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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Oppenheimer (US20190030796A1).
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, Oppenheimer teaches a method of 3D printing comprising a machine plate 102 and a at least partially additively manufactured component 114 and a vibrating actuator to oscillate force to the printing tray (Fig 7) (use predefined mechanical vibration) and is designed to loosen and transport weakly fused (powder) material where the support members 124 may tilted (to produce a swiveling motion of the tray) on one axis which transports loose powder [0023]; the vibration actuator 130 is parallel to the main plane of the plate 102; the plate is excited by the predefined vibrational movements;
The vibrating of the tray can be in a horizontal direction [0022] and the movements (horizontal arrows) are parallel to the main plane of the machine plate; the prior art is silent regarding if the powder residue from the component explicitly falls off during swiveling, however, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to ensure that during tilting or swiveling, lose powder on the component explicitly may fall off for the purpose of collecting loose unfused powder.
Regarding Claim 3, the machine plate is excited on an attack surface of the actuator which is perpendicular to the main plane of the plate (Fig 2)
Regarding Claim 2, while the machine plate is excited on an attack surface of the actuator which is perpendicular to the main plane of the plate (Fig 2), one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to modify the attacking surface to be parallel to the moving plate as a simple substation of one orientation for another to predictably result in a vibrating plate moving in a predictable path.
Regarding Claims 4-5 and 8-9, the machine plate is excited on three oppositely situated attack surfaces of the respective vibrating actuator (See 134 of Figures 1-2)
PNG
media_image1.png
748
761
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claims 7 and 10, the prior art is silent regarding whether the component is a component of a turbomachine, however, as turbomachine parts such as blades, vanes and impellers are conventionally made by additive manufacturing, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to use the additive manufacturing process of Oppenheimer to form complex shaped objects such as turbomachine parts for the purpose of forming complex shaped objects rapidly.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RICARDO D MORALES whose telephone number is (571)272-6691. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 9 am- 4 pm.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 5712726297. 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.
/RICARDO D MORALES/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights