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
Claim 20 is withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 June 15, 2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of claims 1-19 in the reply filed on June 15, 2026 is acknowledged.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-19 are examined.
Claim 20 is withdrawn.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it recites “the present disclosure provides”. Phrases which can be implied should be avoided and the phrase should be deleted. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Interpretation
Claim 2-3, 5, 7, and 14 recite “and/or”, which for examination purposes is interpreted as “or”.
The Examiner wishes to point out the application claims 1-19 are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions. The material worked upon or the process of using the apparatus is viewed as recitation of intended use and is given patentable weight only to the extent that structure is added to the claimed apparatus (Please see MPEP 2112.01 and 2114-2115 for further details).
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 7, line 2-3 “(11)” and “(111)” should read “(II)” and “(III)” for consistency with “(I)” in line 1, i.e., the number one should read the roman numeral “I”.
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.
Claim 2-3, 5, 11-12, and 17-18 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.
Regarding claim 2-3, 5, 11-12, and 17, the phrase "optionally" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, the limitations after “optionally” will be considered not required by the claim.
The term “substantially” in claim 11-12 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the parameter “equal pressure” is rendered indefinite.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the powder" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The claim does not recite “powder” before the recitation of “the powder”. For examination purposes, the limitation will be read as “powder”.
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(s) 1-2, 4-13, and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elgar (US 2018/0281282 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Elgar discloses a device for separating powder (¶ [0148] – material conveyor system), the device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
870
814
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Elgar FIG. 3
a first separating unit (¶ [0148] – secondary separator 320) coupled to a second separating unit (¶ [0148] – filter 350, may sieve material; which functions as a separating unit) at least in part by a channel (¶ [0148] – material conveying channel 355, gas conveying channel coupled to material conveying channel; FIG. 3 depicts 320 connected to 345 by 355) configured to facilitate pressure equilibration and flow of the powder (¶ [0148] – material conveying channel may convey material to components; gas conveying channel may equilibrate pressure within components);
a first collection container (¶ [0148] – processing chamber 325) operatively coupled to the first separating unit 320 at least in part by a first valve (¶ [0148] – valve coupled to material conveying channel denoted by a white circle comprising X and/or a gas conveying channel denoted by a white circle; FIG. 3 depicts a valve at 320);
a second collection container (¶ [0148] – material source 335) operatively coupled to the second separating unit at least in part by a second valve (¶ [0148]; FIG. 3 depicts a valve coupled to 374 connecting 335); and
a third collection container (¶ [0148] – pressure container 330) operatively coupled to (a) the first collection container 325 at least in part by a third valve (¶ [0148], FIG. 3 depicts a valve coupled to 362 connecting 330 and 325), and (b) the second collection container 335 at least in part by a fourth valve (¶ [0148], FIG. 3 depicts a valve coupled to 372 which connects 330 and 335), each of the first valve, second valve, third valve, and fourth valve, is configured to have an open state and a closed state (¶ [0041, 0053] – open or close the valve), the open state being configured to facilitate flow of powder therethrough (¶ [0041] – to open to facilitate pressurized conveyance of the material) and to facilitate pressure equilibration therethrough (¶ [0053] – to allow or prevent the flow of gas), and the closed state being configured to deter, or stop (i) the flow of the powder therethrough (¶ [0041] – close to prevent the conveyance of the material) and (ii) the pressure equilibration therethrough (¶ [0053] – close the valve to prevent the flow of gas), the device being configured to facilitate directional powder flow based at least in part on one or more pressure differentials (¶ [0043] – pressure differential),
wherein during operation, the device is configured to enclose and to maintain, one or more atmospheres having positive pressure above ambient pressure external to the device (¶ [0042] – facilitate pressurized transport of material from the bulk reservoir to the material reservoir, material reservoir holds second pressure lower than the first pressure of bulk reservoir), and wherein the device is configured to deter, or prevent, flow of the powder (I) from the first collection container to the first separating unit (¶ [0041] – close to prevent the conveyance of the material; FIG. 3 depicts first valve on 320 that connects 330 and 320, therefore, would deter, or prevent, flow of powder/material), (II) from the second collection container to the second separating unit (¶ [0041], FIG. 3 depicts second valve on 320 that connects 335 and 350), and (Ill) from the third collection container (A) to the first collection container (¶ [0041], FIG. 3 depicts third valve on 362 that connects 325 and 330), (B) to the second collection container (¶ [0041], FIG. 3 depicts valve on 366 that connects 325 and 335), or (C) to the first collection container and to the second collection container (¶ [0041], FIG. 3 depicts valves on 366 and 362 that connects 325 to 330 and 335, respectively).
Regarding claim 2, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar further discloses wherein the device comprises one or more powder level sensors (¶ [0041] – detection by one or more sensors that the material is below a threshold level) operatively coupled to one or more valves (¶ [0041] – valve is operable to open in response to detection) of the device to control states of the one or more valves, the one or more valves comprising the first valve, the second valve, the third valve, or the fourth valve (FIG. 3 depicts valves on 340, 362, 372, 374).
Regarding claim 4, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses wherein each of the first separating unit, the first collection container, the first valve, the second separating unit, the second collection container, the second valve, the third collection container, the third valve, the fourth valve, and the channel are configured to, during operation of the device, enclose one or more atmospheres having a pressure above the ambient pressure external to the device (¶ [0013] – elevated relative to ambient pressure; ¶ [0141] – different portions of the enclosure, including processing chamber and build module, may have different atmosphere, may comprise positive pressure).
