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 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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 2/16/26 has been entered.
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.
Claim 22 is 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 22, limitation “above the part” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and it is ambiguous what is implied by the part? This appears to be separate from the printed part. The recited vague 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, the claim is taken to mean: an end wall opposite the build plate. Appropriate correction is requested.
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 1-6 and 9-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi et al. (US 2017/0072467, hereafter “Zehavi”) in view of Hoy et al. (US 2022/0111443, “Hoy”) & Jordan (US 11491720).
Regarding claim 1, Zehavi discloses a method of managing additive manufacturing (AM) powder used for three-dimensional printing of one or more printed parts (fig. 4, [0003-0004]), the method comprising: printing at least one printed part 426 and a canister 428 (enclosure) covering the at least one printed part on a build plate 406 integrally formed using a single AM process (see figs. 4D-E, [0106-108]), wherein the canister 428 has an open bottom end and is printed such that the build plate 406 closes the open bottom end, the canister and the build plate thereby fully enclosing the at least one printed part 426 (fig. 4E). Examiner notes that “open bottom” is generally broad, not limited by any specific dimension/size of the opening, and is covered by base/support structure in Zehavi (fig. 4E).
Zehavi discloses post-processing stage of removing the unfused powder material 404 from the printed part and separating the canister & the printed part (fig. 4F, [0127]), but does not mention transporting the canister and the printed part along with the build plate to a second location. However, such post-processing step is known in the AM art. Hoy is also directed to additive manufacturing system comprising a post-fabrication powder removal apparatus, transport mechanism and a controller (abstract). Specifically, Hoy discloses a build box 18 including a powder bin, and a build plate for fabricating printed part 4 by selectively fusing layers of powder using laser beam [0037-0040], wherein the build box & build plate is transported to powder removal stations 8/10 (de-powdering) for extracting/separating the build plate and removing residual, unfused powder (figs. 1, 7; [0035, 0047-0048]). Similarly, Jordan is drawn to powder bed 3D fabrication additive manufacturing technique using a build plate within a build box (fig. 1; Background- col. 1, lines 14-16, col. 4, lines 6-15). Jordan discloses transporting build box/canister 102 and the printed 3D part, along with the build plate 112, to a de-powdering location (second location- fig. 2) for removal of the build plate and the left over powder. Jordan teaches removal of the box/canister 102 from the build plate 112 and removal of loose powder 140 left behind in the canister from the printing through apertures 116 to the outside of basket 100 (fig. 2); as the powder is drained slowly from the basket 100, the 3D printed parts can be removed safely (col. 5, line 57 thru col. 6, line 8). Jordan further teaches that the de-powdering system can be coupled to a powder collection device such that excess powder is collected and recycled (col. 10, lines 25-30). In this manner, the de-powdering setup facilitates automated removal from the build box, which is especially beneficial when heavy parts are present and could be difficult to handle (col. 7, lines 34-39).
Given teachings of Hoy & Jordan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide de-powdering arrangement in the method of Zehavi by transporting the printed parts, along with the build plate, for removal of the canister from the build plate and removal of residual powder with the motivation to collect unfused powder (from printed parts as well as build plate) that can be recycled, thereby improving process efficiency.
As to claim 2, Zehavi discloses the printing step is performed with the powder being melted and fused by a laser, layer by layer, to create the printed part and the canister in a single AM process (fig. 4D, [0004]).
As to claim 3, Zehavi teaches additive manufacturing using metal powders such as aluminum, steel and titanium [0055].
As to claim 4, Jordan teaches powder collection device and recycling the powder removed from the printed part. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the recycled powder removed from the printed part/canister using for printing another part in order to save powder costs.
As to claims 5-6, Hoy discloses that the build plate is comprised of a part build section 22 and a canister build section 20 (fig. 8) that are mechanically joined by a fastener 54 (latches- figs. 3B, 4; col. 5, lines 62- 66), which are mechanically separable – latches 54 rotate so that the build plate 22 can be extracted in step 92 (figs. 7-8; col. 7, lines 10-20). Hoy shows that the canister/container is printed onto the canister build section (20) and the at least one printed part is printed onto the part build section (22). Examiner notes that any area/portion of the build plate which contributes to the 3D building meets “build section”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply any suitable fastener for removably securing the build plate portions/sections in the combination of Zehavi, Hoy & Jordan because it would result in flexibility of separating the build plate during subsequent powder removal step.
Regarding claim 9, Zehavi discloses a method of managing additive manufacturing (AM) powder used for three-dimensional printing of one or more printed parts (fig. 4, [0003-0004]), the method comprising: printing at least one printed part 426 and a canister 428 (enclosure) covering the at least one printed part on a build plate 406 integrally formed using a single AM process (see figs. 4D-E, [0106-108]), wherein the canister 428 has an open bottom end and is printed such that the build plate 406 closes the open bottom end, the canister and the build plate thereby fully enclosing the at least one printed part 426 (fig. 4E). Examiner notes that “open bottom” is generally broad, not limited by any dimension/size, and is covered by base/support structure in Zehavi (fig. 4E).
