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
Newly submitted claim 120 is directed to an invention that is independent or distinct from the invention originally claimed for the following reasons: claim 1 and claim 120 lack unity of invention a posteriori because even though the inventions of the groups require the technical feature of claim 1, this technical feature is not a special technical feature as it does not make a contribution over the prior art in view of US 10343723, as discussed herein.
Since applicant has received an action on the merits for the originally presented invention, this invention has been constructively elected by original presentation for prosecution on the merits. Accordingly, claim 120 is withdrawn from consideration as being directed to a non-elected invention. See 37 CFR 1.142(b) and MPEP § 821.03.
To preserve a right to petition, the reply to this action must distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement. Otherwise, the election shall be treated as a final election without traverse. Traversal must be timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are subsequently added, applicant must indicate which of the subsequently added claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Martin et al (U.S. Patent 10,343,725; herein Martin, already of record). Regarding claim 1, Martin teaches:
A supply receptacle defining one or more supply receptacle sidewalls and an upwardly-facing receptacle opening (the volume where 92 is pointing to in Figure 4)
A piston positioned at least partially within the supply receptacle (Figure 4, piston 90)
The piston, the upwardly-facing receptacle opening, and the one or more supply receptacle sidewalls at least partially define an interior space of the supply receptacle (As seen in Figure 4 and the annotated D below)
The piston is positionable between an extended position, in which the interior space has an extended volume, and a retracted position, in which the interior space has a retracted volume that is greater than the extended volume (the piston 90 moves as indicated by arrow 94, column 5, lines 45-48, and would act as claimed)
A dosing hopper positioned above and in selective communication with the interior space of the supply receptacle, wherein the dosing hopper is structurally configured to deliver build material to the interior space (the left side portion of supply hopper 72 that feeds into the previously discussed interior space. The hopper of Martin is in selective communication, since it was selected to be that size, shape, and design to be in communication with the interior space)
Wherein the piston defines a delivery surface and one or more piston perimeter surfaces that are oriented transverse to the delivery surface (As seen in Figure 4, the piston 90 has such surfaces)
And the one or more piston perimeter surfaces at least partially obstruct communication between the dosing hopper and the interior space when the piston is positioned in the extended position (The sides of the piston 90 act as claimed, by preventing powder from going under the piston. Under the piston is still part of the interior space, and the walls/sides of the platform/piston obstruct as claimed, as shown by A, B, C, and D below showing an annotated Figure 4)
PNG
media_image1.png
813
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
723
925
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Martin teaches:
Further comprising a supply chute positioned between the dosing hopper and the supply receptacle (See annotated Figure 4 below)
PNG
media_image3.png
664
833
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6, Martin teaches:
Wherein the supply chute defines one or more supply chute sidewalls that are oriented transverse to the one or more supply receptacle sidewalls (As seen in Figure 4, the sidewalls of the chute are 90° to the sidewalls of the receptacle)
Regarding claim 16, Martin teaches:
Further comprising a contaminant receptacle positioned along a working surface (Figure 4, surplus hopper 74 with excess powder 96)
Regarding claim 17, Martin teaches:
Wherein the contaminant receptacle is positioned along the working surface such that the upwardly-facing receptacle opening of the supply receptacle is positioned between the contaminant receptacle and the dosing hopper (As seen in Figure 4, the receptacle opening is between the supply hopper on the far left and the surplus hopper on the far right)
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 7 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Tjellesen et al (U.S. PGPub 2020/0324467; herein Tjellesen, already of record). Regarding claim 7, Martin is silent to:
Wherein the one or more supply chute sidewalls and the one or more supply receptacle sidewalls define an intersection angle at an angle between about 30° and about 75°
In the same field of endeavor Tjellesen teaches a supply chute at a non perpendicular angle (See Figure 8, powder from 110 enters the slanted channel back into 115).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use such an angle, since it has been held that configuration of a known structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B), since in this instance the function remains the same. Additionally, It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would be able to determine how to move powder from point A to point B when the art shows various possible angle for accomplishing the same result.
Regarding claim 11, Martin is silent to:
Further comprising an excess return in selective communication with the interior space
In the same field of endeavor Tjellesen teaches a return tube 220B that returns excess powder back to the powder supply (As seen in Figures 2 and 8). Tjellesen also teaches that excess powder can be returned via outlet 102 and tube 150 as seen in Figure 2 and 8, paragraph 0042.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use such a return, since it helps recycle the powder (Tjellesen, paragraphs 0042 and 0083)
Regarding claim 12, Tjellesen further teaches for the same reasons:
Wherein the excess return further comprises an upwardly-facing return opening that is positioned between the upwardly-facing receptacle opening and the dosing hopper along a working surface (As seen in Figure 8, the excess going into 102 is an upward facing receptacle between a hopper and supply)
Regarding claim 13:
Wherein the excess return defines one or more return sidewalls that define an intersection angle with the one or more supply receptacle sidewalls at an angle between about 30° and about 75°
Tjellesen is silent to the angle. However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use such an angle, since it has been held that configuration of a known structure is a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B), since in this instance the function remains the same. Additionally, It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would be able to determine how to move powder from point A to point B when the art shows various possible angle for accomplishing the same result.
Claims 10 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Kelkar et al (U.S. PGPub 2019/0060998; herein Kelkar). Regarding claim 10, Martin is silent to:
Further comprising one or more heating elements structurally configured to apply thermal energy to build material positioned in at least one of the dosing hopper and a supply chute positioned between the dosing hopper and the interior space
In the same field of endeavor, Kelkar teaches heaters 308 for hopper 327 in Figure 3A, paragraph 0042.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use such heaters, since it preheats the powder.
Regarding claim 19, Martin is silent to:
Further comprising an agitation device engaged with at least one of the dosing hopper and a supply chute positioned between the dosing hopper and the interior space, wherein the agitation device is structurally configured to agitate build material within the at least one of the dosing hopper and the supply chute
In the same field of endeavor, Kelkar teaches ultrasonic transducer 326 for use on the hopper (paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the ultrasonic transducer, since it helps control movement of the powder.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Diosdado Borrego et al (U.S. PGPub 2023/0052382; herein DB). Regarding claim 18, Martin is silent to:
Wherein the contaminant receptacle comprises an upwardly-facing trap door that is positionable between a closed position, in which access to the contaminant receptacle is restricted, and an open position, in which defective material is movable into the contaminant receptacle
In the same field of endeavor DB teaches a door to allow excess material removal via outlet 103, paragraph 0017.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use a door for the excess material removal in Martin, as shown in DB, since it allows for controlled removal of such powder.
Claim 118 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Martin, in view of Dugan et al (US Patent 9486962). Regarding claim 118, Martin is silent to:
Further comprising a gate valve positioned between the dosing hopper and the interior space of the supply receptacle, the dosing hopper in selective communication with the interior space through the gate valve
In the same field of endeavor Dugan teaches a controllable gate 44 between a hopper and the side the hopper dispenses to (Figures 3A/3B).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the controllable gate of Dugan, since it allows for controlling the amount of powder which exits the hopper (Dugan: column 5, lines 21-24).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 119 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
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 4/14/206 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/14/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that the volume under the piston cannot be considered part of the interior space as claimed.
The Examiner disagrees. From lines 5 and 6 of claim 1:
“The piston, the upwardly-facing receptacle opening, and the one or more supply receptacle sidewalls at least partially define an interior space of the supply receptacle”
PNG
media_image1.png
813
924
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
723
925
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Based on the annotated Figures above, the interior space is shown in D, which is defined by the piston, the opening, and the sidewalls. Claim 1 later refers to the extended and retracted volumes, but these are not absolutes, these are referring to piston locations, the interior space does not change, per the definition in lines 5 and 6. Therefore the piston at the extended position will prevent powder from entering the interior space.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights