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 with traverse of claims 1-19 (after the amendment to claim 13, group 2 is now within group 1) in the reply filed on 12/30/2025 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that claim 20 is not a third printer and overlaps sufficiently enough to have no burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because the printer of claim 20 contains additional structures (wheels, rail gears, rack and pinion gears, etc.) and combinations of structures not combined in group 1. Thus claim 20 is independent and distinct and is a search burden over that of the group 1 claims.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims 1-19 are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 I and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg et al (US 2018/0304358; herein Myerberg), in view of Hochsmann et al (US 8951033; herein Hochsmann, already of record). Regarding claim 1:
Myerberg teaches a machine (Figure 1A, additive manufacturing system 100) with a build box (print box 102) which is on a cart with wheels (As seen in Figure 1A and paragraph 0049). The print box 102 of Myerberg has sidewalls forming an interior space (volume 108) which has a top and bottom, and a horizontal build plate (bottom surface 131) attached to a lift unit (z-stage actuator 132). Myerberg uses tracks (rails 122) above the print box, and overlay the build area.
The rails of Myerberg support a bi-directional layer builder assembly (comprising the first material carriage 104a, print cartridge 106, and second material carriage 104b). Print cartridge 106 is the printer module with a forward face and a rearward face, and has an array of nozzles (Figure 2, ejection orifices 202, paragraph 0042). The first material carriage 104a is the forward sand dispensing nozzle, and the second material carriage 104b is the rearward sand dispensing nozzle. Each carriage 104a/b has a nozzle (As seen at dispensing region 118 in Figure 1B), a spreader 114, and a thermal energy source 144.
As previously discussed, Myerberg teaches that the print box 102 is on a cart with wheels, but not the claimed track. In the same field of endeavor, Hochsmann teaches a rail system 140 with lateral guide rolls 240 which uses rolls 144 to move the construction box (e.g. Figures 1-7).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use tracks instead of wheels to move a build box, since 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 the art has shown similar means by which to move a build box for further processing, thus the decision to pick a track over a wheel is design choice well within the abilities of a skilled artisan to decide upon.
Since the art teaches the required structure the art is capable of using sand.
Regarding claim 2:
Each material carriage 104a/b of Myerberg has a hopper 116 for powder 120.
Regarding claim 3:
Each material carriage 104a/b of Myerberg has dispensing rollers 146 which are the claimed valves.
Regarding claim 4:
Each material carriage 104a/b of Myerberg has a heater 126 which heats the hopper 116.
Regarding claim 8:
The spreader 114 of Myerberg can be a roller (paragraph 0043).
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg and Hochsmann as applied above, and further in view of MTU Aero Engines AG (DE 202019001440; herein MTU, with machine translation). Regarding claim 5:
Myerberg and Hochsmann are silent to a dynamic perimeter seal including a flexible element disposed in a rigid carrier.
In the same field of endeavor MTU teaches a brush seal 200, which is flexible and in a rigid carrier as seen in Figure 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such a seal, since it prevents damage caused by free powder (paragraph 0015).
Regarding the shape of the build box. Myerberg is silent to the shape being a rectangle, and as seen in e.g. Figures 2 and 6 the build box is rectangular. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the build box be rectangular, since it has been held that shape 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 was significant (MPEP 2144.04 IV B).
Regarding claim 6, Myerberg and Hochsmann are silent to the build plate having a heating element.
In the same field of endeavor MTU teaches a build plate with heating plate 8.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have a heated build plate in order to heat the build chamber (paragraph 0033).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg and Hochsmann as applied above, and further in view of Kubo et al (US 2001/0050448; herein Kubo). Regarding claim 7:
Myerberg and Hochsmann are silent to the levelers being connected for inverse reciprocating motion.
In the same field of endeavor Kubo teaches rollers 21a/b in Figure 2 that are connected to each other for inverse reciprocal motion (paragraphs 0060-0075).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such a connection, since it allows for the rollers to spread the powder in the needed direction without interference from the other roller.
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg and Hochsmann as applied above, and further in view of Xiao et al (CN 104444048; herein Xiao). Regarding claims 9 and 10:
Myerberg teaches a bulk powder source 130 (this is seen as the claimed station) for filling the hoppers 116, but is silent to the use of a bifurcated chute and control valve.
In the same field of dispensing powder, Xiao teaches feeding materials to two different volumes with a bifurcated chute 5 and travel switch 2 (as seen in Figures 1-8).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the bifurcated chute and switch of Xiao, since it can control the amount fed to each volume at the same time (paragraph 0005).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg and Hochsmann as applied above, and further in view of Gunther et al (US 2020/0055246; herein Gunther). Regarding claim 11:
Myerberg and Hochsmann are silent to the claimed printhead cleaning station. In the same field of endeavor Gunther teaches a printhead cleaning station with a pan (paragraphs 0052, 0084, and 0115-0120).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such a cleaning station, since it cleaning removes dirt and residue and a more reliable printer (paragraphs 0009, 0052, 0058).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg and Hochsmann as applied above, and further in view of Ko et al (KR 20190098803; herein Ko, with machine translation). Regarding claim 12:
Myerberg and Hochsmann are silent to the claimed hood and fan. In the same field of endeavor Ko teaches a hood and fan setup (intake unit 20, page 9, paragraph 7, last paragraph page 14 through second paragraph page 15)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such a fan and hood, since it removes harmful gases.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg, Hochsmann, and Ko as applied above, and further in view of Mizes et al (US 2016/0101568; herein Mizes). Regarding claim 13:
As previously discussed Myerberg teaches the use of a station on the secondary rail. As previously discussed with regards to claim 2, Myerberg teaches the claimed hoppers. As previously discussed, Ko makes the hood and fan obvious. Myerberg, Hochsmann, and Ko are silent to the offset nozzle arrays.
In the same field of endeavor Mizes teaches using offset printhead arrays (Figure 1, printheads 104A-C, 106A-C and paragraph 0027).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have offset printhead arrays, since it can increase the resolution of the printer (Mizes: paragraph 0027).
Regarding claim 14:
See remarks regarding claim 3.
Regarding claim 15:
See remarks regarding claim 4.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg, Hochsmann, Ko, and Mizes as applied above, and further in view of MTU.
Regarding claim 16, see remarks regarding claims 5 and 6.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg, Hochsmann, Ko, and Mizes as applied above, and further in view of Kubo.
Regarding claim 17, see remarks regarding claim 7.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg, Hochsmann, Ko, and Mizes as applied above, and further in view of Xiao.
Regarding claim 18, see remarks regarding claim 9.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Myerberg, Hochsmann, Ko, and Mizes as applied above, and further in view of Gunther.
Regarding claim 19, see remarks regarding claim 11.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
JP H10338336: bifurcated supply chute.
US 20160107387: bidirectional printing
US 10093065: bidirectional printing
US 20200346408: bidirectional printing
US 20210001548: bidirectional printing
US 20210346962: bidirectional printing
GB 2532518: bidirectional printing
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