Zehavi discloses post-processing stage of removing the unfused powder material 404 from the printed part and separating the canister & the printed part (fig. 4F, [0127]), but does not mention transporting the canister and the printed part along with the build plate to a second location. However, such post-processing step is known in the AM art. Hoy is also directed to additive manufacturing system comprising a post-fabrication powder removal apparatus, transport mechanism and a controller (abstract). Specifically, Hoy discloses a build box 18 including a powder bin, and a build plate for fabricating printed part 4 by selectively fusing layers of powder using laser beam [0037-0040], wherein the build box & build plate is transported to powder removal stations 8/10 (de-powdering machine) for extracting or separating the build plate and removing residual, unfused powder (figs. 1, 7; [0035, 0047-0048]). Similarly, Jordan is drawn to powder bed 3D fabrication additive manufacturing technique using a build plate within a build box (fig. 1; Background- col. 1, lines 14-16, col. 4, lines 6-15). Jordan discloses transporting build box/canister 102 and the printed 3D part, along with the build plate 112, to a de-powdering location (second location- fig. 2) for removal of the build plate and the left over powder. Jordan teaches removal of the box/canister 102 from the build plate 112 and removal of loose powder 140 left behind in the canister from the printing through apertures 116 to the outside of basket 100 (fig. 2); as the powder is drained slowly from the basket 100, the 3D printed parts can be removed safely (col. 5, line 57 thru col. 6, line 8). Jordan further teaches that the de-powdering system can be coupled to a powder collection device such that excess powder is collected and recycled (col. 10, lines 25-30). In this manner, the de-powdering setup facilitates automated removal from the build box, which is especially beneficial when heavy parts are present and could be difficult to handle (col. 7, lines 34-39).
Given teachings of Hoy & Jordan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide de-powdering arrangement in the method of Zehavi by transporting the canister/container and the printed part, along with the build plate, for removal of the canister from the build plate and removal of residual powder with the motivation to collect unfused powder (from printed parts as well as build plate) that can be recycled, thereby improving process efficiency and cost savings.
As to claim 10, Zehavi discloses additive manufacturing by laser powder bed fusion (fig. 4, [0004]).
As to claim 11, Zehavi teaches additive manufacturing using metal powders such as aluminum, steel and titanium [0055 (pg. 1, line 32).
As to claims 12-13, Hoy discloses that the build plate is comprised of a part build section 22 and a canister build section 20 (fig. 8) that are mechanically joined by a fastener 54 (latches- figs. 3B, 4; col. 5, lines 62- 66), which are mechanically separable – latches 54 rotate so that the build plate 22 can be extracted in step 92 (figs. 7-8; col. 7, lines 10-20). Hoy shows that the canister/container is printed onto the canister build section (20) and the at least one printed part is printed onto the part build section (22). Examiner notes that any area/portion of the build plate which contributes to the 3D building meets “build section”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply any suitable fastener for removably securing the build plate portions/sections in the combination of Zehavi, Hoy & Jordan because it would result in flexibility of separating the build plate during subsequent powder removal step.
As to claim 14, Jordan discloses establishing inert atmosphere in the de-powdering machine prior to removal of the build plate (col. 6, lines 25-27). The recited feature is rendered obvious in the combination of Zehavi, Hoy & Jordan.
As to claim 15, Jordan discloses dispensing powder removed from the canister through apertures/sieves 116 (fig. 2). The recited feature is rendered obvious in the combination of Zehavi, Hoy & Jordan.
As to claim 16, Jordan teaches that the de-powdering system can be coupled to a powder collection device such that excess powder is collected and recycled (col. 10, lines 25-30). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to utilize the recycled powder for printing another printed part in the combination of Zehavi, Hoy & Jordan.
As to claim 17, although Jordan does not mention mixing fresh powder, doing so is within common knowledge and ordinary capabilities of one skilled in the art for the purpose of ensuring sufficient powder quantity for printing a new part. Accordingly, the claim is rendered obvious in the combination of Zehavi, Hoy & Jordan.
Regarding claim 18, Zehavi discloses a method of managing additive manufacturing (AM) powder used for three-dimensional printing of one or more printed parts (fig. 4, [0003-0004]), the method comprising: printing at least one printed part 426 and a canister 428 (enclosure) covering the at least one printed part on a build plate 406 integrally formed using a single AM process (see figs. 4D-E, [0106-108]), wherein the canister 428 has an open bottom end and is printed such that the build plate 406 closes the open bottom end, the canister and the build plate thereby fully enclosing the at least one printed part 426 (fig. 4E). Examiner notes that “open bottom” is generally broad, not limited by any dimension/size, and is covered by base/support structure in Zehavi (fig. 4E).
Zehavi discloses post-processing stage of removing the unfused powder material 404 from the printed part and separating the canister & the printed part (fig. 4F, [0127]), but does not mention transporting the canister and the printed part along with the build plate to a second location. However, such post-processing step is known in the AM art. Hoy is also directed to additive manufacturing system comprising a post-fabrication powder removal apparatus, transport mechanism and a controller (abstract). Specifically, Hoy discloses a build box 18 including a powder bin, and a build plate for fabricating printed part 4 by selectively fusing layers of powder using laser beam [0037-0040], wherein the build box & build plate is transported to powder removal stations 8/10 (de-powdering) for extracting/separating the build plate and removing residual, unfused powder (figs. 1, 7; [0035, 0047-0048]). Similarly, Jordan is drawn to powder bed 3D fabrication additive manufacturing technique using a build plate within a build box (fig. 1; Background- col. 1, lines 14-16, col. 4, lines 6-15). Jordan discloses transporting build box/canister 102 and the printed 3D part, along with the build plate 112, to a de-powdering location (second location- fig. 2) for removal of the build plate and the left over powder. Jordan teaches removal of the box/canister 102 from the build plate 112 and removal of loose powder 140 left behind in the canister from the printing through apertures 116 to the outside of basket 100 (fig. 2); as the powder is drained slowly from the basket 100, the 3D printed parts can be removed safely (col. 5, line 57 thru col. 6, line 8). Jordan further teaches that the de-powdering system can be coupled to a powder collection device such that excess powder is collected and recycled (col. 10, lines 25-30). In this manner, the de-powdering setup facilitates automated removal from the build box, which is especially beneficial when heavy parts are present and could be difficult to handle (col. 7, lines 34-39).
Given teachings of Hoy & Jordan, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide de-powdering arrangement in the method of Zehavi by transporting the canister/container and the printed part, along with the build plate, for removal of the canister from the build plate and removal of residual powder with the motivation to collect unfused powder (from printed parts as well as build plate) that can be recycled for printing a new part, thereby improving process efficiency and cost savings.
As to claims 19-20, Hoy discloses that the build plate is comprised of a part build section 22 and a canister build section 20 (fig. 8) that are mechanically joined by a fastener 54 (latches- figs. 3B, 4; col. 5, lines 62- 66), which are mechanically separable – latches 54 rotate so that the build plate 22 can be extracted in step 92 (figs. 7-8; col. 7, lines 10-20). Hoy shows that the canister/container is printed onto the canister build section (20) and the at least one printed part is printed onto the part build section (22). Examiner also notes that any area/portion of the build plate which contributes to the 3D building meets “build section”. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to supply any suitable fastener for removably securing the build plate portions/sections in the combination of Zehavi, Hoy & Jordan because it would result in flexibility of separating the build plate during subsequent powder removal step.
As to claim 21, the combination of Zehavi, Hoy & Jordan above discloses that at least one printed part is fully enclosed within the canister and the build plate during transport from a first location having an additive manufacturing machine to the second location such that the unfused powder is sealed from an external environment during transport.
Claims 7 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zehavi in view of Hoy & Jordan as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Brown (US 2020/0122231).
As to claim 7, Zehavi shows that canister 428 (enclosure) has one or more walls that enclose the at least one printed part within the canister (fig. 4E), but does not disclose a top wall with features 6a configured for engaging other canisters or build plates for transport. However, such feature is known in the art. Brown (also drawn to powder canister for 3D printing- [0001-0003]) discloses printing a body 20 of the canister 10 by incrementally building up layers of powder (fig. 2, [0037-0039]. Brown teaches that built-up canister 10 has walls that provide enclosure and a top wall with features 36 (hook connection means) configured for engaging other canisters or build plates for transport, thereby providing releasable means for connecting with the 3D printing apparatus (fig. 3, [0047-0048]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a top wall with engaging features on the canister similar to Brown in the method of Zehavi because doing so would enable to provide flexible connecting means for the canister in working with the 3D printing apparatus.
As to claim 22, Zehavi shows printing the canister comprises printing the canister 428 to define a tubular side wall circumscribing the at least one printed part 426 such that the canister defines a straight powder containment chamber providing clearance between an interior surface of the canister and all exterior sides of the at least one printed part 426 (fig. 4E). Zehavi as modified by Brown in claim 7 above discloses a canister defining a tubular side wall circumscribing the at least one printed part and an end wall opposite the build plate. Thus, the claim is rendered obvious in the combination Zehavi, Hoy, Jordan & Brown.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to pending claim(s) have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Current 103 rejection(s) relies on Zehavi reference, which addresses the matter specifically challenged in the arguments. Arguments against prior art of Ford are immaterial because the Ford reference has been withdrawn.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 2/16/26 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