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 .
Claim Interpretation
The Examiner is interpreting “drum” to be any container usable as claimed in a 3D printer setting, such an interpretation falls under the BRI standard.
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.
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, 2, 4, and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk et al (U.S. PGPub 2021/0178668; herein Schalk, already of record), in view of Cui (CN 111361154; with machine translation), and Iwase (US PGPub 2019/0030900). Regarding claim 1, Schalk teaches:
A powder material handling system comprising a virgin powder inlet coupled to a virgin powder drum and configured to receive a virgin powder from the virgin powder drum (paragraph 0096 and Figure 6, new cartridge receiver 610 feeding new material vessel 614)
A liquid material handling system comprising a binder inlet coupled to a binder drum and configured to receive a binder from the binder drum (paragraph 0100 and Figure 6, assembly 638 feeds print-liquid delivery system 636)
An additive manufacturing machine coupled to the powder material handling system and the liquid material handling system such that the additive manufacturing machine receives the virgin powder from the powder material handling system and receives the binder from the liquid material handling system, wherein the additive manufacturing machine is configured to manufacture a work product using the virgin powder and the binder (Figure 6, powder is supplied via the first conveying system 621 and binder is supplied by the printbar 625 in the 3D printer 600 and paragraphs 0094-0108 explain how the printer works using the previously discussed structures)
Schalk is silent to:
Wherein the liquid material handling system comprises:
A waste drum:
A liquid waste inlet fluidly coupled to the additive manufacturing machine;
A liquid waste outlet fluidly coupled to the waste drum:
And at least one pump fluidly coupled to the liquid waste inlet and the liquid waste outlet, the at least one pump configured to control flow of a liquid waste from the additive manufacturing machine to the waste drum
In the same field of endeavor Cui teaches a 3D printer liquid waste apparatus that connects to a 3D printer which has a temporary storage box 6 (i.e. waster drum), the box 6 has an inlet coupled to the 3D printer, and an outlet as seen in Figure 1 and page 7, 5th paragraph.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the waste device of Cui, since it removes waste from the printer for further processing.
Cui does not explicitly teach a pump, but there would have to be some means to transport liquid from the printer to the waste device. Nevertheless, in the same field of endeavor Iwase teaches using a pump to move waste liquid (paragraph 0049).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the pump of Iwase, since it has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would known the possible means by which to move liquid from point A to point B.
Regarding claim 2, Schalk teaches:
Wherein the additive manufacturing machine is coupled to the powder material handling system via at least one gastight coupling (paragraph 0102, a vacuum is applied for recovering excess build powder, thus there is a part of the powder material handling system in Schalk that is gastight)
Regarding claim 4, Schalk teaches:
The additive manufacturing machine comprises a recovered powder outlet; and the powder material handling system comprises a recovered powder inlet coupled to the recovered powder outlet such that the powder material handling system receives a recovered powder from the additive manufacturing machine (Figure 6, paragraph 0102-0103)
Regarding claim 5, Schalk teaches:
Further comprising a depowder system coupled to the powder material handling system, wherein the powder material handling system receives a recovered powder from the depowder system (Figure 6, paragraph 0102-0103)
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk, Cui, and Iwase, and in further view of Chanclon et al (U.S. PGPub 2019/0091931, herein Chanclon; already of record). Regarding claim 3, Schalk, Cui, and Iwase are silent to:
Wherein the additive manufacturing machine is coupled to the liquid material handling system via at least one gastight coupling
In the same field of endeavor Chanclon teaches using an airtight connection in a liquid handling device (paragraph 0023).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the airtight connection of Chanclon, since it ensures proper pressure in the system (Chanclon: paragraph 0023).
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk, Cui, and Iwase, and in further view of Mauchle et al (U.S. PGPub 2013/0209282; herein Mauchle; already of record). Regarding claim 6:
Wherein the powder material handling system comprises a sieve that is configured to blend the recovered powder and virgin powder together to form a blended powder output
Schalk teaches mixing the old and new powders (paragraph 0094), but is silent to the use of a sieve.
In the same field of mixing new and old powders, Mauchle teaches using a screen to mix the old and new powders (paragraph 0051 and Figure 1, screening device 10). A screen is seen as a type of sieve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the screen of Mauchle, since Schalk teaches mixing and the Mauchle teaches mixing, thus the means by which the mixing occurs is obvious. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would be familiar with mixing devices and would be able to choose from the known options in the prior art.
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk, Cui, and Iwase, and in further view of Shi et al (U.S. PGPub 2010/0247703; herein Shi; already of record). Regarding claim 7, Schalk, Cui, and Iwase are silent to:
Wherein the liquid material handling system further comprises a cleaner inlet, the cleaner inlet coupled to a cleaner drum such that the cleaner inlet receives a cleaner from the cleaner drum
In the same field of endeavor Shi teaches the claimed cleaning structure in Figures 2A and 2B, paragraphs 0056-0059.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the cleaning system of Shi, since it cleans the nozzles removing residue.
Regarding claim 8:
If a 3D printer has such a cleaning system it would naturally be fluidly coupled to the printer, since the printer uses and controls the cleaning system. Thus the combination above would make claim 8 obvious.
Regarding claim 9, Shi further teaches regarding the cleaning system:
The additive manufacturing machine comprises a liquid waste outlet coupled to a waste drum, wherein a liquid waste is output from the additive manufacturing machine to the waste drum via the liquid waste outlet (paragraph 0060).
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk in view of Mauchle et al (U.S. PGPub 2013/0209282; herein Mauchle; already of record), and Meixlsperger et al (DE 102013215748; herein Meixlsperger, with machine translation). Regarding claim 10:
Schalk teaches mixing the old and new powders (paragraph 0094 and Figure 6),
Schalk teaches a liquid material handling system (paragraph 0100 and Figure 6, assembly 638 feeds print-liquid delivery system 636)
Schalk teaches an additive manufacturing machine coupled to the powder material handling system and the liquid material handling system such that the additive manufacturing machine receives the virgin powder from the powder material handling system and receives the binder from the liquid material handling system, wherein the additive manufacturing machine is configured to manufacture a work product using the virgin powder and the binder (Figure 6, powder is supplied via the first conveying system 621 and binder is supplied by the printbar 625 in the 3D printer 600 and paragraphs 0094-0108 explain how the printer works using the previously discussed structures)
Schalk is silent to using a sieve. In the same field of mixing new and old powders, Mauchle teaches using a screen to mix the old and new powders (paragraph 0051 and Figure 1, screening device 10). A screen is seen as a type of sieve.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the screen of Mauchle, since Schalk teaches mixing and the Mauchle teaches mixing, thus the means by which the mixing occurs is obvious. It has been shown that a person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options in their art. If this leads to an anticipated success, it is likely that it was not due to innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007). In this instance a skilled artisan would be familiar with mixing devices and would be able to choose from the known options in the prior art.
Schalk and Mauchle, however, do not teach using the sieve to filter out waste powder output and a waster powder outlet.
In the same field of endeavor Meixlsperger teaches using a sieve device 36 to filter out waste into waste powder container 38 (Figure 1 and page 6, 3rd paragraph).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the waste separator of Meixlsperger, since it removes waste from the powder supply.
Regarding claim 11:
See remarks regarding claim 5.
Regarding claim 12:
See remarks regarding claim 4.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schalk, Cui, and Iwase, and in further view of De Lajudie et al (US PGPub 2018/0021855; herein De Lajudie). Regarding claim 21:
Wherein each of the liquid material handling system and additive manufacturing machine are self-contained and spaced from one another
As discussed above Cui teaches a waste liquid handling system self-contained and separate from the printer. However, the supply of Binder in the combination is not separate and self-contained.
In the same field of endeavor De Lajudie teaches a separate and self-contained supply of powder (Figure 2, fresh powder storage device and protective space 19 and paragraph 0059). Although De Lajudie teaches a separate powder supply, the concept would be the same, it is a supply for a printer and would be no different if it was powder or liquid.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the separate and self-contained supply as taught by De Lajudie, since it avoids leaks into user areas and makes it easier to restock and handle the material supply (De Lajudie: paragraph 0059).
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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743