DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 04/13/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the grounds that there is no serious burden on the examiner. This is not found persuasive because as discussed in the restriction requirement mailed 02/13/2026, the different groups are classified differently, which requires substantially different search strategies, and the inventions are independent and distinct.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 9-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 04/13/2026.
Status of Claims
Pending: claims 1-20
Under examination: claims 1-8
Rejected: claims 1-8
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Brewer et al. (US 20020129945 A1).
Regarding claim 1, with regard to the claimed “A powder extraction tool formed within a cavity of an additive manufactured component”, the Examiner notes that this is a statement of intended use and does not result in any structural difference; the Examiner further notes that the claim is directed to a product/apparatus, not a product/apparatus plus “a cavity of an additive manufactured component”. If the body of a claim fully and intrinsically sets forth all of the limitations of the claimed invention, and the preamble merely states, for example, the purpose or intended use of the invention, rather than any distinct definition of any of the claimed invention’s limitations, then the preamble is not considered a limitation and is of no significance to claim construction (MPEP 2111.02 II.). Courts held that statements of intended use in an apparatus claim did not distinguish over the prior art apparatus (MPEP 2111.02 II.). To satisfy an intended use limitation which is limiting, a prior art structure which is capable of performing the intended use as recited in the preamble meets the claim (MPEP 2111.02 II.). In the instant case, the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use as recite in the preamble, therefore meeting the claim.
With regard to the claimed “the powder extraction tool comprising: at least two tubular sections comprising tubular walls with perforations”, Brewer teaches an articulated joint between adjacent, operatively connected tubular sections of and elongated instrument housing [0001], and further teaches in Figs. 2-3 that the adjacent tubular sections have wash ports 62 and 64 [0034], meeting the claimed “perforations”.
With regard to the claimed “and a flex joint linking the at least two tubular sections”, Brewer teaches a flexible joint connecting the two sections [0008], Figs. 2-3.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Butcher et al. (US 20170197364 A1) in view of Van Nieuwenhove et al. (US 20220227053 A1), hereinafter referred to as “Van”.
Regarding claim 1, Butcher teaches tools for powder removal in additively manufactured components having internal passages (Abstract, [0002]), and further teaches many different embodiments for the powder extraction tools, such as cylindrical-core tools [0010] that can optionally be hollow [0029], meeting “tubular”, and tools/cores that are multi-segmented [0008], [0017]-[0021], Figs. 2-6, [0049]. Each link includes features allowing links 72 to pivot relative to each other to conform to a shape of the internal passage [0060], meeting the claimed “flex joint”.
Butcher further teaches that “While the invention has been described with reference to an exemplary embodiment(s), it will be understood by those skilled in the art that various changes may be made and equivalents may be substituted for elements thereof without departing from the scope of the invention. In addition, many modifications may be made to adapt a particular situation or material to the teachings of the invention without departing from the essential scope thereof. Therefore, it is intended that the invention not be limited to the particular embodiment(s) disclosed, but that the invention will include all embodiments falling within the scope of the appended claims.” [0089].
As such, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify and combine the embodiments of Butcher to include using a multi-segmented cylindrical-segmented powder extraction device, as doing so would allow a POSITA to select the optimal shape and structure based on the size, shape, and complexity of a given additively-manufactured component with an internal passage, meeting the claimed “linking the at least two tubular sections”.
However, Butcher is silent regarding “tubular walls with perforations”.
Van teaches a powder removal assembly includes a build module comprising module sidewalls and a moveable build plate slidably coupled to the module sidewalls, and an extraction housing removably engaged with the module sidewalls of the build module and defining a turbulence chamber between the build module and the extraction housing (Abstract), and further teaches that in one embodiment, the extraction housing includes a plurality of tubes coupled to the top wall and extendable in a direction into and out of the turbulence chamber [0007]. The plurality of tubes may be telescoping tubes [0011], and the nested telescoping portions may be perforated [0107], Fig. 10A-10C.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the cylindrical structures of Butcher to be perforated tubes as taught by Van, as doing so would provide for improved radial blowing from the tube as well as blowing through an end of the tube [0107], and would allow for either blowing or suctioning for powder removal [0102]. It is noted that in various embodiments, the plurality of tubes, whether slide or telescoping may be formed via additive manufacturing [0107].
Regarding claim 2, Butcher teaches that a vibration source can be attached [0030].
Regarding claim 3, Butcher is silent regarding the respective limitations, but Van teaches fluidically coupling the perforated tubes with a vacuum pump [0118], [0005], [0018], [0072], as well as fluidically coupling the tubes with a pressure source [0118], which may increase the rates of powder removal [0118], [0072], [0076].
Regarding claim 4, Butcher is silent regarding the respective limitations, but Van teaches using a control unit to control the vacuum pump to remove powder [0018], [0074].
Regarding claim 5, Butcher is silent regarding the respective limitations, but Van teaches using one or more sensors 1108 or timers may be communicatively coupled to the control unit 1101 to allow the control unit to determine when powder extraction at the powder removal station 1200 is complete [0133].
Regarding claim 6, Butcher teaches an embodiment that uses a helical core (Fig. 1D, [0039]-[0040]), which is the same shape as an auger.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation is attempting to further limit an intended use of the claim (see rejection of claim 1 above), and as such, does not further limit the claim, which is directed to a product/apparatus. Butcher and Van nonetheless meet the claim (Butcher, [0059]-[0060], Fig. 5-6).
Regarding claim 8, Butcher is silent regarding the respective limitations; however, as can be seen in Fig. 10A-10C of Van, Van meets the limitations. Furthermore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the diameters of the sections based on the size and/or shape of the cavity from which powder is being removed, such that the tubular sections are of different diameters, as doing so would allow for more efficient removal of build powder from manufactured components having complex internal geometries (Butcher, [0029]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached at 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 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights