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 Objections
Claims 1 and 7 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, line 5, --to-- should be inserted before “control”; in claim 7, line 2, --to-- should be inserted before “sense” and in line 4, “of” second occurrence should be changed --or--. 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 5, 10, 14 and 15 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 5 recites the limitation "the second component holder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the external fluid source" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For examination purposes claim 10 will be treated as depending from claim 9.
Regarding claim 14, the phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the utilized material" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, and 9-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al. (US2024/0042496) in view of Lewis et al. (US 2023/0051575).
With regards to claim 1, Tong et al. discloses a system for de-powdering a three-dimensionally (3D) printed structure (paragraphs [0001] and [0004]) comprising a first component holder configured to removably hold the 3D printed structure at an initial orientation (paragraph [0006]), a fluid system configured to control a fluid to at least apply the fluid on the 3D printed structure to remove a powder from the 3D printed structure (paragraph [0006], it is inherent that the 3D printed structure would be held at a first initial orientation), and a movement system configured to move at least the 3D printed structure or the fluid system according to a movement procedure based on a configuration of the 3D printed structure (paragraphs [0006]-[0009]). Tong et al. discloses that a sensing device is configured to detect surface characteristics of the workpiece, and a controller configured to detect powder on a surface of the workpiece based on the surface characteristics, and selectively operate the first powder removal device to remove the powder material from the surface of the workpiece (paragraph [0006]). Although Tong et al. does not specifically disclose one of the surface characteristics being that the 3D printed structure has a hollow portion however, it is known to make 3D printed structure having hollow portions that need to be de-powdered after being fabricated as attested by Lewis et al. who teaches a 3D printed structure 12 with hollow portions 78 and fluid channels 76 oriented to increase fluid flow through hollow portions 78, see paragraph [0063} and figures 2B and 10. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have held the 3D printed structure of Tong et al. at an initial orientation with respect to at least one opening to a hollow portion within the 3D printed structure, and to have move the 3D printed structure or the fluid system according to a movement procedure based on a configuration of the hollow portion, in light of the teachings of Lewis et al., in order to efficiently de-powder hollow portions of the 3D printed structure.
Regarding claim 2, see the component holder of Lewis et al. with internal fluid channels 76 in fluid connection with openings to the hollow portions of the 3D portions. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporated such fluid channels within a portion of the component holder of Tong et al. in order to a more efficient way to reach the hollow portions and remove powder material from the hollow portions.
Regarding claim 3, Tong et al. contemplates using multiple component holders and Tong et al. further discloses that each of the powder removal devices is provided with line-of-sight to various surfaces of the workpiece, see paragraphs [0037] and [0049]-[0051].
Regarding claim 4, Applicant should note that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to design such fluid channels to for example connect with other fluid channels in order to consolidate the fluid network.
Regarding claim 5, , see paragraphs [0049]-[0052] of tong et al. Applicant should note that official Notice is taken in that it is known to configure robots with multiple end effectors that move in unison.
Regarding claim 7, see paragraph [0065] of tong et al. where the sensor system is configured to sense an amount of powder to be removed form a surface.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, see paragraph [0039] and figure 1 of Tong et al. As noted above, Tong et al. further discloses that each of the powder removal devices is provided with line-of-sight to various surfaces of the workpiece, see paragraphs [0037] and [0049]-[0051].
Regarding claim 11, see paragraphs [0049]-[0052] of Tong et al.
Regarding claim 12, see paragraphs [0034] and [0035] of Tong et al.
Regarding claim 13, see paragraphs [0058]-[0060] of Tong et al.
Regarding claim 14, see paragraphs [0034]-[0036] of Tong et al. Applicant should note that it is inherent that the housing of Tong et al. includes a rigid chamber. Further, it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to choose the appropriate type and size of the chamber to securely hold the 3D printed structure.
Regarding claim 15, Applicant should note that it is within the general skill level of a worker in the art to hold the 3D printed structure in a suitable environment such as an inert one if necessary. As disclosed by Tong et al. the sensor system sense different characteristics of the 3D printed structure and devise a de-powdering process based on the sensed characteristics.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al./Lewis et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Van Brocklin et al. (US 20220288853).
Tong et al./Lewis et al/ discloses a system for de-powdering a 3D printed structure as shown above including a sensing system to sense the characteristics of the surface of the 3d printed structure. Although Tong et al./Lewis et al. does not specifically disclose the movement system including a vibration and rotation configured to be applied to the 3D printed structure however, Van Brocklin et al. teaches a system for de-powdering a 3D printed structure wherein different de-powdering techniques are used for different types of 3D printed objects including vibrating, see paragraphs [0010] and [0011]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have included a vibration and rotation in the movement system of Tong et al./Lewis et al., in light of the teachings of Van Brocklin et al., in order to efficiently de-powder the 3d printed structure.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al./Lewis et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Go et al. (US 20210237159).
Tong et al./Lewis et al/ discloses a system for de-powdering a 3D printed structure as shown above. Although Tong et al./Lewis et al. does not specifically disclose the component holder configured to be affixed to a 3D printing building plate however, it is known to use a component holder affixed to a 3D printing build plate wherein the component holder is used in the de-powdering process as taught by Go et al., see abstract and paragraph [0035]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to used a component holder configured to be affixed to a 3D building plate in the system of Tong et al./Lewis et al./, in light of the teachings of Go et al., in order to enhance or facilitate the handling of the 3D printing structure during the de-powdering process.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ESSAMA OMGBA whose telephone number is (469)295-9278. The examiner can normally be reached Variable.
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, Alexander Beck can be reached at 571-272-3750. 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.
/ESSAMA OMGBA/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3746
Prosecution Insights