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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 10/28/2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
In view of the amendment filed 10/14/2025:
Claims 1-20 are pending.
Claim Interpretation
Examiner notes that in view of the amendment filed 10/14/2025, the limitation “during printing operation” will be interpreted as fabricating a structure within an additive manufacturing system enclosure and any intervening fabrication steps at other manufacturing stations outside of the manufacturing system enclosure, such as an oven or a milling center, that provides further processing.
Figure 6 of Applicant’s instant disclosure shows the print surface selectively docked with the pedestal and Figure 7 of Applicant’s instant disclosure shows the print surface completely separated from the pedestal. Further, [0041] of Applicant’s instant disclosure states that removing the print surface from the pedestal allows for intervening fabrication steps at other manufacturing stations ([0041] Surface 58 may be removably mounted on support 56, while support 56 may in turn be removably mounted on pedestal 48. The removable mounting configuration of surface 58 may allow for intervening fabrication steps at other manufacturing stations to be implemented without having to remove structure 12 from surface 58. For example, surface 58, together with a partially completed structure 12, may be lifted away from support 56 and placed within an oven or a milling center for further processing, before being returned to system 10 for additional fabrication), and does not recite that operation within the additive manufacturing system’s enclosure continues when the printing surface is completely separated from the pedestal.
Therefore, in light of Applicant’s support provided by the instant disclosure for the limitation “a print surface configured to selectively dock with and completely separate from the pedestal during printing operation”, Examiner will interpret the printing operation within the enclosure of the additive manufacturing system to occur when the print surface is selectively docked to the pedestal, and for other printing operations, including intervening fabrication steps, to occur when the print surface is completely separated from the pedestal.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-6, 13, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battenberg (EP2329935- Machine translation provided herein), and further in view of Hampshire et al. (US20200238448).
Regarding claim 1, Battenberg teaches an additive manufacturing system (Figure 1),
comprising:
a pedestal (see pedestal in annotated Figure 1 on pg. 5 of the Office Action mailed 07/18/2025);
a robotic arm (6-axis articulated robot 16 in Figure 1) mounted to the pedestal (robot 16
is mounted in housing 2 that is mounted on the pedestal shown in Figure 1 below);
a print head (delivery devices 18, 20; Figure 1) coupled to the robotic arm (see Figure
2);
an enclosure (housing 2; Figure 1) at least partially surrounding the robotic arm and the
print head and providing internal working space for an operator of the additive manufacturing
system (see housing 2 surrounding robotic arm and print head and forming chamber 24 in
Figure 1); and
a print surface (top surface of substrate carrier 28; Figure 1) configured to selectively
dock with the pedestal during printing operation (see Figure 3 and “the robot arm can move the dispensing nozzle with high accuracy relative to the substrate carrier during delivery of modeling substance” on pg. 3).
While Battenberg teaches the print surface can completely separate from the pedestal (“In the in FIG. 3 shown lower end position of the lifting table 60 of the substrate carrier 28 is on telescopic rails 68 of an excerpt 70 and can accordingly be pulled out laterally from the chamber 24 manually”- see pg. 6 paragraph 5), Battenberg fails to explicitly teach that the print surface is completely separated from the pedestal during the printing operation (see “Claim Interpretation” above for how the limitation “during printing operation” is to be interpreted).
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to an additive manufacturing system, Hampshire teaches a print surface (tooling fixture or assembly 52; Figure 1) is configured to selectively dock with ([0011]) and completely separate from an additive manufacturing apparatus enclosure (additive manufacturing machine 100; Figure 1) during printing operation ([0048] material removal assembly 54 may grind each blade 70 as it is fixed in position in tooling assembly 52; see additive repair system 50 comprising material removal assembly 54 that is separate from additive manufacturing machine 100 in Figure 1). As noted in the claim interpretation section above, the limitation “during printing operation” includes intervening fabrication steps at other manufacturing stations. Selectively docking and removing a print surface between an additive manufacturing machine and intervening fabrication machines allows for parts to be quickly secured at the same locations with high repeatability ([0008] the parts are preferably secured at same locations with high repeatability and [0009] an additive manufacturing machine including a tooling assembly for quickly and effectively mounting a plurality of compressor blades).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the print surface of Battenberg be configured to completely separate from the pedestal during printing operation, as taught by Hampshire, for the benefit of quickly securing parts between the additive manufacturing machine and intervening fabrication machines with high precision and repeatability. Further, if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the print surface (whether it is for cleaning, maintenance, intervening fabrication processes, etc…), it would be obvious to make the print surface removable for that purpose (see MPEP 2144.04 V.C.).
Regarding claim 4, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 1. Further, Battenberg teaches wherein the enclosure includes: a first side wall; a second side wall opposite the first side wall (see housing 2 in Figure 1); a rear wall connected between the first and second side walls (see window 4 in Figure 1); and at least one door opposite the rear wall (see doors 30 and flap 22 in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 5, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 4. Batternberg teaches the additive manufacturing system further including a ceiling (“On the roof of the housing 2 there is an outlet opening 6 for a
suction not shown from the housing 2”- see pg. 5 paragraph 8).
Regarding claim 6, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 4. Further, Batternberg teaches wherein the first side wall, the second side wall at least partially transparent (see viewing windows 4 on each side in Figure 1).
Regarding claim 13, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 1. Further, Battenberg teaches wherein the system has a build volume inside of the enclosure (chamber 24; Figure 1).
Regarding claim 15, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 13. Further, Battenberg teaches wherein the build volume is bounded by the print surface (the object will be printed on substrate carrier 28 top surface and therefore the build volume is bounded by the print surface).
Regarding claim 18, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 1. Battenberg teaches the additive manufacturing system further including a support table (lifting table 60; Figure 1, 3, and 4) disposed between the
pedestal and the print surface (“On this lifting table 60, the substrate carrier 28 is located,
preferably with the interposition of a heating plate 66”- see pg. 6).
While Battenberg fails to teach the support table is removable, Battenberg does teach
the printing surface is removable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the support table of Battenberg modified with Hampshire be removable such that the support table is removably disposed between the pedestal and the print surface. If it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the support table (whether it is for cleaning, maintenance, etc…), it would be obvious to make the support table removable for that purpose (see MPEP 2144.04 V.C.).
Regarding claim 19, modified Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 18.
Further, Batternberg teaches the additive manufacturing system further including:
a first plurality of locating features disposed between the support table and the pedestal
and configured to precisely locate the support table relative to the pedestal (vertical guides 64
in Figure 3 and Figure 4); and
a second plurality of locating features disposed between the support table and the print
surface and configured to precisely locate the print surface relative to the support table in a
removeable manner (“In the in FIG. 3 shown lower end position of the lifting table 60 of the
substrate carrier 28 is on telescopic rails 68 of an excerpt 70 and can accordingly be pulled out
laterally from the chamber 24 manually”- see pg. 6 paragraph 5),
wherein the second plurality of locating features are a different type than the first
plurality of support features (rails are different than vertical guides as shown in Figure 3).
While Batternberg fails to explicitly teach the first plurality of locating features are
configured to precisely locate the support table relative to the pedestal in a removeable manner, Batternberg does teach the second plurality of locating features locate the print
surface relative to the support table in a removeable manner as noted above.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to also have the first plurality of locating
features of Batternberg modified with Hampshire be configured to precisely locate the support table relative to the pedestal in a removeable manner. If it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the support table (whether it is for cleaning, maintenance, etc…), it would be obvious to make the support table removable for that purpose (see MPEP 2144.04 V.C.).
Claim(s) 1, 13, 15, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Swanson et al. (US20210387402), and further in view of Hampshire et al. (US20200238448).
Regarding claim 1, Swanson teaches an additive manufacturing system ([0037] multi-
axis robotic build system 100 that may be used for building 3D parts utilizing two-dimensional
tool paths), comprising:
a pedestal (see annotated Figure 2 on pg. 9 of the Office Action mailed 07/18/2025);
a robotic arm (robotic arm 102; Figure 2) mounted to the pedestal (see robotic arm 102
mounted to pedestal shown in annotated Figure 2 on pg. 9 of the Office Action mailed 07/18/2025);
a print head (print head 104; Figure 2) coupled to the robotic arm ([0037] The robotic
arm 102 carries a print head 104);
an enclosure at least partially surrounding the robotic arm and the print head and
providing internal working space for an operator of the additive manufacturing system ([0037]
system 100 optionally may be housed within a build structure 120); and
a print surface (top surface of build platform 106 in Figure 2).
However, Swanson fails to teach the print surface is configured to selectively dock with
or completely separate from the pedestal during normal operation.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to an additive manufacturing system, Hampshire teaches a print surface (tooling fixture or assembly 52; Figure 1) is configured to configured to selectively dock with ([0011]) and completely separate from an additive manufacturing apparatus enclosure (additive manufacturing machine 100; Figure 1) during the printing operation ([0048] material removal assembly 54 may grind each blade 70 as it is fixed in position in tooling assembly 52; see additive repair system 50 comprising material removal assembly 54 that is separate from additive manufacturing machine 100 in Figure 1). As noted in the claim interpretation section above, the limitation “during printing operation” includes intervening fabrication steps at other manufacturing stations. Selectively docking and removing a print surface between an additive manufacturing machine and intervening fabrication machines allows for parts to be quickly secured at the same locations with high repeatability ([0008] the parts are preferably secured at same locations with high repeatability and [0009] an additive manufacturing machine including a tooling assembly for quickly and effectively mounting a plurality of compressor blades).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the print surface of Swanson be configured to
selectively dock with and completely separate from the pedestal during printing operation, as taught by Hampshire, for the benefit of quickly securing parts between the additive manufacturing machine and intervening fabrication machines with high precision and repeatability. Further, if it were considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the print surface (whether it is for cleaning, maintenance, intervening fabrication processes, etc…), it would be obvious to make the print surface removable for that purpose (see MPEP 2144.04 V.C.).
Regarding claim 13, Swanson modified with Hampshire teaches the additive
manufacturing system of claim 1. Further, Swanson teaches wherein the system has a build
volume inside of the enclosure (see build volume on top of build platform 106 within structure
120 in Figure 2).
Regarding claim 15, Swanson modified with Hampshire teaches the additive
manufacturing system of claim 13. Further, Swanson teaches wherein the build volume is
bounded by the print surface (the object will be printed on the top surface of build platform
106 and therefore the build volume is bounded by the print surface).
Regarding claim 20, Swanson modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 1. Swanson teaches the additive manufacturing system further
including a horizontal rotator tool, wherein the print surface is located on a form held by the
horizontal rotator tool and rotatable during discharging of material by the print head onto the print surface ([0037] A build platform 106 is provided, which in one embodiment is movable
along two axes of rotation, rotation about the z-axis, and tilting (rotation) about the x-axis).
While Swanson fails to explicitly teach the horizontal rotator tool is removably
connected to the pedestal, Hampshire teaches the printing surface is removable.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed
invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the horizontal rotator tool of
Swanson modified with Hampshire be removably connected to the pedestal. If it were
considered desirable for any reason to obtain access to the horizontal rotator tool (whether it is
for cleaning, maintenance, etc…), it would be obvious to make the horizontal rotator tool e
removable for that purpose (see MPEP 2144.04 V.C.).
Claim(s) 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al.
(US20210387402) and Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and further in view of Yong (KR20170057845).
Regarding claim 2, Swanson modified with Hampshire teaches the additive
manufacturing system of claim 1. While Swanson teaches controller 108 shown in Figure 2 that
regulates the operation of the robotic arm and the print head ([0037] controller 108 contains
software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build
platform 106, as well as the printing operation of the print head 104), Swanson fails to explicitly
teach the controller is mounted inside the pedestal.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Yong teaches a
controller mounted inside the pedestal (“The base housing 20 may be provided with a control
unit (not shown) for controlling power supply of the first and second drive motors and the step
motor 37”- see pg. 8 paragraph 11).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the controller of Swanson modified with
Hampshire be mounted inside the pedestal, as taught by Yong, to achieve the predictable
result of providing power to and regulating the operation of the robotic arm and the print head.
There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the controller of Swanson to be
mounted inside the pedestal, since both Swanson and Yong are directed to fused deposition
modelling techniques within a housing enclosure and a space within the pedestal that can
accommodate electronic components such as a controller.
Claim(s) 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al.
(US20210387402), Hampshire et al. (US20200238448) and Yong (KR20170057845), and further in view of Ream (US20190301970).
Regarding claim 3, Swanson modified with Hampshire and Yong teaches the additive
manufacturing system of claim 2.
However, Swanson fails to teach wherein an inside of the pedestal is pressurized.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Ream teaches
wherein an inside of a pedestal (testing apparatus 10; Figure 1) is pressurized ([0033] a source
of pressurized gas is connected to gas fitting 222 for delivering outwardly flowing gas to and through each pin-hole). Pressurizing the inside of a pedestal prevents the contamination of
electronic components by generated debris ([0033] for preventing the contamination thereof
by debris generated during the testing process or other debris).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the inside of the pedestal of Swanson modified
with Hampshire and Yong pressurized, as taught by Ream, for the benefit of preventing contamination of the controller components in the pedestal by generated debris.
Claim(s) 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battenberg
(EP2329935- Machine translation provided herein) and Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and further in view of Leyden et al. (US5143663).
Regarding claim 7, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 6. However, Battenberg fails to teach wherein the at least one of the first side wall, the second side wall, and the at least one door is configured to filter energy from the environment from entering the enclosure and causing material discharging from the print head to prematurely cure.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Leyden teaches the
at least one door is configured to filter energy from the environment that would otherwise
cause material discharging from the print head to cure (col 5 line 66- col 6 line 1).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the at least one door of Battenberg modified with Hampshire be configured to filter energy from the environment that would cause material discharging from the print head to prematurely cure, as taught by Leyden, since one of ordinary skill would be motivated to prevent a material from curing prematurely before it has been deposited or from curing beyond a desired level after deposition.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battenberg
(EP2329935- Machine translation provided herein) and Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and further in view of Langenfeld et al. (US20170369827).
Regarding claim 8, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 4. While Battenberg teaches an emergency shutdown of the robot controller (“The signals of the force-torque sensor 36 also cause an emergency shutdown of the robot controller when the robot arm 34 or the dispensing devices 18, 20 strikes against an obstacle”- see pg. 2 paragraph 2), Battenberg fails to explicitly teach the emergency stop sensor is located inside the enclosure and is manually operable by an operator inside of the enclosure.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Langenfeld teaches
an emergency stop button near a motion platform (machine 14 in Figure 1; [0104] Another step
in the procedure performed by the Check Module may include determining if offboard
equipment (e.g., safety equipment) and/or environmental factors are within required ranges
(Step 740). The offboard equipment may include, for example, interlocks associated with safety
enclosures around machine 14, room scanners around machine 14, and/or emergency stop
buttons near machine 14. When any of these and/or other safety equipment generate signals indicative of unsafe conditions, processor 36 may inhibit operation of machine 14 and/or
provide a warning to the user (e.g., via display 34), thereby prompting the user to clear the
area, close safety enclosures, and/or ensure proper operation of the safety equipment (Step
750)). An emergency stop allows a user to inhibit operation of the additive manufacturing
system when unsafe conditions are determined ([0104] When any of these and/or other safety
equipment generate signals indicative of unsafe conditions, processor 36 may inhibit operation
of machine 14 and/or provide a warning to the user (e.g., via display 34), thereby prompting
the user to clear the area, close safety enclosures, and/or ensure proper operation of the safety
equipment).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the enclosure of Battenberg modified with Hampshire further include at least one e-stop, as taught by Langenfeld, to allow user to immediately inhibit operation of the additive manufacturing apparatus when it has been deemed unsafe to do so.
Claim(s) 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battenberg
(EP2329935- Machine translation provided herein) and Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and further in view of Sukhman et al. (US20080017620).
Regarding claim 9, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 4. However, Battenberg fails to teach the additive manufacturing system further including an interlock device associated with the at least one door and configured to disable the additive manufacturing system when the at least one door is opened.
In the field reasonably pertinent to the problem of safety concerns during printing
operations ([0002] and [0018]), Sukhman teaches a housing including an interlock device
associated with the at least one door and configured to disable the device when at least one
door is opened ([0018] the interlocks 132 can merely function as sensors that detect when one
of the doors 124-130 is open and disable the laser 102 or activate other suitable safety
precautions (e.g., a mechanical shutter that blocks at least a portion of the laser beam). The
interlock device associated with the at least one door provides a suitable safety precaution by
disabling the device when at least one door is opened.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the additive manufacturing system of Battenberg modified with Hampshire further include an interlock device associated with the at least one door and configured to disable the additive manufacturing system when the at least one door is opened, as Sukhman teaches with a laser printing system, for the benefit of providing a suitable safety precaution.
Claim(s) 10 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over
Battenberg (EP2329935- Machine translation provided herein) and Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and further in view of Buser et al. (US20140043630).
Regarding claim 10, Battenberg modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 4. However, Battenberg fails to teach the additive manufacturing system further includes an HMI located at least partially inside of the enclosure and accessible from outside of the enclosure.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Buser teaches an additive manufacturing system that further includes an HMI (display 302; Figure 3) located at
least partially inside of the enclosure ([0058] a display 302 may be positioned within a working
volume 304 of a three-dimensional printer (not shown), and positioned for example vertically
and adjacent to or near a side 306 of the working volume 304, with an active portion of the
display 302 facing the working volume 304). The HMI may include diagnostic information
regarding the object being printed or status information of the additive manufacturing system
([0068]).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the additive manufacturing system of Battenberg modified with Hampshire further include an HMI located at least partially inside of the enclosure such that the HMI is accessible from outside of the enclosure via the doors of Battenberg modified with Hampshire, as taught by Buser. An HMI allows for a user to directly view information related to the object as it is being printed or information related to the status of the additive manufacturing system.
Regarding claim 11, Battenberg modified with Hampshire and Buser teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 10. Further, Battenberg teaches wherein the at least one door includes an opening accessible by a user (“a flap 22 is provided which, when closed, covers a chamber 24 with an opening 26 free of the production space and opens up the possibility of extracting a substrate carrier 28, which is usually provided in the chamber 24, out of the housing 2 and on To access outside. On both sides of the chamber 24 doors 30 are provided, via which respectively provided within the housing 2 congestion or inspection places are accessible. Another side door 32 allows access to the robot 16.”- see pg. 6 paragraph 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to have the sliding door of Battenberg
modified with Hampshire and Buser access the inside of the enclosure to achieve the predictable result of accessing the HMI. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for the sliding doors to access the HMI, since the additive manufacturing system of Battenberg modified with Hampshire and Buser comprises the HMI in the enclosure, the doors of Battenberg allow for access to components within the enclosure.
Claim(s) 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battenberg
(EP2329935- Machine translation provided herein), Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and Buser et al. (US20140043630), and further in view of Hehl (US4976598).
Regarding claim 12, Battenberg modified with Hampshire and Buser teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 10. However, Battenberg fails to teach wherein the HMI is configured to pivot between a deployed position accessible from outside of the enclosure and a stowed position that is not accessible from outside of the enclosure.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to plastic molding and shaping, Hehl teaches
wherein the HMI is configured to pivot between a deployed position and a stowed position
(Abstract: he input unit includes a data display device and an input keyboard. A cable connects
the input unit with the control cabinet. To a bracket arrangement on the pedestal there is
pivotally mounted a swivel arm swingable in a horizontal plane about a vertical axis. The input
unit is secured to the swivel arm at a top side thereof such that the data display device is
approximately at eye-level height. The input unit has, dependent upon pivotal positions of the
swivel arm, a working position situated externally of the area occupied by the main structure and a position of rest within such area). An HMI pivoting between a deployed and stowed
position allows for the HMI to be arranged in empty spaces within the additive manufacturing
system which greatly reduces the space required for moving the entire system, and allows for
easy handling movements that provide an operator a view of the HMI at any time (col 2 line 55-
col 3 line 2).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the HMI of Battenberg modified with Hampshire and Buser to be configured to pivot between a deployed position accessible from outside of the enclosure and a stowed position that is not accessible from outside of the enclosure, as taught by Hehl, for the benefit of reducing the space required for moving the additive manufacturing system and for allowing easily handling movement that provide an operator a view of the HMI at any time.
Claim(s) 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al.
(US20210387402) and Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and further in view of Creality (“3D Printer Enclosure, Creality Fireproof and Dustproof 3D Printer Enclosure Constant Temperature Protective Cover Room for Ender5/5 pro/5 Plus,CR- 10/10S/10S PRO/10MINI,CR-X/CR-20/20PRO- Large”- https://www.amazon.com/Enclosure-Fireproof-Dustproof-Temperature-
Protective/dp/B08FD8M2BP/ref=asc_df_B08FD8M2BP?mcid=bdbd1d1e9a9e34fb9df585efb806
2962&hvocijid=4777371115747226621-B08FD8M2BP-&hvexpln=73&tag=hyprod-
20&linkCode=df0&hvadid=721245378154&hvpos=&hvnetw=g&hvrand=477737111574722662 1&hvpone=&hvptwo=&hvqmt=&hvdev=c&hvdvcmdl=&hvlocint=&hvlocphy=9031153&hvtargid
=pla-2281435178138&th=1, see attachment from Office Action mailed 04/09/2025) and
Creality2 (“Creality Ender-3 https://3dprinting.com/products/3d-printer/creality-ender-3-
2022/, see attachment from Office Action mailed 04/09/2025).
Regarding claim 14, Swanson modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 13.
However, Swanson is silent to the build volume and enclosure volume dimensions.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Creality teaches a
3D printer enclosure with dimensions of 29.5 x 35.4 x 27.5 inches, which totals an enclosure
volume of 2,8718 inches3. Creality teaches the enclosure is compatible with the Creality Ender-
3 printer, and Creality2 teaches the Ender-3 printer has a build volume with dimensions of 8.6 x
8.6 x 9.8 inches, which totals to a build volume of 724 inches3. The build volume is 2.5% of
a volume of the enclosure, where (724/ 2,8718) * 100%= 2.5%.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the build volume of Swanson modified with Hampshire be about 3-4% of a volume of the enclosure, as taught by Creality and Creality2, since changes in the relative dimensions of the build volume to the enclosure volume would not change the operation of the additive manufacturing system (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Claim(s) 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al.
(US20210387402) and Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and further in view of Douglass (“Addressing Production Challenges with Go-To Market Limitations with Established Additive Manufacturing Service Providers”, a White Paper from Lincoln Electric published 04/17/2020- see attached and https://www.lincolnelectric.com/en/newsroom/press-releases/2020/07/new-lincoln-electric-white-paper-shows-how-advances-in-wire-based-additive-manufacturing-solv).
Regarding claim 16, Swanson modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 15. However, Swanson fails to teach wherein the build volume is
bounded by operator access walking corridors at lateral sides of the print surface.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Douglass teaches a
build volume that is bounded by operator access walking corridors at lateral sides of the print
surface (see walking corridors at lateral sides of the print surface in images on pg. 1 and pg. 4).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the build volume of Swanson modified with Hampshire be bounded by operator access walking corridors at lateral sides of the print surface, since changes in the relative dimensions of the build volume to the enclosure volume
would not change the operation of the additive manufacturing system (see MPEP 2144.04.IV.A).
Claim(s) 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Swanson et al.
(US20210387402) and Hampshire et al. (US20200238448), and further in view of Chow (US20190177676).
Regarding claim 17, Swanson modified with Hampshire teaches the additive manufacturing system of claim 1. While Swanson teaches a chamber within the housing can be heated by circulating heated air to reduce the rate at which the part and support materials
solidify after being extruded and deposited ([0030] Chamber 12 is an enclosed environment
that contains platen 14 and any printed parts. Chamber 12 can be heated (e.g., with circulating
heated air) to reduce the rate at which the part and support materials solidify after being
extruded and deposited), Swanson fails to teach the additive manufacturing system further
includes a duct having an inlet extending from the pedestal towards the print surface and a
filter associated with the duct.
In the same field of endeavor pertaining to additive manufacturing, Chow teaches an
additive manufacturing system including a duct having an inlet extending from a pedestal
towards the print surface (see gas removal unit 400 in annotated Figure 4 on pg. 20 of the
Office Action mailed 04/09/2025 and printing platform 204 located on pedestal with filter
associated with duct extending into the print platform area in Figure 2) and a filter associated
with the duct (gas removal filter 401; Figure 4). The gas removal unit of Chow maintains a
positive pressure environment that ensures unfiltered air does not enter a sterilized chamber
when the door or other ports are open ([0025] The positive pressure environment maintained
by the air supply unit 301 ensures that unfiltered air does not enter the sterilized chamber 101
when the door 103 or other ports are open. In one embodiment, the door 103 may be sliding).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a
person having ordinary skill in the art to have the additive manufacturing system of Swanson modified with Hampshire further include a duct having an inlet extending from the pedestal
towards the print surface and a filter associated with the duct, as taught by Chow, to achieve
the predictable result of removing air from within the enclosure to creative a positive pressure environment in the pedestal. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success for
the duct and filter associated with the duct of Chow to remove air from the enclosure of
Swanson modified with Hampshire, since both Swanson and Seo are directed to printers that
circulate air through the enclosure, and one of ordinary skill would be motivated to remove the
circulating air from the chamber of Swanson to regulate the temperature. Further, maintaining
a positive pressure environment has a known benefit of ensuring that unfiltered air does not
enter a sterilized chamber when the door or other ports are open.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 (see Remarks filed 09/10/2025 and 10/14/2025) have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ARIELLA MACHNESS whose telephone number is (408)918-7587. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 6:30-2:30 PT.
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.
/ARIELLA MACHNESS/Examiner, Art Unit 1743