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 .
Status of Claims
Applicant’s amendments and remarks in the reply filed 4/14/2026 have been acknowledged and entered. Claims 1, 2, and 5-22 are pending. Claims 3 and 4 are canceled. The rejection of claims 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 12, 18-20 under 35 USC 102 have been withdrawn in view of applicant’s amendment.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 5-7, 9, 12, 18-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murciego Rodriguez et al. (hereinafter “Murciego”, US 2022/0072621), and further in view of Huber et al. (US 2022/0227048).
Regarding Claim 1: Murciego teaches an automated de-powdering system, comprising:
a sleeve (Fig. 1, element 12);
a build box (element 11), the build box including one or more sidewalls (not numbered, walls of box 11) and a build plate (element 24), the one or more sidewalls and the build plate defining a build chamber, the sleeve being configured to move with respect to and align with the build box [0020];
a separation station [0033] configured to receive the build box with an additive manufacturing build inside the build chamber, the additive manufacturing build includes one or more objects disposed within a powder build material, wherein the separation station includes at least one actuator actuatable to move the additive manufacturing build out of the build box and into the sleeve [0018]; and
at least one mechanism automatically actuatable to separate at least a portion of the powder build material from the one or more objects ([0056] teaches an internal vibrator or a pulsed vacuum to provide vibrations within sleeve 12; [0061] teaches a controller to perform the method which reads on an automated system).
Murciego teaches that the build box may be removed to other stations [0033], but does not expressly disclose the build box is configured to move with respect to the sleeve. However, Huber teaches a build box including an integrated travel drive such that the build box is configured to move to different positions throughout a 3D printer system in a controlled and automated manner [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego with a build box configured to move with respect to the sleeve, as suggested by Huber, in order to allow the build box to reach other positions within the system before or after the manufacture build is removed to the sleeve.
Regarding Claim 2: Murciego further teaches at least one actuator is automatically actuatable to remove the sleeve from the additive manufacturing build (see Fig. 2, diagram 5; [0040] teaches a robotic arm for automated movement of sleeve 12).
Regarding Claim 5: Murciego further teaches wherein the additive manufacturing build comprises a first portion (element 21) and a second portion (element 22), and wherein the at least one actuator is actuatable to move the first portion into the sleeve (Fig. 2, diagrams 1 and 2).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7: Murciego further teaches the system further comprises a separation mechanism (e.g., cutting knife, element 13) insertable into the additive manufacturing build to separate the first portion from the second portion.
Regarding Claim 9: Murciego further teaches the system further comprises a separation mechanism (e.g., cutting knife, element 13) insertable into the additive manufacturing build to separate the additive manufacturing build into at least two portions (elements 21 and 22).
Regarding Claim 12: Murciego further teaches the system comprises at least one controller to automatically control at least one of the at least one actuator or the at least one mechanism [0060, 0061].
Regarding Claim 18: Murciego in view of Huber teaches an automated de-powdering method utilizing the automated de-powdering system of claim 1. Murciego further teaches a method comprising:
moving the build plate, via the at least one actuator, to move the additive manufacturing build out of the build box and into the sleeve (Fig. 2, diagrams 1 and 2); and
automatically actuating the at least one mechanism to separate the portion of the powder build material from the one or more objects [0056, 0061].
Regarding Claim 19: Murciego further teaches inserting a separation mechanism (element 13) into the additive manufacturing build to separate the additive manufacturing build into at least two portions (elements 21 and 22).
Regarding Claim 20: Murciego teaches a system, comprising:
one or more additive manufacturing systems (Fig. 1, element 10) each configured to print an additive manufacturing build within a build box (Fig. 2, element 11), the build box including one or more sidewalls (not numbered, walls of box 11) and a build plate (element 24), the one or more sidewalls and the build plate defining a build chamber configured to contain the additive manufacturing build (element 18), wherein the additive manufacturing build includes one or more objects (elements 20) disposed within a powder build material; and
an automated de-powdering system with a separation station [0033] configured to receive the build box from the one or more additive manufacturing systems, the automated de-powdering system including:
at least one actuator actuatable with respect to the build plate to move at least a portion of the additive manufacturing build out of the build box and into a sleeve (element 12; [0018]); and
at least one of a pneumatic agitation mechanism or at least one of an ultrasonic agitation mechanism automatically actuatable to separate at least a portion of the powder build material from the one or more objects ([0056] teaches an internal vibrator or a pulsed vacuum to provide vibrations within sleeve 12; [0061] teaches a controller to perform the method which reads on an automated system).
Murciego teaches that the build box may be removed to other stations [0033], but does not expressly disclose the build box is configured to move with respect to the sleeve. However, Huber teaches a build box including an integrated travel drive such that the build box is configured to move to different positions throughout a 3D printer system in a controlled and automated manner [0021]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego with a build box configured to move with respect to the sleeve, as suggested by Huber, in order to allow the build box to reach other positions within the system before or after the manufacture build is removed to the sleeve.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murciego Rodriguez et al. (US 2022/0072621) and Huber et al. (US 2022/0227048) as applied above, and further in view of Otsuka (US 4,941,376).
Regarding Claim 8: Murciego and Huber teach the elements of Claim 7 as discussed above. Murciego does not expressly disclose that the cutting knife includes at least one fluidization channel or at least one vacuum channel. However, Otsuka teaches a system comprising a cutting knife having a vacuum channel to suction dust during cutting (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego and Huber with a vacuum channel in the cutting knife in order to remove dust during cutting, as taught by Otsuka.
Regarding Claim 10: Murciego and Huber teach the elements of Claim 9 as discussed above. Murciego does not expressly disclose at least one of a fluid source or a vacuum source fluidically coupled to the separation mechanism, and wherein the separation mechanism includes at least one of a fluidization channel or a vacuum channel. However, Otsuka teaches a system comprising a vacuum source coupled to a cutting knife, and wherein the cutting knife includes a vacuum channel to suction dust during cutting (see abstract). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego and Huber with a vacuum source and vacuum channel in the cutting knife in order to remove dust during cutting, as taught by Otsuka.
Claims 11, 14, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murciego Rodriguez et al. (US 2022/0072621) and Huber et al. (US 2022/0227048) as applied above, and further in view of Mayer (US 2023/0382044).
Regarding Claim 11: Murciego and Huber teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Murciego does not expressly disclose wherein the build box comprises a cover disposed over the additive manufacturing build, and wherein an actuator is actuatable to remove the cover from the build box. However, Mayer teaches an additive manufacturing system comprising an additive manufacturing build box (Fig. 24, element 122) having a cover (element 304) to cover an additive manufacturing build to prevent powder from exiting the build box, for example [0114]. Mayer further teaches that an actuator (element 300) is actuatable to remove the cover from the build box to expose the build environment [0118]. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego and Huber with a build boy cover and actuator to remove said covering order to seal and expose the build box environment, as taught by Mayer.
Regarding Claims 14 and 16: Murciego and Huber teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Murciego teaches an actuator actuatable to move the sleeve [0040] and that the actuator retracts the sleeve from the build (see Fig. 2, diagram 5), but does not expressly disclose a conveyor, wherein the actuator is actuatable to move the sleeve to the conveyor with the build within the sleeve. However, it is known to provide the manufacturing systems with a conveyor to move the builds to various stations within the system, as shown by Mayer, for example (Fig. 6, element 616, [0132]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify system of Murciego and Huber to include a conveyor to allow the build to be conveyed, by the sleeve, to different stations within the system, as suggested by Mayer. It would have been further obvious to provide the actuator to retract the sleeve from the build in order to return to the initial position to engage and move subsequent builds.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murciego Rodriguez et al. (US 2022/0072621) and Huber et al. (US 2022/0227048) as applied above, and further in view of Kubo et al. (US 2001/0045678).
Regarding Claim 13: Murciego and Huber teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Murciego does not expressly disclose a conveyor. However, Kubo teaches an additive manufacturing system wherein at least one mechanism is automatically actuatable to separate at least a portion of powder build material from a build while the build is positioned on a conveyor [0050-0053]. Providing a conveyor allows the build to be transferred post-build locations. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego and Huber with a conveyor and actuator actuatable to separate the powder build material while the object is on the conveyor in order to allow de-powdering during post-build processing.
Claims 15 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murciego Rodriguez et al. (US 2022/0072621) and Huber et al. (US 2022/0227048) as applied above, and further in view of Van Nieuwenhove et al. (US 2022/0227053).
Regarding Claim 15: Murciego and Huber teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, and further teaches that the mechanism comprises a vibration mechanism [0056], but does not expressly disclose a fluidization mechanism. However, Van Nieuwenhove teaches a similar system comprising a sleeve to receive an additive manufacturing build, wherein the sleeve comprises a fluidization mechanism to provide turbulence which helps to separate the powder from the objects [0084]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego and Huber with a fluidization mechanism to provide turbulence to help separate the powder, as taught by Van Nieuwenhove.
Regarding Claim 17: Murciego and Huber teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above, but does not expressly disclose the sleeve and mechanism are located within a sealable chamber. However, Van Nieuwenhove teaches a similar system comprising a sleeve to receive an additive manufacturing build, wherein the sleeve comprises a fluidization mechanism to provide turbulence which helps to separate the powder from the objects [0084]. The sleeve and mechanism are located within a sealable chamber to maintain an inert environment [0069, 0084]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego and Huber with such that the sleeve and mechanism are located within a sealable chamber to maintain an inert environment, as taught by Van Nieuwenhove.
Claims 21 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murciego Rodriguez et al. (US 2022/0072621) and Huber et al. (US 2022/0227048) as applied above, and further in view of Buller (US 2018/0001557).
Regarding Claims 21 and 22: Murciego and Huber teach the elements of Claim 1 as discussed above. Murciego teaches that the build chamber may be removed to the separation station [0033], but does not expressly disclose the separation station includes a support structure configured to receive the build box. However, Buller teaches an additive manufacturing system wherein a build module is received on a conveyor to move the build module between stations within the system [0008, 0179]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Murciego and Huber with a support structure configured to receive the build box in order to move transfer the build box into the separation station, as suggested by Buller.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed 4/14/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1 and 20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely solely on the reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant has amended the claim to further define the build box and sleeve as movable with respect to each other. The new limitations have been addressed by the teachings of Huber as set forth above. Therefore, the rejection of the claims under 35 USC 103 are maintained.
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 NATASHA CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)270-7382. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 AM- 5:00 PM EST.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571) 272-1344. 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.
/NATASHA N CAMPBELL/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights