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 without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 06/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Response to Amendment and Status of Claims
Pending: claims 1-14
Cancelled: claims 15-20
Elected: claims 1-14
Under examination: claims 1-14
Objected to: claims 1 and 8
Rejected: claims 1-14
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites “one orifice component positioned at least proximate to an end of the powder dispensing channel such that an individual powder element passes through only a single orifice component to be deposited”. The limitation should be rephrased so that it is clear that the individual powder element is the subject being “deposited”; the limitation currently may be read such that the “orifice component” is “to be deposited”.
Claim 8 recites “one orifice component positioned such that an individual powder element passes through only a single orifice component to be deposited between the first and second blades”. The limitation should be rephrased so that it is clear that the individual powder element is the subject being “deposited”; the limitation currently may be read such that the “orifice component” is “to be deposited”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 are 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.
Claim 1 recites “one orifice component positioned at least proximate to an end of the powder dispensing channel such that an individual powder element passes through only a single orifice component to be deposited”, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear because the claim suggests implies that only an individual powder element can pass at a time through the single orifice, which would mean that the orifice is a particular size. However, because the powder size is unspecified, if a powder has particles that are significantly smaller than the orifice, then that means the orifice size would necessarily allow multiple particles at once (e.g. 100 µm orifice and 20 µm particle size).
Claim 6 recites “wherein the one or more perforations are further sized to prevent impurities in the powder from flowing through the at least one orifice component”. The limitation is indefinite because it is unclear what constitutes an “impurity” and how being an impurity is related to size; even assuming that being an “impurity” is related to size, it is unclear what size is required to be able to prevent impurities from flowing. A broad claim is not indefinite merely because it encompasses a wide scope of subject matter provided the scope is clearly defined. But a claim is indefinite when the boundaries of the protected subject matter are not clearly delineated and the scope is unclear (MPEP 2173.04).
Claims 2-7 are rejected as being dependent from claim 1.
Claim 8 recites “one orifice component positioned such that an individual powder element passes through only a single orifice component to be deposited between the first and second blades”, the metes and bounds of the limitation are unclear because the claim suggests implies that only an individual powder element can pass at a time through the single orifice, which would mean that the orifice is a particular size. However, because the powder size is unspecified, if a powder has particles that are significantly smaller than the orifice, then that means the orifice size would necessarily allow multiple particles at once (e.g. 100 µm orifice and 20 µm particle size).
Claims 9-14 are rejected as being dependent from claim 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Dugan (US 20190358901 A1).
Regarding claim 1, with regard to the claimed “A powder deposition system positionable in a powder dispensing channel of an additive manufacturing system,” Dugan teaches a powder-layer three-dimensional printer recoaters are disclosed which comprise a controllably vibrated traveling powder dispenser having a hopper section adapted to contain a build powder (Abstract).
With regard to the claimed “the powder deposition system comprising: at least one orifice component positioned at least proximate to an end of the powder dispensing channel such that an individual powder element passes through only a single orifice component to be deposited,” in one embodiment, Dugan teaches a powder dispenser 24 which includes a hopper 42 for containing a desired amount of a build powder (not depicted) and a mesh 44 (i.e. screen/sieve/orifices) through which the powder is selectively discharged [0031], Fig. 2C.
With regard to the claimed “wherein: the at least one orifice component includes one or more perforations, and the at least one orifice component has a first mode in which no powder or a first amount of powder passes through the one or more perforations and a second mode in which a second amount of powder passes through the one or more perforations, wherein the second amount is non-zero and greater than the first amount;” as can be seen in Fig. 2C, the orifice component has one or more perforations [0031], Fig. 2C. The powder dispenser 24 includes a powder hopper 42 adapted to contain a desired amount of powder and a mesh 44 through which the powder is selectively dispensed [0034]. The bottom portion of the powder hopper 30 has an arcuate surface 66 and a lateral opening 68 [0034]. The powder dispenser 24 has a gate 70 located adjacent to the lateral opening 68 which is adapted to control the amount of powder which exits through the lateral opening 68 [0034]. The gate 70 is optionally selectably controllable to enable the height of the lateral opening 68 to be selectively controlled [0034]. The powder dispenser 24 also has a chamber 72 located beside the lateral opening 68. The bottom of the chamber 72 includes the mesh 44 [0034]. The powder dispenser 24 also has a chamber cover 74 which is preferably removable to facilitate cleaning the chamber 72 [0034], also see Figs. 2A-2C, and Fig. 3A-3B and [0035]. Because the gate is selectably controllable, it is understood that there are different “modes” which allow for different amounts to be dispensed (e.g., ‘open’ and ‘closed’ are two modes), because that is the purpose of a gate.
With regard to the claimed “and a vibrational component operably coupled to the at least one orifice component, wherein operation of the vibrational component causes the at least one orifice component to vibrate and enter the second mode to allow the second amount of powder to flow through the one or more perforations”, Dugan teaches a vibrator 52 which is contained within the bridge trolley 30 [0032]. The vibrator 52 is an eccentric-type vibrator which has a drive shaft 54 driven by a selectably controllable motor 56 which is attached to the bottom panel 38 [0032]. Operation of the motor 56 causes the eccentric couples, e.g. eccentric couple 60, by way of their attachment to the hopper 42, to rock the powder dispenser 24 back and forth upon the pivot bolts 62a, 62b [0032]. This rocking motion vibrates the powder within the hopper 42 causing the powder to laterally flow from the hopper 42 and to be discharged through the mesh 44 [0032].
Regarding claim 2, as can be seen in Figs. 2B and 2C, the mesh is below the hopper [0031]-[0032].
Regarding claim 3, Dugan teaches using a first and second vibrator (see claims 1-2 of Dugan).
Regarding claim 6, as can be seen in Fig. 2C, the mesh holes are of a fixed size, thus, particles bigger than said size (i.e., an “impurity”) would be prevented from flowing.
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.
Claims 4-5 and 7-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Dugan (US 20190358901 A1).
Regarding claims 4-5, Dugan teaches using eccentric type vibrators which are powered by motor(s) [0032]. Although Dugan is silent regarding these specific vibrators being drivable via movement of a fluid through the cam and being operably couplable to a fluid source, Dugan does teach using pneumatic vibrators for other parts of the apparatus [0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the driving means (motor) of the eccentric type vibrator with the known alternative of the other vibrator (pneumatic, i.e., a fluid-driven with a fluid source, the source being a gas), as doing so would allow for controlling the vibration with a power supply (gas) which already exists in the apparatus. Furthermore, regarding the limitation in claim 5 of using an argon gas source, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the air supply with argon [0038], as doing so would allow for avoiding oxidizing the build material and mechanical actuation components due to argon being an inert gas. The Examiner takes Official Notice that using argon gas is a preferable technical substitute for air where material quality is to be preserved/maintained, despite being more expensive.
Regarding claim 7, Dugan teaches the powder deposition system of claim 1 above, and although Dugan does not explicitly teach using a controller, a POSITA would understand that a controller is present or obvious to use, based on Dugan teaching that the disclosed recoater comprises a controllably vibrated traveling powder dispenser (Abstract). Additionaly, because the recoater is controllably vibrated, it is understood and/or obvious to a POSITA that control is based on inputs/feedback, such as adding powder where it is needed or adding powder across an entire surface, which both meet the claimed “selected location” (also see [0029]).
Regarding claim 8, with regard to the claimed “An additive manufacturing system, comprising: a build chamber having an active build region;”, Dugan teaches a powder-layer three-dimensional printer (Abstract) having a build “box” (i.e. build chamber and build region) [0029].
With regard to the claimed “a support platform positioned in the active build region and movable in a travel direction having upward and downward components;” Dugan teaches a vertically indexible build platform (not visible) [0029].
With regard to the claimed “and a recoater arm positioned in the build chamber and movable in a first lateral direction above the active build region to spread a powder over the active build region during a build process, wherein the recoater arm comprises: a first blade extending in a second lateral direction; a second blade spaced apart from the first blade;” Dugan teaches a recoater 16 which is moved over the build platform or powder bed 14 to deposit a powder layer thereupon [0029], and may include a smoothing device 20 [0029], such as doctor blades (plural, i.e., at least a first and a second) [0043].
With regard to the claimed “at least one orifice component positioned at least proximate to an end of the powder dispensing channel such that an individual powder element passes through only a single orifice component to be deposited,” in one embodiment, Dugan teaches a powder dispenser 24 which includes a hopper 42 for containing a desired amount of a build powder (not depicted) and a mesh 44 (i.e. screen/sieve/orifices) through which the powder is selectively discharged [0031], Fig. 2C. With regard to the claimed “deposited between the first and second blades”, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to position the mesh between the first and second blades, such that the powder falls between them, as doing so would allow the blades to smooth the powder in either direction, particularly in view of the fact that the powder is deposited wherever it travels across a build platform/powder bed [0026]. Placing the blades in this manner is an obvious matter of design choice (also see MPEP 2144.04 VI. C.).
With regard to the claimed “wherein the single orifice component includes a plurality of openings sized to at least partially inhibit a flow of the powder through the at least one orifice component while the at least one orifice component is stationary;” as can be seen in Fig. 2C, the orifice component has one or more perforations [0031], Fig. 2C. The powder dispenser 24 includes a powder hopper 42 adapted to contain a desired amount of powder and a mesh 44 through which the powder is selectively dispensed [0034]. The bottom portion of the powder hopper 30 has an arcuate surface 66 and a lateral opening 68 [0034]. The powder dispenser 24 has a gate 70 located adjacent to the lateral opening 68 which is adapted to control the amount of powder which exits through the lateral opening 68 [0034]. The gate 70 is optionally selectably controllable to enable the height of the lateral opening 68 to be selectively controlled [0034]. The powder dispenser 24 also has a chamber 72 located beside the lateral opening 68. The bottom of the chamber 72 includes the mesh 44 [0034]. The powder dispenser 24 also has a chamber cover 74 which is preferably removable to facilitate cleaning the chamber 72 [0034], also see Figs. 2A-2C, and Fig. 3A-3B and [0035]. Because the gate is selectably controllable, it is understood that there are different “modes” which allow for different amounts to be dispensed (e.g., ‘open’ and ‘closed’ are two modes), because that is the purpose of a gate.
With regard to the claimed “a vibrational component operably coupled to the at least one orifice component to vibrate the at least one orifice component to establish a pathway for the powder through the at least one orifice component”, Dugan teaches a vibrator 52 which is contained within the bridge trolley 30 [0032]. The vibrator 52 is an eccentric-type vibrator which has a drive shaft 54 driven by a selectably controllable motor 56 which is attached to the bottom panel 38 [0032]. Operation of the motor 56 causes the eccentric couples, e.g. eccentric couple 60, by way of their attachment to the hopper 42, to rock the powder dispenser 24 back and forth upon the pivot bolts 62a, 62b [0032]. This rocking motion vibrates the powder within the hopper 42 causing the powder to laterally flow from the hopper 42 and to be discharged through the mesh 44 [0032].
With regard to the claimed “a controller operably coupled to the vibrational component, the controller having instructions that, when executed by the controller, cause the controller to operate the vibrational component to dispense a volume of the powder” Dugan teaches the powder deposition system of claim 1 above, and although Dugan does not explicitly teach using a controller, a POSITA would understand that a controller is present or obvious to use, based on Dugan teaching that the disclosed recoater comprises a controllably vibrated traveling powder dispenser (Abstract). Additionally, because the recoater is controllably vibrated, it is understood and/or obvious to a POSITA that control is based on inputs/feedback, such as adding powder where it is needed or adding powder across an entire surface, which both meet the claimed “selected location” (also see [0029]).
Regarding claim 9, Dugan’s system teaches controlling the eccentric type vibrator with a selectably controllable motor, which means the vibration frequency increases with the speed of the motor, which means that more powder would be dispensed [0032].
Regarding claims 10-11, Dugan teaches The powder dispenser 24 includes a hopper 42 for containing a desired amount of a build powder (not depicted) and a mesh 44 through which the powder is selectively discharged [0031]. The hopper 42 has an inlet 46 through which powder is filled into the hopper 42 [0031]. The mesh 44 is supported from sagging in this embodiment by a slotted support plate 48 and is visible in FIG. 2C only through the slots, e.g. slot 50, of support plate 48 [0031] (also see [0032] and Figs. 2A-2C.
Regarding claims 12-13, Dugan teaches that the disclosed recoater comprises a controllably vibrated traveling powder dispenser (Abstract). Additionally, because the recoater is controllably vibrated, it is understood and/or obvious to a POSITA that control is based on inputs/feedback, such as adding powder where it is needed or adding powder across an entire surface, which both meet the claimed “selected location” (also see [0029]). Moreover, with respect to the limitations in claim 13, the Examiner takes Official Notice that the limitations describe routine feedback control instructions that a POSITA would find obvious to implement, particularly in view of the fact that Dugan teaches using selectably controllable motors to control the vibration and therefore the powder output. Furthermore, Dugan teaches that the recoater can be used with “fine powders” [0041], without providing a specific, defined range of “find powders”, which suggests that a variety of generally “fine” powders may be used. Because different powders have different physical characteristics, an AM system would not reasonably be functional if programmed to work with only one specific powder; if different powders are being used, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement feedback control such as the limitations in claim 13, to ensure that the AM system would be functional with different fine powders.
Regarding claim 14, Dugan teaches using eccentric type vibrators which are powered by motor(s) [0032]. Although Dugan is silent regarding these specific vibrators being drivable via movement of a fluid through the cam and being operably couplable to the fluid, Dugan does teach using pneumatic vibrators for other parts of the apparatus [0038]. Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simply substitute the driving means (motor) of the eccentric type vibrator with the known alternative of the other vibrator (pneumatic, i.e., a fluid-driven with a fluid source, the source being a gas), as doing so would allow for controlling the vibration with a power supply (gas) which already exists in the apparatus.
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