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 the applicant’s reply of 15 June 2026, the abstract, claims, and drawings were amended. Based on these amendments, the drawing objection, abstract objection, objection to claim 24, and § 112(b) rejections included in the previous office action are withdrawn. The specification objection related to line 36 on page 19 was not addressed and is repeated below. The objection to claim 25 was partially addressed, and this objection is modified below.
Response to Arguments
The applicant’s amendment to claim 16 and the accompanying remarks filed 15 June 2026 have been fully considered.
In view of the amendment, the § 102 rejections of claims 16, 17, and 19-25 as anticipated by US 4,265,764 (“Gallottini”) and the § 102 rejections of claims 16 and 26 as anticipated by WO 2015/074639 (“Holtmann”) are withdrawn. Amended claim 16 incorporates the limitations of former claim 18, which recited a suction device arranged opposite a chamber not supplied with the negative pressure, and neither Gallottini nor Holtmann discloses that limitation.
Because former claim 18 has been incorporated into claim 16, the § 103 rejection of claim 18 over Furukawa in view of Barnes is maintained and now applies to claim 16, as set forth below. That rejection was of record in the prior office action and is not a new ground of rejection.
The amendment necessitated new grounds of rejection of dependent claims 17 and 19-26, the sole prior basis for which (anticipation by Gallottini or Holtmann) has been overcome by the amendment. Those new grounds, based on US 2017/0020741 (“Ingole”), are set forth below.
The applicant’s arguments directed to the rejection of former claim 18 over US 2008/0236480 (“Furukawa”) in view of US 2020/0215751 (“Barnes”) have been considered but are not persuasive, for the following reasons.
The applicant first argues that Furukawa and Barnes are directed to entirely incompatible techniques (Furukawa to the removal of liquid solvent in inkjet printing and Barnes to the handling of powder in additive manufacturing) and that a person of ordinary skill starting from Furukawa would not have looked to Barnes.
This argument is not persuasive. The test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference, nor whether the references may be physically combined, but rather what the combined teachings would have suggested to a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413 (CCPA 1981) and MPEP 2145. The rejection does not require processing powder in Furukawa’s device or liquid in Barnes’s device. It requires applying the teaching of Barnes (capturing material expelled from a rotating roller by means of a shroud and an associated suction source) at the location in Furukawa’s Figure 7 embodiment where material is expelled from the roller. Further, Barnes is analogous art, as it is in the same field of endeavor as the claimed invention, namely the handling of powder in additive manufacturing. See MPEP 2141.01(a). Furukawa is at least reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, namely removing material from a surface by means of a rotating roller having internal chambers selectively supplied with negative and positive pressure. The difference in the material acted upon by each reference does not render the references non-combinable.
The applicant further argues that there would have been no motivation to add a suction device to Furukawa because the pressurization device 82 of the Figure 7 embodiment already blows the solvent and foreign material away, such that an additional suction device would be redundant, and that in embodiments in which a suction device is connected to the second space, an external suction device would act against that suction.
This argument is not persuasive. As an initial matter, the applicant’s contention regarding embodiments in which a suction device is connected to the second space is not commensurate with the rejection. The rejection relies on the Figure 7 embodiment, in which the second space 68 is supplied with positive pressure (not negative pressure) by the pressurization device 82, and in which the suction device is arranged opposite that positive-pressure chamber. No opposition of one suction against another therefore arises.
As to redundancy, blowing material off the roller and collecting that material are distinct functions. In the Figure 7 embodiment, the pressurization device 82 expels solvent and foreign material toward the outer side (see Furukawa [0111]), but Furukawa discloses no path by which the expelled material is thereafter collected. By contrast, on the suction side of the roller, Furukawa connects the outlets of its suction devices to a liquid collection container 78 (see Furukawa [0089]), demonstrating that Furukawa itself treats material removed from the roller as something to be collected and contained rather than released into the surroundings. Barnes supplies precisely the collection that Furukawa leaves open on the expulsion side, namely a shroud and suction source that capture material flung from a rotating roller and convey it through a filter into a bin (see Barnes [0016] and [0019]-[0020]). The claimed suction device is therefore not redundant with the pressurization device 82. It completes a collection scheme that Furukawa already employs on the opposite side of the roller. This is the use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
To the extent the applicant contends that Furukawa’s silence regarding collection of the expelled material teaches away from the addition of a suction device, the mere absence of a disclosure of collecting the expelled material does not constitute a teaching away. See In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195 (Fed. Cir. 2004) and MPEP 2123.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
On page 19, line 36, “the pipe connector 76b” should be replaced with “the pipe connector 67b”. The positive pressure pipe connector is identified as 67b throughout the specification and drawings (see, e.g., Figure 3d).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 25 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In the last line of claim 25, “two or more of chambers” should be replaced with “two or more chambers”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2008/0236480 (“Furukawa”) (previously cited) in view of US 2020/0215751 (“Barnes”) (previously cited) (related to WO 2019/066781 cited in an IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Furukawa discloses an apparatus (solvent absorbing device; see the Abstract and Figure 7) for removing powder and/or particles from a powder bed (This language is directed to the intended use of the apparatus and does not impart additional structural limitations beyond those recited in the body of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02(II) and 2114(II).), comprising:
a rotatably supported roller having a porous outer wall (solvent removing roller 50 comprising hollow open roller 60 and cylindrical absorbing body 62 arranged over the outer surface, the absorbing body 62 being a porous body rotatable relative to the hollow open roller 60; see Figure 7 and [0081]);
a plurality of chambers formed within the roller (the inner side of the hollow open roller 60 is divided into a first space 66 and a second space 68 by partition 64; see Figure 7 and [0082]); and
a negative pressure supply port configured to supply a negative pressure to at least one of the chambers at a given time, the at least one of the chambers having an opening adapted to supply the chamber with the negative pressure (suction device 74 is connected to an inlet of the first space 66 and applies negative pressure to the first space 66; see Figure 7, [0082], and [0089]).
In the embodiment of Figure 7 of Furukawa, a pressurization device 82 applies positive pressure to the second space 68, blowing solvent and foreign material out of the absorbing body 62 toward the outer side through the second opening section 72 (see [0111]). Furukawa thus recognizes the need to expel collected material from the roller on the side opposite the suction side.
Furukawa does not explicitly disclose a suction device for sucking off powder picked up by the roller, the suction device being arranged opposite one of the chambers of the roller which is not supplied with the negative pressure at the given time.
Barnes is directed to systems for reducing fugitive particles of powdered build materials in additive manufacturing (see the Abstract). Barnes discloses a shroud 200 positioned over a powder spreading roller 80, wherein the shroud is connected to a fan, blower, or other suction source to transport fugitive particles along a passageway, through a filter, and into a bin for collection (see [0019]-[0020] and Figures 1-3). The shroud may also include a brush or scraper positioned therein to help physically remove particles from the roller (see the Abstract and [0021]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have provided a suction device, as taught by Barnes, arranged opposite the second space 68 of Furukawa’s device (i.e., opposite the chamber supplied with positive pressure where material is being expelled), in order to collect the expelled solvent and foreign material in a controlled manner and prevent contamination of the surrounding environment. See MPEP 2143(I)(A) (combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results) and 2143(I)(C) (use of known technique to improve similar devices in the same way).
Claims 17 and 19-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0020741 (“Ingole”).
Ingole discloses an apparatus (a vacuum commutation apparatus for picking up, transporting, and depositing discrete material; see the Abstract, [0007], [0008], and Figures 1 and 2) for removing powder and/or particles from a powder bed (This language is directed to the intended use of the apparatus and does not impart additional structural limitations beyond those recited in the body of the claim. See MPEP 2111.02(II) and 2114(II).), comprising:
a rotatably supported roller having a porous outer wall (porous roll 12 having pores 24 and rotated by drive motor 124; see [0043]-[0045] and Figures 1-5);
a plurality of chambers formed within the roller (a plurality of internal vacuum application zones 16 defined by manifold walls 18a and 18b; see [0055] as well as Figure 6, which introduces reference numerals 18a and 18b; alternatively, the multi-zoned vacuum puck 610 having zones 1-10; see [0070] and [0079] and Figures 18 and 19);
a negative pressure supply port configured to supply a negative pressure to at least one of the chambers at a given time, the at least one of the chambers having an opening adapted to supply the chamber with the negative pressure (vacuum is drawn through hollow manifold shaft 14 to a vacuum application zone 16, the shaft 14 being received in porous roll 12 through the opening of a shaft void 40; see [0044] and [0045] and Figures 2 and 4); and
a suction device for sucking off material picked up by the roller, the suction device being arranged opposite one of the chambers of the roller which is not supplied with the negative pressure at the given time (at the deposition point, the chamber is not supplied with negative pressure, and air flows outward from the porous roll, while a receiving device positioned opposite the roller (for example, a vacuum conveyor or a further porous-roll-and-vacuum-manifold combination) applies vacuum, such that air flowing out of the porous roll into the vacuum zone of the receiving device forces the material to transfer from the roller onto the receiving device; see [0015], [0051], [0057], [0058], and Figure 15).
Ingole discloses alternative and complementary configurations of the same vacuum commutation apparatus. For example, with respect to the features identified above, [0055] describes the use of multiple internal vacuum application zones 16 as optional, the puck embodiment of Figures 18 and 19 is an alternative to the embodiment of Figure 1, and [0051] describes different potential receiving devices. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined these features of Ingole, as desired, given that Ingole characterizes the features as suitable additions or alternatives to the base device. See MPEP 2143(I)(A), (B), and (D).
Accordingly, Ingole meets the limitations of claim 16 when considering the different options and alternatives described by Ingole. This discussion does not constitute a new rejection of claim 16 but is provided to support the rejections of the dependent claims over Ingole, as now required due to the applicant’s amendment to claim 16 and the resulting withdrawal of the rejections based on Gallottini and Holtmann.
Regarding claim 17, Ingole discloses that the chambers extend along an axis of rotation of the roller and that each of the chambers is delimited by a section of the porous outer wall (the vacuum application zones 16 extend along the axis of rotation of the roll 12 and are delimited on their outer side by the porous wall of the roll 12; see Figures 2 and 4; alternatively, see zones 1-10 in Figures 18 and 19).
Regarding claim 19, Ingole discloses that the negative pressure supply port is fixedly connected to a support of the roller, that the chambers are rotationally fixedly connected to the roller, each chamber having an opening adapted to supply the chamber with a positive pressure or a negative pressure, and that the negative pressure supply port and the chambers are designed such that during rotation of the roller the chambers are supplied with the negative pressure (in the multi-zoned vacuum puck embodiment of Figures 18 and 19, the zones 1-10 rotate with the puck and pass a stationary external vacuum manifold, such that each zone is supplied with vacuum as it becomes engaged with the manifold during rotation; see [0070]-[0081]).
Regarding claim 20, Ingole discloses a positive pressure supply port configured to supply, at the given time, positive pressure to at least one of the chambers which is not supplied with the negative pressure at the given time, via its opening (the roll displays a transition position at which airflow direction switches from inward to outward, and Ingole discloses a blow-off system, attached to the manifold by a rotary union, that positively pushes air outward through the chamber; see [0052], [0074], and [0078]).
Regarding claim 21, Ingole discloses that the chambers rotate past fixed pressure ports during rotation (as set forth above in the rejection of claim 19, each of zones 1-10 is supplied with vacuum as it becomes engaged with the external manifold during rotation) and that the negative pressure supply port, the positive pressure supply port, and the chambers are designed in such a way that during the rotation of the roller the chambers are alternately supplied with negative pressure and the positive pressure (see [0052] and [0079]-[0082]). However, Ingole does not explicitly disclose that the positive pressure supply port is fixedly connected to the support of the roller. This feature would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention given that the negative pressure supply port of Ingole is already fixedly connected to the support of the roller (see above) and given the discussion in [0052] of Ingole regarding how the blow-off system can use the existing manifold.
Regarding claim 22, Ingole discloses that the apparatus is designed in such a way that during the rotation of the roller the opening of a chamber is contacted once by the negative pressure supply port, so that the respective chamber is supplied with the negative pressure, and is contacted once by the positive pressure supply port, so that the respective chamber is supplied with the positive pressure (see [0052] and [0079]-[0082]).
Regarding claim 23, Ingole discloses that the roller is formed in the shape of a cylinder and that the opening is provided in a base surface of the cylinder (porous roll 12 is cylindrical, and the opening of the shaft void 40 (through which the hollow manifold shaft 14 is received and through which negative pressure is supplied to the vacuum application zone 16) is provided in a base/end surface of the roll 12; see Figures 2 and 4 and [0045]).
Regarding claim 24, Ingole discloses that at least three chambers are formed within the roller, and that the positive pressure supply port is configured to simultaneously supply two or more of the chambers with the positive pressure and/or that the negative pressure supply port is configured to simultaneously supply two or more of the chambers with the negative pressure (the multi-zoned vacuum puck 610 includes at least zones 1-10, and the external vacuum manifold engages more than one zone simultaneously over its arcuate extent; see [0079]-[0080]).
Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingole, as applied to claim 20 above, and further in view of US 6,723,033 (“Scott”).
Regarding claim 25, Ingole does not disclose that the positive pressure supply port has an elongated hole which simultaneously exposes the openings of two or more chambers and/or that the negative pressure supply port has an elongated hole which simultaneously exposes the openings of two or more of chambers.
Scott is directed to apparatus for forming particle-bearing filter rods (Title) and discloses a rotating wheel carrying a plurality of pockets/chambers (wheels 200 and 400 carrying pockets 210 and pockets 410, respectively; see Figure 3A and Col. 5, Ln. 18-34), each pocket rotating past at least one vacuum plenum as well as a purging station at which a stream of air is blown through the pocket (vacuum plenums 220, 230, 420, and 440 and purging stations 240 and 450; see Figure 3A, Col. 6, Ln. 30-63, and Col. 7, Ln. 61 to Col. 8, Ln. 19). Vacuum is maintained along an angular/elongated extent that communicates with two or more pockets simultaneously (see id.).
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 the vacuum plenum design of Scott in Ingole since Scott discloses that this is a suitable arrangement for simultaneously supplying vacuum to multiple pockets/chambers over a selected angular portion of a roll/wheel. See MPEP 2143(I)(C).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ingole, as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of WO 2015/074639 (“Holtmann”) (previously cited).
Regarding claim 26, Ingole discloses a shaft extending within the roller (the hollow shaft of the vacuum manifold 14; see Figures 2 and 4, [0044], and [0045]), with walls 18 and 20 extending from the shaft to define a vacuum application zone 16 (see Figure 2 and [0045]), but Ingole does not explicitly disclose that the plurality of chambers is formed by a plurality of grooves formed in the shaft.
Holtmann relates to a device for producing a composite, the device comprising a rotatable roller having vacuum regions (Abstract). A shaft extends within the roller, and a plurality of chambers is formed by a plurality of grooves formed in the shaft (shaft 9 extends within roller 5; vacuum regions 6 are formed as recesses/grooves in the shaft 9; see Figure 2 and [0020]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have formed the chambers of Ingole’s apparatus as grooves in the shaft extending within the roller, as taught by Holtmann, since Holtmann discloses that this is a suitable arrangement for defining chambers that communicate negative pressure to a rotating roller. See MPEP 2143(I)(B) and (C).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 John DeRusso whose telephone number is (571)270-1287. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10:00 AM-6:00 PM ET.
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, Sam Zhao, can be reached at (571) 270-5343. 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.
/John J DeRusso/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights