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 and Status of Claims
Applicant's election with traverse of Invention I, claims 1-13 and 16-20 in the reply filed on 11/19/25 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that the claims of Invention II is part of an overlapping search area and therefore there would not be a serious search burden on the Examiner. This is not found persuasive because as noted in the restriction requirement dated 9/24/25 the inventions are classified in different areas and as they are different categories of invention, different keywords searches would be needed to search the unique features of the apparatus and method.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 11/19/25.
Thus, claims 1-13 and 16-20 are examined in this office action below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
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 1-5 and 12-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0028631 A1 (cited on IDS dated 3/11/24) of Hyatt in view of US 7045738 B1 (cited on IDS dated 4/27/23) of Kovacevic.
As to claim 1, Hyatt discloses powder delivery systems and methods used in additive manufacturing apparatus (Hyatt, paragraph [0002]). Hyatt discloses a powder feeder (114) configured to feed powder with a carrier gas (112) (Hyatt, paragraph [0033] and Fig. 3), meeting the limitation a powder feeder configured to feed powder using a carrier gas. Hyatt discloses a nozzle (116) which powder is delivered to and through (Hyatt, paragraph [0010] and Fig. 3), meeting the limitation a head configured to discharge the powder. Hyatt discloses a delivery line (118A) which connects the powder feeder and the head (Hyatt, paragraph [0034]) and Fig. 3), meeting the limitation of a first flow passage connecting the powder feeder and the head. Hyatt discloses a powder control valve (120A) (Hyatt, paragraph [0034] and Fig. 3), meeting the limitation a flow passage switching valve provided in the first flow passage. Hyatt discloses a powder return tank (135) and a return line (130) (Hyatt, paragraph [0033] and Fig. 3), meeting the limitation a reservoir tank configured to receive the powder fed from the powder feeder and a second flow passage connecting the flow passage switching valve to the reservoir tank. Hyatt also discloses where the powder control valve (120A) is binary and therefore movable between an off position, in which all input flow is directed to the return line (130), and an active position, in which portions of the input flow are directed to both the return line (130) and the mixing chamber (140) which is attached to the nozzle (116) (Hyatt, paragraph [0034] and Fig. 3), meeting the limitation the flow passage switching valve being configured to take a first position and a second position alternatively, the powder feeder being connected to the head via the first flow passage in the first position to supply the powder to the head, the powder feeder being connected to the reservoir tank via the second flow passage in the second position to supply the powder to the reservoir tank.
While Hyatt discloses the use of sensors (Hyatt, paragraph [0040]), Hyatt does not explicitly disclose a first sensor provided in the first flow passage between the flow passage switching valve and the head to detect a first flow rate of the powder flowing to the head nor a second sensor provided in the second flow passage to detect a second flow rate of the powder flowing to the reservoir tank.
Kovacevic relates to the same field of endeavor or a powder delivery system for a laser-based additive manufacturing process (Kovacevic, abstract). Kovacevic teaches the use of light detecting or optical sensor which can determine volumetric feeding rate of powder from the voltage output of the optical sensor (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 3-18). Kovacevic teaches that this sensor allows the parameters of the powder delivery system to be adjusted based on the difference of the measured feeding rate and the desired feeding rate to achieve the desired feeding rate (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 19-31).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add optical sensors to both flow passages as disclosed by Kovacevic into the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed by Hyatt, thereby allowing the parameters of the powder delivery system to be adjusted based on the difference of the measured feeding rate and the desired feeding rate to achieve the desired feeding rate (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 19-31) in each of the passages.
As to claim 2, Kovacevic discloses where the optical sensor includes an electronic device for determining the mass feeding rate of the powder based on both (i) the volumetric feeding rate of the powder and (ii) known or predetermined properties of the powder where the electronic device is any suitable computer may be controlled as a proportional, integral, derivative (“PID”) controller and/or as a fuzzy logic controller to determine the mass feeding rate (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 19-26), meeting the limitation of a processor configured to calculate a first and second flow rate using mathematical models and memory configured to store first and second mathematical models as a computer contains both a processor and memory and by having a relationship between the sensor output and the mass flow rate, Kovacevic is disclosing a mathematical model.
As to claim 3, Kovacevic discloses where a strain gauge can be used to measure the strain and thereby the mass of powder in a hopper to measure feeding rate (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 57-59). Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a strain gauge as taught by Kovacevic to the reservoir tank disclosed in Hyatt, thereby allowing for the change in mass to be measured and thereby calculating the feed rate Kovacevic, col 8, lines 57-59). Further, it is then obvious to calibrate the sensor attached to the second flow passage using the change in mass of the reservoir tank to generate a mathematical model which allows the voltage created by the sensor to be associated with a mass flowrate value.
As to claims 4 and 16, Kovacevic discloses where a scale is used to directly measure the mass feeding rate of the powder (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 54-57). This would necessarily encompass a container to catch the powder from the nozzle and the location would necessarily be opposite the nozzle to receive the powder. Further, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use this direct measurement of the mass flow rate of the powder to generate the mathematical model between the voltage of the sensor and the actual mass feeding rate.
As to claims 5 and 17-18, Kovacevic teaches where parameters of powder delivery system may be adjusted based on a difference between the measured feeding rate and the desired feeding rate to achieve the desired feeding rate (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 26-31), meeting the claim limitation of detecting anomalies with the sensors. Further, as it is obvious to add sensors to both flow passages to detect flow rates, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to compare the output of the first sensor to the output of the second sensor to thereby determine whether there is an error in the sensor or where the anomaly is occurring.
As to claim 12, Kovacevic discloses where the optical electronic system may include a cell defining a volume through which the powder flows and the cell may include a first window for receiving the laser light into the interior of the volume and a second window for transmitting the light to optical sensor (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 35-40), meeting the limitation where each of the first sensor and the second sensor includes an optical sensor, and wherein the first flow passage comprises a first transmissive window through which a light of the first sensor passes, and the second flow passage comprises a second transmissive window through which a light of the second sensor passes.
As to claim 13, Hyatt does not disclose where the additive manufacturing apparatus has a cutting device configured to perform a cutting process.
Kovacevic discloses the inclusion of a machining station (Kovacevic, col 4, line 18; see also Figs. 1A & 1B), meeting the claim limitation of a cutting device configured to perform a cutting process. Kovacevic teaches that this allows for geometrical features to be formed in part by a material removal process (Kovacevic, col 5, lines 42-45).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a machining station as taught by Kovacevic to the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed in Hyatt, thereby allowing for geometrical features to be formed in part by a material removal process (Kovacevic, col 5, lines 42-45).
Claims 6-7 and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0028631 A1 (cited on IDS dated 3/11/24) of Hyatt and US 7045738 B1 (cited on IDS dated 4/27/23) of Kovacevic as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Instrument Engineers' Handbook (4th Edition) of Liptak.
As to claims 6 and 19-20, Kovacevic discloses where the optical sensor includes an electronic device for determining the mass feeding rate of the powder based on both (i) the volumetric feeding rate of the powder and (ii) known or predetermined properties of the powder where the electronic device is any suitable computer may be controlled as a proportional, integral, derivative (“PID”) controller and/or as a fuzzy logic controller to determine the mass feeding rate (Kovacevic, col 8, lines 19-26), however, neither Hyatt nor Kovacevic discloses wherein the processor is configured to execute an updating process in which the processor acquires a first output of the second sensor that has detected the powder flowing through the second flow passage after the flow passage switching valve takes the second position and in which the processor updates the first mathematical model based on the first output, the first mathematical model, and the second mathematical model.
Liptak relates to the same field of endeavor of instruments for measuring properties (Liptak, title). Liptak teaches calibrating by providing the instrument with a number of known and stable inputs to ensure that the output accurately represents the input (Liptak, section 1.8, pg. 108, left column second paragraph), meeting the limitation of an updating process. Liptak teaches that calibration increases the accuracy of a process instrument (Liptak, section 1.8, pg. 108, left column second paragraph).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a calibration of the sensors as taught by Liptak to the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed in the combination of Hyatt and Kovacevic, thereby increasing the accuracy of the process instrument (Liptak, section 1.8, pg. 108, left column second paragraph). As it is obvious to add sensors to both lines carrying powder, see claim 1 rejection above, it would be obvious to use an output of the second sensor to update the first mathematical model as by mass balance the flow of material flowing through the second flow passage must be the same as the flow through the first flow passage.
As to claim 7, neither Hyatt nor Kovacevic discloses repeating the updating process at a predetermined cycle.
Liptak teaches that instruments are calibrated once a year or more often depending on the accuracy requirements (Liptak, section 1.8.1.11, pg. 112, left column, 2nd paragraph), meeting the limitation of performing the updating process at a predetermined cycle.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add calibration once a year or more as taught by Liptak to the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed in the combination of Hyatt and Kovacevic, thereby ensuring and increasing the accuracy of the flow rate sensors.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0028631 A1 (cited on IDS dated 3/11/24) of Hyatt and US 7045738 B1 (cited on IDS dated 4/27/23) of Kovacevic as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of "Additive manufacturing technologies 3D printing, rapid prototyping, and direct digital manufacturing." Of Gibson.
As to claim 11, the combination of Hyatt and Kovacevic discloses the additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 5, see claim 5 rejection above. However, neither Hyatt nor Kovacevic discloses a notification device configured to provide information to a user, wherein, in response to determining the abnormality, the processor is configured to control the notification device to raise an alarm or to bring the additive manufacturing apparatus to an emergency stop.
Gibson is a textbook covering additive manufacturing technologies (Gibson, title). Gibson teaches where a computer is used to integrate the systems of an AM machine where sensors are connected through a process controller to a user interface allowing for process monitoring (Gibson, pg. 21 last paragraph and Fig 2.1), where user interface and process monitoring meet the claim limitations of a notification device and where the processor is configured to control the notification device to raise an alarm as by providing process monitoring through the user interface, this notifies and alarms the operator of the sensor output.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a computer and associated user interface to display sensor readings as taught by Gibson into the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed in the combination of Hyatt and Kovacevic, thereby providing for process monitoring and control of the building process.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Claim 8 requires when a second output of the first sensor deviates from a normal fluctuation range while the powder is supplied to the head from the powder feeder operated under a regular operating condition, the processor is configured to control the flow passage switching valve to take the second position, acquire a third output of the second sensor that has detected the powder flowing to the reservoir tank from the powder feeder operated under the regular operating condition, and determine whether the abnormality occurs in the powder feeder or in at least one of the first flow passage and the first sensor based on the second output of the first sensor and the third output of the second sensor. While the combination of Hyatt and Kovacevic discloses the additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 5, see claim 5 rejection above, neither Hyatt nor Kovacevic discloses where the processor is configured to control the flow passage switching valve to take the second position, acquire a third output of the second sensor that has detected the powder flowing to the reservoir tank from the powder feeder operated under the regular operating condition, and determine whether the abnormality occurs in the powder feeder or in at least one of the first flow passage. Nor would this be obvious as neither Hyatt nor Kovacevic discloses or suggests using multiple sensors to determine an abnormality. Thus, claim 8 is distinct from the art. As claim 8 is distinct from the art, claims 9-10 are also distinct from the art as they depend from and further limit claim 8.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733