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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 10/27/23 and 3/21/25 have been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 5/22/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 9-19 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/22/26.
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 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.
Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parentheses. Examiner explanations are shown in italics.
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, 4, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Griffis et al. (US 20240390981 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Griffis teaches “a build plate with a number of build plate conduits that aligns with the component voids, a powder removal plate with a number of powder removal plate conduits that aligns with the build plate conduits, and a pressurized fluid system in communication with the powder removal plate conduits” (which reads upon “a build plate for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing (AM) system, comprising: a build plate configured to support a structure built on the build plate during a PBF build campaign”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0004]). Griffis teaches that “In this example, the additive manufacturing system 100 is arranged for direct metal laser melting (DMLM), a metal powder additive manufacturing process, and that it is understood that the general teachings of this disclosure are equally applicable to other forms of additive manufacturing” (which reads upon “for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing (AM) system, during a PBF build campaign”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0016]; the instant limitations are considered intended use, however the Office notes that the build plate is capable of use with a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing (AM) system). Griffis teaches that “the powder removal system 300 may include a holey additive build plate 310” (paragraph [0019]). Griffis teaches that “the holey additive build plate 310 includes a number of build plate conduits 320 extending therethrough” (which reads upon “a plurality abrasive media flow channels extending entirely through a thickness of the build plate”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0019]). Griffis teaches that “the build plate conduits 320 may extend from a bottom or a build plate first side 340 to a top or a build plate second side 350” (which reads upon “a plurality abrasive media flow channels extending entirely through a thickness of the build plate”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0019]). Griffis teaches that “the build plate conduits 320 are sized and positioned in the holey additive build plate 310 to align with the desired size and shape of the component 110 to be built thereon, and that specifically, the build plate conduits 320 may align with a number of component conduits or voids 330 within the component” (which reads upon “wherein the plurality of abrasive media flow channels are configured and sized to be open during an abrasive flow machining (AFM) operation to permit a flow of abrasive media from a source of abrasive media through the abrasive media flow channels in the build plate into the structure built on the build plate”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0019]). Griffis teaches that “the powder removal plate 360 may be bolted or otherwise attached to the holey additive build plate 310” (paragraph [0020]). Griffis teaches that “the pressurized fluid system 450 may provide a fluid such as a gas or a liquid or entrained combinations thereof at a positive pressure to the powder removal plate” (which reads upon “a flow of abrasive media”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0023]). Griffis teaches that “the pressurized fluid system 450 may include a source of a fluid” (which reads upon “a source of abrasive media”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0023]). Griffis teaches that “the fluid may pass through the fluid plenums 430, into the powder removal plate conduits, and into the build plate conduits 320 of the holey additive build plate 310, and that the fluid then may pass out of the build plate conduits 320 and into the component conduits or voids 330 of the component” (which reads upon “wherein the plurality of abrasive media flow channels are configured and sized to be open during an abrasive flow machining (AFM) operation”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]). Griffis teaches that “the pressurized fluid serves to loosen and remove any excess or residual powder therein” (which reads upon “abrasive media”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]; powder entrained in the fluid reads on abrasive). Additionally, or alternatively, regarding limitations which are directed to an abrasive media, an abrasive media is interpreted as the contents of the apparatus. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115.
Regarding claims 4 and 8, Griffis teaches the build plate of claim 1 as stated above. Claim 1 states that “a structure [is] built on the build plate during a PBF build campaign.” The structure is not part of the build plate. The structure is the article worked upon. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). Accordingly, the limitations of claims 4 and 8, which further define the structure do not impart patentability to the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffis et al. (US 20240390981 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Griffis teaches the build plate of claim 1 as stated above. Claim 1 states that “a structure [is] built on the build plate during a PBF build campaign.” The structure is not part of the build plate. The structure is the article worked upon. “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115). Accordingly, the limitations of claims 5-7, which concern the structure do not impart patentability to the claims.
The limitations in claims 5-7 concerning the build plate will be considered for patentability.
Griffis teaches that “once manufacture is complete, the pressurized fluid system 450 of the powder removal system 300 may provide a fluid such as a gas or a liquid to the fluid distribution system 400 of the powder removal plate 360” (paragraph [0025]; the intended use of the powder removal system is once manufacture is complete). Griffis teaches that “the powder removal system 300 may include a build platform 490, and that the powder removal plate 360 and the holey additive build plate 310 may be positioned on the build platform 490 during manufacture of the component 110 and/or during post-processing” (paragraph [0024]; or during post processing reads on configured to be removed from the AM system, as in claim 5).
The limitation during a pause in the PBF build campaign, in claim 5, is considered either intended use or a manner of operating disclosed apparatus. Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Accordingly, Griffis reads on all of the patentably relevant limitations of claim 5.
Regarding claims 6-7, Griffis teaches the build plate of claim 5 as stated above. Griffis teaches that “the build platform 490 may provide movement and/or vibration to the powder removal plate 360 and the holey additive build plate 310 as needed to assist in removing the powder 175 from the component” (paragraph [0024]; analogous to an abrasive flow machine). Griffis teaches that “the powder removal system 300 may include a build platform 490, and that the powder removal plate 360 and the holey additive build plate 310 may be positioned on the build platform 490 during manufacture of the component 110 and/or during post-processing” (paragraph [0024]; or during post processing reads on configured to be positioned in an abrasive flow machine, as in claim 6).
The abrasive flow machine is not a part of the build plate. All of the limitations regarding the abrasive flow machine are considered intended use. The build plate of Griffis is configured to be attached and removed from an AM machine and or a vibrating build platform. Accordingly, it is capable of being positioned in an abrasive flow machine, removed from the abrasive flow machine, and repositioned in the AM system, without a change in configuration.
The limitations regarding the timing of when the build plate is attached or removed from other devices are considered either intended use or manner of operating the disclosed apparatus . Regarding limitations which are directed to a manner of operating disclosed apparatus, it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. Further, it has been held that process limitations do not have patentable weight in an apparatus claim. See Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969) that states “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof and to an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Accordingly, Griffis teaches all of the structural requirements of the build plate and thus reads on all of the patentably relevant limitations of claims 6-7.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Griffis et al. (US 20240390981 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Fernandez et al. (US 20190299534 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Griffis teaches the build plate of claim 1 as stated above. Griffis teaches that “the powder removal system 300 may include a build platform 490, and that the powder removal plate 360 and the holey additive build plate 310 may be positioned on the build platform 490 during manufacture of the component 110 and/or during post-processing” (paragraph [0024]; or during post processing implies that the build plate may be moved after the component is built and before powder removal). Griffis teaches that “the build platform 490 may provide movement and/or vibration to the powder removal plate 360 and the holey additive build plate 310 as needed to assist in removing the powder 175 from the component” (paragraph [0024]; powder removal).
Griffis is silent regarding wherein the plurality of abrasive media flow channels are configured to be sealed during the PBF build campaign to prevent build powder from entering the plurality of abrasive media flow channels.
Fernandez is similarly concerned with methods and systems for unpacking objects produced by means of additive manufacturing, in which the produced objects are packed with non-solidified granular material (paragraph [0002]). Fernandez teaches “unpacking objects produced by means of additive manufacturing and using a granular material in a job box” (paragraph [0008]). Fernandez teaches that “the platform demarcates the lower portion of the job box and comprises holes through which the non-solidified granular material is discharged from the job box by gravity” (paragraph [0009]). Fernandez teaches that “the holes are closed when the objects are being produced, and the unpacking method comprises opening said holes in a controlled manner to allow discharging through same the non-solidified granular material” (which reads upon “wherein the plurality of abrasive media flow channels are configured to be sealed during the PBF build campaign to prevent build powder from entering the plurality of abrasive media flow channels”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0009]). Fernandez teaches “a platform that includes a plurality of holes, the plurality of holes being transitional between a closed position and an open position, in the closed position the non-solidified granular material cannot be discharged from the job box through the plurality of holes, in the open position the non-solidified granular material is capable of being discharged from the job box through the plurality of holes” (which reads upon “wherein the plurality of abrasive media flow channels are configured to be sealed during the PBF build campaign to prevent build powder from entering the plurality of abrasive media flow channels”, as recited in the instant claim; claim 1).
Accordingly, 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 plurality of holes in the build plate of Griffis to be transitional between a closed position and an open position, as taught by Fernandez to contain the powder and prevent unwanted leakage of the powder when the build plate is moved after the component is built and before powder removal.
Regarding claim 3, modified Griffis teaches the build plate of claim 2 as stated above. Fernandez teaches “a platform that includes a plurality of holes, the plurality of holes being transitional between a closed position and an open position, in the closed position the non-solidified granular material cannot be discharged from the job box through the plurality of holes, in the open position the non-solidified granular material is capable of being discharged from the job box through the plurality of holes” (claim 1). Fernandez teaches that “in the preferred embodiment, the platform 101 is formed by a plurality of parallel plates 102, preferably three in number, arranged on top of one another like a sandwich” (paragraph [0031]). Fernandez teaches that “each plate 102 comprises a plurality of through holes 102 a, and to open the holes 101 a of the platform 101 the movement of at least one of said plates 102 in a transverse direction T is caused, such that the holes 102 a of the different plates 102 are aligned and allow the passage of the non-solidified binding material 2 through the platform 101, as shown by way of example in FIGS. 3A and 3B” (paragraph [0031]). This is just one way to accomplish the broader teaching of Fernandez, the plurality of holes being transitional between a closed position and an open position. Sealing protrusions configured and sized to fit into and seal channels is a well known method of closing an opening, such as a cork in a bottle. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize a plurality of sealing protrusions on a backing plate, wherein the sealing protrusions are configured and sized to fit into and seal the abrasive media flow channels when the build plate is positioned adjacent to the backing plate. The rationale to support a conclusion that the claim would have been obvious is that all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art (MPEP § 2143.A.). The simple substitution of one known element for another is likely to be obvious when predictable results are achieved. See KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, USPQ2d 1385, 1395 - 97 (2007) (see MPEP § 2143, B.).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Haro Gonzalez (US 20180214984 A1). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “the features 38 of component 10 may require component 10 to be built at an angle and/or built on or braced by at least one joist 118 (wherein the structure includes a support structure) formed, positioned and/or built on build surface 104 of support 100 (build plate)” (paragraph [0047]; joist built by AM). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “joist 118 may also include at least one passage 120A, 120B, 120C formed completely through joist 118 and/or between support 100 and component 10, and that the number of passages 120A, 120B, 120C formed in joist 118 may be dependent, at least in part, on the number of outlet openings 108A, 108B, 108C formed through support 100 and/or the number of channels included within the second set of channels 18A, 18B, 18C formed in component 10” (paragraph [0047]; joist, support, and component all have passages which align). Haro Gonzalez teaches that “when providing fluid to support 100 to remove unsintered material and/or particles from the second set of channels 18A, 18B, 18C of component 10, the fluid may pass through passages 120A, 120B, 120C prior to flowing through the second set of channels 18A, 18B, 18C of component 10, as discussed herein” (paragraph [0047]; passages are used to remove unsintered powder). Haro Gonzalez is considered pertinent to at least claim 4.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6.
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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q4: 9/21-9/30/26.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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.
/REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights