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 .
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment, filed on March 11th, 2026, the following are withdrawn from the previous office action, mailed on November 13th, 2025.
Objection of claim 7 due to minor informality
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments in view of the amendments filed March 11th, 2026, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that all of the claim language used to describe the adaptive vacuum system should be accorded patentable weight as it is not mere intended use and all the claim language structurally limits the adaptive vacuum system (remarks page 10). 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. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. 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. In the present case, the build material slurry is the material worked upon by the claimed apparatus and does not prescribe additional structure to the claim. The rejection of the claims is based on a combination of Günther and Steege, wherein 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) and is capable of removing vapor resident in the build material ([0037, 0117]; controlled air flow, achieved using vacuum under pressure source, allows vapors to be removed from the build material). Steege teaches 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). The suction of the adaptive vacuum system of Steege is capable of collapsing the bubbles (air volume) in the build material ([0298]). As such, the vacuum systems described in Günther and Steege would be capable of use with a build material slurry and be capable of drawing the air resident in the build material slurry. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II). Furthermore, applicant’s reference to a PTAB decision on a case regarding a controller is not applicable here as the facts of the case are different.
Applicant argues Günther is nonanalogous to the claimed invention as it does not pertain to an additive manufacturing process in which both build material slurry and liquid binder agent is employed (remarks page 11). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Günther is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a). In this case, Günther is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of porous build platforms and vacuum system for additive manufacturing. Furthermore, Günther is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned as it seeks to remove air (vapors) from build material comprising a mixture of solid and liquid components using a vacuum system.
Applicant argues Günther does not use the vacuum device to remove air, but rather to remove liquid. Examiner respectfully disagrees. 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) and is capable of removing vapors resident in the build material ([0037, 0117]; controlled air flow, achieved using vacuum under pressure source, allows vapors to be removed from the build material). As such, the vacuum under pressure source of Günther would be capable of removing air from a build material slurry.
Applicant argues Steege and Nishida are nonanalogous to the claimed invention as they only involve build material slurry (remarks page 12). Examiner respectfully disagrees. In response to applicant's argument that Günther is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See MPEP 2141.01(a). In this case, Steege is analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the field of porous build platforms and vacuum system for additive manufacturing. Furthermore, Steege is reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned as it removes air from build material comprising a mixture of solid and liquid components using a vacuum system. 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. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. 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. Furthermore, Steege teaches the vacuum system is capable of use with both a build material slurry and liquid binder material ([0312]). The Nishida reference is used as evidence to show that porous additive manufacturing plates comprising pore sizes ranging from 5 to 150 microns in diameter ([0059]) are well-known in the art of additive manufacturing. These plates are capable of use with build materials comprising a mixture of solid and liquid components ([0110]) and therefore are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned.
Applicant argues Steege and Nishida are configured for another purpose completely and they do not have to contemplate the problems of a “dual liquid” approach that the claimed subject matter does (remarks page 13). 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. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. 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. In the present case, the build material slurry is the material worked upon by the claimed apparatus and does not prescribe additional structure to the claim. Steege teaches 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). The suction of the adaptive vacuum system of Steege is capable of collapsing the bubbles (air volume) in the build material ([0298]). Furthermore, Steege teaches the vacuum system is capable of use with both a build material slurry and liquid binder material ([0312]). As such, the vacuum system described in Steege would be capable of use with a build material slurry and liquid binder agent and be capable of drawing the air resident in the build material. The Nishida reference is used as evidence to show that porous additive manufacturing plates comprising pore sizes ranging from 5 to 150 microns in diameter ([0059]) are well-known in the art of additive manufacturing. These plates are capable of use with build materials comprising a mixture of solid and liquid components ([0110]) and therefore are reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II). Furthermore, the fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 (II). As the combination of Günther and Steege provides all the structural limitations of the claimed invention, the resulting combination would also suggest the claimed advantages.
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. The process/manner of using the apparatus and/or the material worked upon by the apparatus is/are viewed as recitation(s) of intended use and is/are given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus. 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 from the build material deposited on the bed in successive layers ([0067]);
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) and is capable of removing vapor resident in the build material ([0037, 0117]; controlled air flow, achieved using vacuum under pressure source, allows vapors to be removed from the build material). As such, the apparatus of Günther would be capable of use with a build material slurry and a liquid binder agent and would be capable of removing air from the build material.
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]). The suction of the adaptive vacuum system of Steege is capable of collapsing the bubbles (air volume) in the build material ([0298]). Furthermore, Steege teaches the vacuum system is capable of use with both a build material slurry and liquid binder material ([0312]). As such, the vacuum system described in Steege would be capable of use with a build material slurry and liquid binder agent and be capable of drawing the air resident in the build material.
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. Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(C). 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.
The limitations of using the stage for forming a green version of the 3D object and “such that the air does not become trapped as voids within the 3D object being formed at least due to the selective distribution of the liquid binder agent onto the build material slurry” are recitations of intended use of the claimed invention and do not 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. The recitation of a new intended use for an old product does not make a claim to that old product patentable.” See MPEP 2111.02 (II). Furthermore, the fact that appellant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145 (II). As the combination of Günther and Steege provides all the structural limitations of the claimed invention, the resulting combination would also suggest the claimed advantages.
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. Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results supports a prima facie obviousness determination. See MPEP 2143 I(D). 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights