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
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-12 and 18-25 in the reply filed on 6/29/26 is acknowledged.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that present claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115). A recitation with respect to the material intended to be worked upon by a claimed apparatus does not impose any structural limitations upon the claimed apparatus. In this case, “build-up material” is workpiece materials which does not structurally limit the claimed manufacturing apparatus.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, “a lift mechanism in the second station moving the build object into the second container”, “a closure sealing the second container bottom” (new claims 19, 22, 25); “a build surface on an open top of the container” (claims 19-20) must be shown in at least one figure(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12 and 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
With respect to claim 1, limitation of “faces the component” (line 5) lacks sufficient antecedent basis since a component has not been previously defined. The claim previously recites “three-dimensional components” (line 2), however, it is unclear whether “the component” refers to formed 3D component or other part. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: the building platform has an upper section with at least one upper opening.
With respect to claim 2, feature “a cover comprising a cover strip or formed by such as a cover strip” (last two lines) sounds confusing and redundant. It is unclear what is implied by forming a cover strip. According to Applicant’s original specification, the cover (for the recess) preferably comprises a band connected to the carrier (pg. 8, lines 17-20). For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: the recess can be covered above and below the supporting device by a cover.
As to claim 3, feature “the center of the tapering shape” (line 3) lacks antecedent basis because a tapering shape has not been previously recited. Examiner notes that term “and/or” is taken to mean OR, thereby rendering other limitations optional.
With respect to claim 9, feature “the building shaft” (line 2) lacks antecedent basis since claim 1 does not recite a building shaft. The term “and/or” is taken to mean OR.
With respect to claim 19, features “the build chamber having an open bottom portion that overlies a build surface on an open top of the first container” (lines 6-7) are ambiguous. First, limitation of “the first container” lacks sufficient antecedent basis; it should recite the first build container. Secondly, it is not clear what structure is meant by a build surface on an open top? The original specification describes that a level powder bed is formed that is flush with a surface of the building platform 19 (pg. 17- lines 3-4). However, it does not mention a build surface on an open top of the container; the figures also do not point out open top of the container. Moreover, following features: the second station having a second container sized to receive a completed built object therein,…the first build container having a bottom with an outlet formed therein, the built object which remains in the first build container” are contradictory because it is confusing whether the built object is in the first container or the second container? Applicant’s specification describes a transport container 18 (figs. 1, 3-4), which appears to be “the second container”; figs. 13-14 show the built object 30 being moved up to the container 18. Based on the figures, the built object does not remain in the first build container. Furthermore, it is unclear where is a lift mechanism located in the second station and how it moves the built object into the second container. The word “lift” is only mentioned once on page 12 of original specification: the object (together with the building platform) can be lifted into the transport container (lines 5-6). Fig. 12 merely shows carrier 15 and the building platform 19, not any claimed lift. Also, note drawing objection concerning the lift mechanism in the second station. Additionally, the claim requires “the second container open bottom” and “a closure sealing the second container bottom” (last 3 lines) – this seems to be inconsistent whether the second container bottom is actually open or closed? It is unclear what structure is implied by “a closure”? Based on the figures, it appears that the second container bottom is closable by the first build container, however, there is not a distinct closure structure. The specification fails to provide clear guidance and consequently, ordinary artisan would not be able to determine the metes & bounds of the claim. For reasons explained above, the recited vague and conflicting language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, claim 19 is taken to mean:
a first build station including a first build container within which an object is built, and a build chamber to which the first build container is attached, a supply of build material, a device feeding build material to the build chamber, a spreader device that spreads build material in consecutive layers over a build surface corresponding to consecutive cross sections for the object being built, and a supply of energy controlled to selectively solidify the build material;
a transport mechanism moving the first build container from the first build station to a second station having a second container sized to receive a completed built object therein, the first build container having a bottom with an outlet formed therein, the outlet being operated to allow unsolidified build material to pass therethrough; a mechanism moving the built object from the first build container into the second container; and the second container being closable.
With respect to claim 20, features “the build chamber having an open bottom portion that overlies a build surface on an open top of the first container” (lines 6-7) are ambiguous. The, limitation of “the first container” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. Secondly, it is not clear what structure is meant by a build surface on an open top? The original specification describes that a level powder bed is formed that is flush with a surface of the building platform 19 (pg. 17- lines 3-4). However, it does not mention a build surface on an open top of the container; the figures also do not point out open top of the container. The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite.
For purpose of examination, the claim is taken to mean: a first build station including a first build container within which an object is built, and a build chamber to which the first build container is attached, a supply of build material, a device feeding build material to the build chamber, a spreader device that spreads build material in consecutive layers over a build surface corresponding to consecutive cross sections for the object being built, and a supply of energy controlled to selectively solidify the build material.
With respect to claim 22, limitations of the second station having a second container sized to receive a completed built object therein,…the first build container having a bottom with an outlet formed therein, the built object which remains in the build container” (from claim 20) are contradictory. Similarly, recited features of a lift mechanism, the second container having an open bottom and a closure sealing the second container bottom are ambiguous and conflicting in scope as explained in claim 19 above. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims 22-23 are taken to mean: a transport mechanism moving the first build container from the first build station to a second station having a second container sized to receive a completed built object therein, a mechanism for moving the built object from the first build container into the second container.
As to claim 25, feature of the second station life mechanism moves the built object upwardly into the second container is ambiguous because it is unclear where a lift mechanism is located in the second station? The word “lift” is only mentioned once on page 12 of original specification: the object (together with the building platform) can be lifted into the transport container (lines 5-6). Fig. 12 merely shows carrier 15 and the building platform 19, not any claimed lift mechanism. Additionally, “the build container bottom portion” lacks sufficient antecedent basis; it is confusing what bottom portion is meant since previous claim 24 recites “initially closed bottom portion”. The recited vague language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination, the claim is taken to mean: a second station mechanism moves the built object upwardly into the second container, with the unsolidified build material passing around the built object.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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, 3-5, 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lindemann et al. (US 2007/0026145, hereafter “Lindemann”).
Regarding claim 1, Lindemann discloses a manufacturing device for additive manufacturing (AM), three-dimensional components by layer-by-layer application (fig. 1, [0001-0003]) by means of at least one coating unit 56 (applicator & leveling device- fig. 2) and locally selective solidification of a build-up material by means of at least one irradiation unit 16 (laser beam source- [0060]), comprising a building platform unit 49 (fig. 2, [0063, 0069]), wherein the building platform unit has an upper section with at least one upper opening (upper opening of passage 101), and a lower section with at least one closable lower opening (lower opening of passage 101 [0072]. Examiner also notes that any area/region meets broad term “section”.
As to claim 3, Lindemann discloses the upper section of the building platform 49 comprises a plate 132 (fig. 2, [0069]). The term “and/or” is taken to mean or, thereby rendering other limitations optional.
As to claim 4, Lindemann shows that the carrier 43 comprises a closing device 48 (layer) for closing an opening of the lower section (figs. 3-4).
As to claim 5, Lindemann shows that the building platform upper section has at least two and less than ten openings/passages 101 (fig. 3).
As to claim 9, Lindemann discloses that a receiving device 80 (powder trap- [0078]) is provided around a building shaft 42 (build chamber) in order to receive excess build-up material (fig. 5).
As to claim 10, Lindemann shows that a building shaft 42 is closed at its lower end, in such a way that build-up material discharged through the at least one opening of the lower section can be received in the building shaft (fig. 2).
Regarding claim 18, Lindemann discloses an additive manufacturing system comprising the device according to claim 1 (figs. 1-2), as well as build-up material 57 (figs. 2-3) for carrying out a manufacturing method, wherein the build-up material comprises a metal component and/or a ceramic powder [0065].
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.
Claims 2 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann et al. (US 2007/0026145, hereafter “Lindemann”) in view of Pialot et al. (US 10413968, hereafter “Pialot”).
Regarding claim 2, Lindemann discloses a manufacturing device for additive manufacturing, three-dimensional components by layer-by-layer application (fig. 1; para. [0001-0003]) by means of at least one coating unit 56 (applicator & leveling device- fig. 2) and locally selective solidification of a build-up material by means of at least one irradiation unit 16 (laser beam source- [0060]), comprising a building platform unit 49 (fig. 2, [0063, 0069]), a carrier 43 & 46 for the building platform unit [0063], and a building shaft 42 (build chamber), in which the carrier is relatively variable in height, wherein the carrier 46 has a supporting device 47 and is arranged partially outside the building shaft and moves within the building shaft/chamber 42 when the carrier is relatively changed in height (see figs. 2-3; [0062]).
Lindemann discloses moving the carrier within the building shaft/chamber, which would presumably include some sort of slot/recess (not shown) for movement. In any event, such feature is known in the art. Analogous to Lindemann, Pialot (also drawn to machine & method for powder-based additive manufacturing) discloses the manufacturing device comprising a building platform unit 7 (plate), a carrier 30/31 for the building platform unit, and a building shaft 40 (chamber/chassis), in which the carrier is relatively variable in height and has a supporting device 70 (figs. 1-3), wherein chassis/shaft 40 includes a recess/sleeve 41 inside which the carrier & plate slides driving in vertical translation by cylinder 31 (col. 8, lines 30-50). The build plate 7 slides freely inside the recess/sleeve 41; the recess is covered above and below the supporting bellow 70 (fig. 2), which ensures correct confinement of the build powder material inside the container 60 and protects other components of the machine 1 (col. 9, lines 55-67). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a suitable sleeve/recess arrangement similar to Pialot in the build chamber of Lindemann in order to drive desired vertical movement of the platform and to ensure correct confinement of the build powder material inside the container.
As to claim 11, Lindemann discloses collecting extra build-up material in the powder trap 80 (fig. 5, [0078]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to return excess build-up material back to the manufacturing process in Lindemann since the concept of recycling powder material is common knowledge in the art and would provide significant cost savings.
As to claim 12, Lindemann as modified by Pialot in claim 2 above shows the recess formed by a slit 41 (Pialot- fig. 1). It is noted that term “and/or” is taken to mean OR, thereby rendering cover belt limitations optional.
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann in view of Pialot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Cox (US 7887316).
As to claims 6-7, Lindemann shows at least one opening of the upper section of the building platform being circular arcuate wherein the at least one opening has a cross-sectional area of at least 1.0 cm2 (fig. 2), but does not mention openings forming at least two circles arranged concentrically. However, such variation is known the additive manufacturing art. Cox (also directed to building 3D object by selective laser sintering) discloses a conventional laser sintering system 100 comprising a build platform area 110 including several openings forming a circle which is interrupted with at least four webs, wherein at least two circles are arranged concentrically to each other – the laser beam 104 is aimed at the platform to build a 3D part in layer-wise fashion by selective solidification of powder material (fig. 1; col. 4, lines 25-45). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have upper section area including several openings forming a circle interrupted with at least four webs with at least two concentric circles in the build platform of Lindemann in order to match with custom design of desired object to be manufactured by selective solidification.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lindemann in view of Pialot as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of McMurtry et al. (US 11123924, hereafter “McMurtry”.
As to claim 8, Lindemann fails to disclose the AM device further comprising a gas-sealable container which is closable by the building platform. Analogous to Lindemann, McMurtry (also directed to powder bed fusion apparatus) discloses AM manufacturing device comprising a building platform unit 202/204, a carrier 220a (piston) for the building platform unit and a building shaft/sleeve 203 (figs. 7-8). McMurtry teaches a gas-sealable container 207 (receptacle), the lower end of which is closable by the building platform unit 202 and which is removable from the manufacturing device (fig. 9; col. 6, lines 13-23; col. 14, lines 6-23). In this manner, the container/receptacle contains the built object and dispenses unsolidified/free powder back into the build volume. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to arrange a container similar to McMurtry above the build chamber in Lindemann in order to collect the built object and remove unsolidified/free powder back into the build volume.
Claims 19-25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 10252336, hereafter “Buller”) in view of Fernandez et al. (US 10160159, hereafter “Fernandez”).
Regarding claims 19-20, Buller discloses an apparatus for additive manufacturing (AM) of three-dimensional objects using a build material which is solidified in layer-wise fashion (figs. 1-2, col. 1- see Background), each layer being selectively solidified in consecutive cross-sections corresponding to cross sections of an object being built, comprising: a first build station (fig. 1; center area- fig. 2) including a first build container 111/202 (figs. 1-2) within which an object is built, and a build chamber (inner base/platform 102- fig. 1) to which the first build container is attached, a supply of build material 119 (powder bed- fig. 1), a feed device (intrinsic, not shown in figure) feeding build material to the build chamber (fig. 1), a spreader device 116-118 (layer dispensing) that spreads build material in consecutive layers over the build surface corresponding to consecutive cross sections for the object being built (fig. 1), and a supply of energy 121/101 (fig. 1) controlled to selectively solidify the build material (col. 59, lines 50-67);
a transport mechanism (e.g. movement wheels- col. 63, lines 20-25; col. 38, lines 22-30) moving the first build container 202 from the first build station to a second station (unpacking station- fig. 17- col. 82, lines 26-40) having a second container 1711 sized to receive a completed built object therein (fig. 17), a mechanism moving the built object from the first build container into the second container; and the second container being closable (fig. 17; col. 38, lines 30-35; col. 82, lines 40-50).
Buller is silent with respect to the first build container having a bottom with an outlet formed therein, the outlet being operated to allow unsolidified build material to pass therethrough. However, such feature is known in the art. Fernandez (also directed to additive manufacturing- see col. 1 Background) discusses techniques that aim to improve the way build material is filled in and poured out of the build container through an outlet opening using a collection system (col. 4, lines 6-11). Fernandez teaches that efficient removal of the build material (e.g. powder) is facilitated by providing an outlet structure 13 having an opening to allow the build material to pass out of the container 1/3 (fig. 1), wherein the outlet structure is adapted to cooperate with a collection system such as a vacuum that facilitates the removal by vacuum suction (col. 4, lines 27-35, 40-55). In this manner, the collected build material is returned to refill the container by recycling (fig. 4; col. 10, lines 20-25). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate an outlet opening along with a suitable collection mechanism in the build container of Buller because doing so would enable to facilitate recycling of the unused/unsolidified build material thereby improving in production efficiency, as taught by Fernandez. Thus, Buller as modified by Fernandez discloses the build container including an openable and closable outlet structure to allow passing of the build material. It is also noted that claims are indefinite in scope and require correction.
As to claims 21 and 24, Buller as modified by Fernandez above discloses that the build container has an initially closed bottom portion which receives and holds the build material to initially create a planar build surface within the build container, the consecutive layers being added one upon another to the planar build surface, the bottom portion having at least one outlet which is closable during a build operation and openable to allow the unsolidified build material to pass through the at least one outlet.
As to claims 22-23, Buller discloses a transport mechanism (e.g. movement wheels- col. 63, lines 20-25; col. 38, lines 22-30) moving the first build container 202 from the first build station to a second station (unpacking station- fig. 17- col. 82, lines 26-40) having a second container 1711 sized to receive a completed built object therein (fig. 17), a mechanism moving the built object from the first build container into the second container; and the second container being closable (fig. 17; col. 38, lines 30-35; col. 82, lines 40-50).
As to claim 25, Buller discloses that a second station mechanism moves the built object upwardly into the second container 1711, with at least some unsolidified build material passing around the built object by the movement (fig. 17; col. 82, lines 26-50).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 1/22/24 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights