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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/282026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the prior art cited does not meet the newly claimed “a processor configured to execute instruction to cause the build platform to perform operations comprising tilting over 90 degrees from horizontal” but this is not found persuasive. Heugel teaches a metallic substrate plate can be manually placed onto the platform [0021] then resting on the support arms 29, is rotated upside down for example by a tilting device (not shown) and moved upwards so that it can be arranged in an upper portion of the supplying device 26, [0059], an adapter in the shape of an adapter plate 32 is placed onto the support arms 29, [0037], Fig. 6. Cox teaches all of the various flow possibilities, including the valve actions, can of course be under computer control, so that operation is automatic rather than manual, [0058]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to use computer control of Cox with the tilting device (not shown) of Heugel to achieve a processor configured to execute instruction to cause the build platform to perform operations comprising tilting over 90 degrees from horizontal so that operation is automatic rather than manual, [0058].
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 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.
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 1-3 and 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2006/0214335 A1) in view of Heugel (US 2010/0192806 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Cox meets the claimed an apparatus comprising: a powder dispensing assembly, (Cox teaches feed hopper 254 to deposit powder, see Fig. 5, [0052]) configured to dispense a plurality of layers of a powdered material; (Cox teaches the apparatus to be used in a selective laser sintering process including depositing layers of powder on a platform such as platform 170, see [0003], [0042], Fig. 3) a build platform configured to hold a powder bed formed by the layers of the powdered material, (Cox teaches support platform 170, Fig. 3) and a hopper capable of collecting a substantial portion of the powdered material of the powder bed. (Cox teaches the system 270 includes moving the powder to a storage vessel 354, see Fig. 5 and 6, [0053]-[0060]. Cox teaches the powder from 412 is transferred via powder ducting 414 back to the recovered powder storage vessel 354 in FIG. 6)
Cox does not explicitly teach wherein the build platform is configured to tilt over 90 degrees from horizontal to separate the powder bed from the build platform by gravity pull.
Heugel teaches wherein the build platform is configured to tilt over 90 degrees from horizontal to separate the powder bed from the build platform by gravity pull.
Heugel teaches a metallic substrate plate can be manually placed onto the platform [0021] then resting on the support arms 29, is rotated upside down for example by a tilting device (not shown) and moved upwards so that it can be arranged in an upper portion of the supplying device 26, [0059], an adapter in the shape of an adapter plate 32 is placed onto the support arms 29, [0037], Fig. 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to use the support arms of Heugel to rotate upside down the plate of the 3D printing apparatus of Cox because powder recycling allows for enhanced quality of the building process and the objects as well as enhanced economic efficiency, see Heugel [0008].
Cox as modified by Heugel does not explicitly teach a processor configured to execute instruction to cause the build platform to perform operations comprising tilting over 90 degrees from horizontal.
Cox teaches all of the various flow possibilities, including the valve actions, can of course be under computer control, so that operation is automatic rather than manual, [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to use computer control of Cox with the tilting device (not shown) of Heugel to achieve a processor configured to execute instruction to cause the build platform to perform operations comprising tilting over 90 degrees from horizontal so that operation is automatic rather than manual, [0058].
Regarding claim 2, Cox as modified meets the claimed apparatus of claim 1, further comprising: a plurality of storage chambers (one or more overflow containers 256, [0052], Fig. 5) configured to store a plurality of powdered materials with each of the powdered materials sealed in a respective inert atmosphere inside a respective one of the storage chambers. (Cox teaches the powder transport systems to include air, or an inert gas such as argon, see [0051]).
Regarding claim 3, Cox as modified meets the claimed further comprising at least one of: a mechanical sweeper; a vacuum; (Cox teaches the powder transport systems to include vacuum, i.e. negative pressure, see [0051]) and a gas jet.
Regarding claim 7, Cox as modified meets the claimed apparatus of claim 1, wherein the hopper comprises an auger or a conveyer capable of transporting the powdered material to a storage chamber. (Dense phase conveying systems [0050]. Examiner notes the conveyor of Cox meets the broadest reasonable interpretation of “conveyer” claimed).
Regarding claim 8, Cox as modified meets the claimed apparatus of claim 1, wherein the powder dispensing assembly is capable of a vertical motion. (Cox teaches Dense phase transporter 542 conveys powder back up to the powder feed hopper (not shown), see [0063]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2006/0214335 A1), Heugel (US 2010/0192806 A1), and in view of El-Dasher (US 2014/0252687 A1 ).
Regarding claim 4, Cox as modified meets the claimed apparatus of claim 1, wherein an area of the build platform configured to hold the powder bed is greater than 0.25 square meters.
El-Dasher meets the claimed wherein an area of the build platform configured to hold the powder bed is greater than 0.25 square meters. (diode array may be constructed to have a one square meter area (1 m2-), which would allow correspondingly large scale components to be constructed through an AM fabrication process, provided of course that a suitably sized powder bed is available to support fabrication of the part, see [0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to optimize the size of the powder bed of Cox to be as larger as 1 m2 as taught by El-Dasher to reduce the time required to manufacture objects, and particularly metal objects, using AM, see El-Dasher [0005].
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2006/0214335 A1), Heugel (US 2010/0192806 A1). in view of Feenstra et al. (US 2008/0211132, hereinafter Feenstra).
Regarding claim 5, Cox as modified does not meet the claimed apparatus of claim 1, wherein the build platform is further capable of causing vibrations or jittering moves.
Feenstra meets the claimed wherein the build platform is further capable of causing vibrations or jittering moves. (Feenstra discloses a method for 3D printing using powder (see title and abstract) and a power recovery system, see [0051]. Feenstra teaches vibrating the building platform to recover the powder, see [0055]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to use the vibration step of Feenstra with the powder recovery step of Cox because it improves the removal of further amounts of unused powder material, see Feenstra [0055].
Claim 6, 9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2006/0214335 A1), Heugel (US 2010/0192806 A1), and in view of McFarland et al. (US 2016/0193696).
Regarding claim 6, Cox as modified meets the claimed apparatus of claim 1, wherein the hopper has one or more sloped walls (Cox teaches hopper 412 to have sloped walls, see Fig. 7)
Cox as modified does not explicitly teach wherein the hopper is located below the build platform.
McFarland meets the claimed wherein the hopper is located below the build platform. (McFarland depicts hopper 128 to have slopped walls itself and slopped walls leading to the hopper entrance, and be located below build platform 102, see Fig. 1, [0062]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to arrange the hopper of Cox below the platform as taught by McFarland because such a location allows the powder to be recovered due to gravity, see McFarland [0062].
Regarding claim 9, Cox as modified meets the claimed apparatus of claim 1, wherein the processor comprises a memory storing a plurality of instructions, (computer based control system is programmed with information indicative of the desired boundaries of a plurality of cross sections of the part to be produced [0003]) wherein executions of the instructions by the processor cause the processor to perform operations comprising: controlling the powder dispensing assembly to dispense the powdered material onto the build platform; (roller 130 dispenses powder over the target area 110 in the opposite direction [0039]) controlling the build platform to separate the powder bed substantially from the build platform; (Cox teaches separation of part cake 258 into finished parts 262, lower quality or spent powder 264, and recovered powder 266 for recycle is accomplished mechanically [0052] and that all of the various flow possibilities, including the valve actions, can of course be under computer control, so that operation is automatic rather than manual, see [0058]) and controlling the hopper to collect the substantial portion of the powdered material for reuse or for storage. (Recovered powder from a separate breakout station 353 is conveyed in a batch-wise manner to recovered storage vessel 354, see [0053]).
Regarding claim 11, Cox as modified meets the claimed apparatus of claim 10, further comprising at least one of: a mechanical sweeper; a vacuum; (Cox teaches the powder transport systems to include vacuum, i.e. negative pressure, see [0051]) and a gas jet.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cox (US 2006/0214335 A1) in view of Heugel (US 2010/0192806 A1), El-Dasher (US 2014/0252687 A1), Barnhart (US 2016/0318253).
Regarding claim 10, Cox as modified meets the claimed apparatus, comprising: a powder dispensing assembly capable of dispensing a plurality of layers of a powdered material; and a hopper capable of collecting a substantial portion of the powdered material of the powder bed. (Cox teaches the system 270 includes moving the powder to a storage vessel 354, see Fig. 5 and 6, [0053]-[0060]. Cox teaches the powder from 412 is transferred via powder ducting 414 back to the recovered powder storage vessel 354 in FIG. 6).
Cox does not explicitly teach wherein the build platform is configured to tilt over 90 degrees from horizontal to separate the powder bed from the build platform by gravity pull.
Heugel teaches wherein the build platform is configured to tilt over 90 degrees from horizontal to separate the powder bed from the build platform by gravity pull.
Heugel teaches a metallic substrate plate can be manually placed onto the platform [0021] then resting on the support arms 29, is rotated upside down for example by a tilting device (not shown) and moved upwards so that it can be arranged in an upper portion of the supplying device 26, [0059], an adapter in the shape of an adapter plate 32 is placed onto the support arms 29, [0037], Fig. 6.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to use the support arms of Heugel to rotate upside down the plate of the 3D printing apparatus of Cox because powder recycling allows for enhanced quality of the building process and the objects as well as enhanced economic efficiency, see Heugel [0008].
Cox as modified by Heugel does not explicitly teach a processor configured to execute instruction to cause the build platform to perform operations comprising tilting over 90 degrees from horizontal.
Cox teaches all of the various flow possibilities, including the valve actions, can of course be under computer control, so that operation is automatic rather than manual, [0058].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to use computer control of Cox with the tilting device (not shown) of Heugel to achieve a processor configured to execute instruction to cause the build platform to perform operations comprising tilting over 90 degrees from horizontal so that operation is automatic rather than manual, [0058].
Cox does not teach a build platform having an area greater than 0.25 square meters.
El-Dasher meets the claimed build platform having an area greater than 0.25 square meters. (diode array may be constructed to have a one square meter area (1 m2-), which would allow correspondingly large scale components to be constructed through an AM fabrication process, provided of course that a suitably sized powder bed is available to support fabrication of the part, see [0021).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to optimize the size of the powder bed of Cox to be as larger as 1 m2 as taught by El-Dasher to reduce the time required to manufacture objects, and particularly metal objects, using AM, see El-Dasher [0005].
Cox does not explicitly teach configured to hold a powder bed that can be processed to form a printed object weighing at least 10 kilograms.
Barnhart teaches that since the build needs to take place in the powder bed, conventional machines use a large amount of resident powder, for example a powder load can be over 130 kg (300 lbs.), see [0003].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of present application to optimize the size of the powder bed of Cox to be able to hold at least 10 kilograms because that is the weight of the powder in an additive manufacturing system, Barnhart [0003].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Ferrar (US 20140271965 A1) discloses [0005] The scanning sequence may be selected such that debris produced by the scan is carried away from areas of the powder layer which are yet to be scanned. In this way, these areas of powder are not disturbed and contaminated by the debris ensuring that, when these areas are solidified, the solidified layer is built to a desired, uniform height.
Burris (US A1) Burris teaches the build platform 112 can define a 200 mm by 200 mm build area, [0060].
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam Zhao can be reached on (571)270-5343. 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 Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights