurries.
Applicants amendment to the claims necessitate a new grounds of rejection provided below.
New Grounds of Rejection
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, lines 1-2, “claim 1, the build material slurry comprising:” should say “claim 1, wherein the build material slurry comprises:” for claim language consistency.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner wishes to point out to Applicant that the claims are directed to an apparatus/a system and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. See MPEP 2114 (II) and 2115 for further details.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günther et al. (US 20160311167 A1; hereafter Günther), in view of Steege et al. (US 20230373158 A1), and as evidenced by Nishida et al. (US 20200276761 A1; hereafter Nishida).
Regarding claim 1, Günther discloses an additive manufacturing stage (Fig. 1), comprising:
a bed (Fig. 1; [0132]; build container 104) to define a volume (Fig. 1; [0139]; build space defined by build space boundary 111) where a three-dimensional object (Fig. 1; [0131]; component 103) is to be formed;
an air-permeable platform (Fig. 5; [0057, 0110]; retention system 501) comprised of a perforated plate ([0057]; retention system can comprise a screen mesh) and a porous plate ([0057, 0119]; retention system can further comprise an open-pore sintered plate) on which build material is deposited (Fig. 5; [0057, 0110]; build material/feedstock is deposited on the retention system), wherein the porous plate comprises a porous material having pores (Fig. 5; [0057, 0119]; open-pore sintered plate is necessarily composed of a porous material having pores);
and a vacuum system ([0117]; underpressure source may be a vacuum device) on an underside of the air-permeable platform ([0056, 0058, 0117]; means for the controlled air flow, the underpressure vacuum device source, may be mounted below the build container comprising the retention system) configured to draw air resident in the build material down through a thickness of the air-permeable platform (Fig. 5; [0117]; vacuum device is under pressure source that serves to draw air from build material/feedstock downwards through the retention system).
Günther further discloses the vacuum system is capable of use with build material comprising a mix of solid and liquid components ([0025]; build material comprises particulate material and binder fluid), as such would be capable of use with a build material slurry.
Günther does not explicitly disclose the pores range from 5 to 150 microns in diameter and the vacuum system is an adaptive vacuum system that adapts based on a pressure differential within the additive manufacturing stage as a number of layers of the build material deposited onto the bed increases.
However, Günther teaches that the size of the pores must be adapted to the particle diameters in the build material so that the retention system may appropriately separate the air and the build material ([0110]). Furthermore, as evidenced by specification paragraph [0059] of Nishida porous additive manufacturing plates comprising pore sizes ranging from 5 to 150 microns in diameter are well-known in the art of additive manufacturing. From these teachings, the size of the pores would have been considered a result effective variable by one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize, by routine experimentation, the size of the pores for the purposes of preventing the build material from being removed from the build space and clogging the retention system (Günther [0057]), since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05.
Furthermore, Steege teaches an additive manufacturing stage (Fig. 17; [0271]; build platform 160) comprising a bed (Fig. 17; [0271]; build platform working surface 162) and an air-permeable platform (Fig. 17; [0271]; central porous region 165), and an adaptive vacuum system ([0268, 0270]; vacuum pressure is applied to slurry through porous build platform, wherein feedback control is used for vacuum pressure application) on an underside of the air-permeable platform configured to draw air resident in a build material slurry ([0257]; mixture of photopolymer resin and powder can be slurry) down through the air-permeable platform ([0268]; the build platform working surface 162 may be porous to allow fluid flow through the platform), wherein the adaptive vacuum system adapts based on a pressure differential within the additive manufacturing stage as the amount of build material slurry on the air-permeable platform changes ([0270]; feedback control of vacuum pressure, wherein as the amount of resin in the layer decreases, the vacuum pressure can be decreased to maintain the resin level in the layer at a stable target value). From these teachings, one of ordinary skill in the art can recognize when there is more build material on the additive manufacturing stage, corresponding to a greater number of layers, the amount of vacuum pressure applied needs to be increased to achieve densification at the desired rate, wherein vacuum pressure is understood to mean the magnitude of applied differential pressure ([0270]).
Günther and Steege are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of porous build platforms and vacuum systems for additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Günther with the teachings of Steege to provide the vacuum system is an adaptive vacuum system that adapts based on a pressure differential within the additive manufacturing stage as a number of layers of the build material deposited onto the bed increases. Doing so would ensure layer densification is achieved at a desired rate (Steege [0270]) and therefore improve the quality and consistency of the produced parts.
Regarding claim 4, modified Günther discloses the additive manufacturing stage of claim 1, wherein the porous material is a porous metal material (Günther [0119]; retention system may be smoothed sintered metal plate).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günther et al. (US 20160311167 A1; hereafter Günther), Steege et al. (US 20230373158 A1) and Nishida et al. (US 20200276761 A1; hereafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Asano et al. (US 20210086397 A1; hereafter Asano).
Regarding claim 5, modified Günther discloses the additive manufacturing stage of claim 1.
Günther does not explicitly disclose the porous material is a porous ceramic material.
However, Asano teaches an air-permeable platform for additive manufacturing ([0039]; porous plate 31 for vacuum suction) comprising a porous material ([0040]; porous plate 31 is formed from a porous material), wherein the porous material can be metal, ceramic or resin ([0040]; porous material can be ceramic, metal and resin).
Günther and Asano are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to substitute the porous material of modified Günther with the ceramic porous material of Asano to provide the porous material is a porous ceramic material. The selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2144.07. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to make the substitution for the purpose of reducing the cost of the air-permeable platform.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günther et al. (US 20160311167 A1; hereafter Günther), Steege et al. (US 20230373158 A1) and Nishida et al. (US 20200276761 A1; hereafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Myerberg et al. (US 20170297111 A1; hereafter Myerberg).
Regarding claim 6, modified Günther discloses the additive manufacturing stage of claim 1.
Günther does not explicitly disclose at least one of the air-permeable platform and sidewalls of the bed are heated.
However, Myerberg teaches a bed ([0128]; powder bed) and an air-permeable platform ([0231]; substrate with a plurality of perforations through the substrate) for additive manufacturing, wherein is air-permeable platform heated ([0099]) and sidewalls of the bed are heated ([0128]).
Günther and Myerberg are both considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the field of additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to the person in the ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify modified Günther with the teachings of Myerberg to provide at least one of the air-permeable platform and sidewalls of the bed are heated. It is well-known in the art of additive manufacturing that heaters can be used to heat the build material and/or build platform for the purposes of curing and finishing the three-dimensional object to be formed.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Günther et al. (US 20160311167 A1; hereafter Günther), Steege et al. (US 20230373158 A1) and Nishida et al. (US 20200276761 A1; hereafter Nishida) as applied to claim 1, as evidenced by Schubert et al. (US 20180111881 A1; hereafter Schubert).
Regarding claim 7, modified Günther discloses the additive manufacturing stage of claim 1, wherein the build material is a slurry (Günther [0025]; build material comprises particulate material and binder fluid) comprising:
build material particles (Günther [0025]; particulate material),
a liquid carrier (Günther [0025]; binder fluid).
Günther does not explicitly disclose the slurry comprises a viscosity increasing agent.
However, the claims are directed to an apparatus and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, as evidenced by specification paragraph [0048] of Schubert it is well-known in the art of additive manufacturing that viscosity control additives can be added to slurry build materials in order to provide a uniform slurry mixture, prevent mixture separation, and minimize particle segregation.
Regarding claim 8, modified Günther discloses the additive manufacturing stage of claim 7.
Günther does not explicitly disclose the viscosity increasing agent is a hydrocolloid.
However, the claims are directed to an apparatus and therefore are only limited by positively recited elements. “Inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." See MPEP 2115. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Furthermore, as evidenced by specification paragraph [0048] of Schubert it is well-known in the art of additive manufacturing that viscosity control additives, such as a hydrocolloid like xanthan gum ([0021]), can be added to slurry build materials in order to provide a uniform slurry mixture, prevent mixture separation, and minimize particle segregation.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Vipul Malik whose telephone number is (571)272-0976. The examiner can normally be reached M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/V.M./Examiner, Art Unit 1754 /SUSAN D LEONG/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1754