Regarding claim 5, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses wherein the first collection container is coupled to (b) the second collection container by a second other channel having a second pressure equilibration valve (¶ [0148] – valve coupled to material conveying channel and a gas conveying channel; FIG. 3 depicts 325 is coupled to 335 through 366 and has a valve), (c) the third collection container by a third channel having a third pressure equilibration valve (FIG. 3 depicts 325 is coupled to 330 through 340 and has a valve), or (d) any combination of (b), and (c), the first channel being configured to facilitate equilibration of pressure, the second channel being configured to facilitate equilibration of pressure, and the third channel being configured to facilitate equilibration of pressure (¶ [0148] – gas conveying channel may equilibrate pressure within components, therefore the valve would facilitate equilibration pressure).
Regarding claim 6, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses wherein the second separating unit 350 is coupled to the second collection container 335 by an other channel (¶ [0148] – channel 374) having a pressure equilibration valve (FIG. 3 depicts a valve on 374), the other channel being configured to facilitate equilibration of pressure (¶ [0148] – material conveying channel may convey material to components; gas conveying channel may equilibrate pressure within components).
Regarding claim 7, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses wherein (I) the powder (¶ [0039] – material comprises powder) enters the device through the first separation unit (¶ [0149] – separator separate gas and material, using a powder gas classifier).
Regarding claim 8, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses wherein the first separating unit and/or the second separating unit comprises a cyclonic separator (¶ [0149] – separator comprise a cyclonic-separator).
Regarding claim 9, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses the positive pressure is from at least 3 kilo Pascals (kPa) to 20 kPa (¶ [0141] – 100 torr; through unit conversion, 100 torr = 13.3 kPa).
Regarding claim 10, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 10.
However, Elgar discloses different portions of the enclosure, including processing chamber and build module, may have different atmosphere, which may comprise ambient pressure, negative pressure, or positive pressure (¶ [0141]).
The limitation “wherein during operation of the device, (A) the second separating unit encloses an atmosphere having a lower pressure than that of the first separating unit, and (B) the first separating unit encloses an atmosphere having a lower pressure than that of the third collection container, the lower pressure being above the ambient pressure external to the device” recite a manner of operating the device for an intended use. A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
As Elgar discloses that the different portions of the enclosure, including processing chamber and build module, may have different atmosphere, including ambient, negative, or positive pressure (¶ [0141]), the separator, filter, and pressure container are capable of performing the intended use. The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the separator, filter, and pressure container in Elgar are capable of performing the intended use, they meet the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 11, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 11.
However, Elgar discloses different portions of the enclosure, including processing chamber and build module, may have different atmosphere, which may comprise ambient pressure, negative pressure, or positive pressure (¶ [0141]).
The limitation “wherein during at least a first portion of operation of the device,(A) the second collection container encloses an atmosphere having a lower pressure than that of the first collection container, and (B) the first collection container encloses an atmosphere having a lower pressure than that of the third collection container, the lower pressure being above the ambient pressure; and optionally wherein during a second portion of the operation of the device different from the first portion of the operation of the device, (A) the second collection container encloses the atmosphere having an equal, or a substantially equal, pressure to that of the first collection container, and (B) the first collection container encloses the atmosphere having an equal pressure, or a substantially equal pressure, relative to that of the third collection container” recite a manner of operating the device for an intended use. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
As Elgar discloses that the different portions of the enclosure, including processing chamber and build module, may have different atmosphere, including ambient, negative, or positive pressure (¶ [0141]), the processing chamber, material source, and pressure container are capable of performing the intended use. The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the processing chamber, material source, and pressure container in Elgar are capable of performing the intended use, they meet the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 12, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar does not explicitly disclose the limitations of claim 12.
However, Elgar discloses different portions of the enclosure, including processing chamber and build module, may have different atmosphere, which may comprise ambient pressure, negative pressure, or positive pressure (¶ [0141]).
The limitation “wherein during at least a first portion of operation of the device, the device is configured to have: (A) the first separating unit enclose a first atmosphere having a pressure equal to that of the first collection container, (B) the second separating unit enclose a second atmosphere having a pressure equal to that of the second collection container and lower than that of the first collection container, (C) the third collection container enclose a third atmosphere having pressure higher than that of the first collection container and higher than that of the second collection container, and (D) the first atmosphere having a pressure higher than that of the second atmosphere; and optionally wherein during a second portion of the operation of the device different from the first portion of the operation of the device, (A) the device is configured to have the first separating unit enclose the first atmosphere having a pressure less than that of the first collection container, (B) the second separating unit enclose the second atmosphere having a pressure less than that of the second collection container and equal to that of the first collection container, (C) the third collection container enclose the third atmosphere having a pressure equal, or substantially equal, to that of the first collection container and to that of the second collection container, and (D) the first atmosphere having a pressure equal, or substantially equal, to that of the second atmosphere” recite a manner of operating the device for an intended use. See MPEP § 2114 (II).
As Elgar discloses that the different portions of the enclosure, including processing chamber and build module, may have different atmosphere, including ambient, negative, or positive pressure (¶ [0141]), the filter, processing chamber, material source, and pressure container are capable of performing the intended use in claim 12. The limitation does not add further structure to the claimed apparatus and thus because the filter, processing chamber, material source, and pressure container in Elgar are capable of performing the intended use, they meet the limitations as claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses wherein the device is configured to facilitate (A) flow of the powder from the first separating unit to the first collection container to the third collection container (¶ [0148] – separator 320; FIG. 3 depicts 320 facilitates flow to 325 through 366 and then to 330 through 362), and (B) flow of the powder from the second separating unit to the second collection container to the third collection container (¶ [0148] – filter 350; FIG. 3 depicts 350 facilitates flow to 335 through 374 and then to 330 through 372).
Regarding claim 16, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses wherein the device is configured to separate the powder comprising an elemental metal, metal alloy, an allotrope of elemental carbon, or a ceramic (¶ [0033] – material comprises an elemental metal, metal alloy, ceramic, an allotrope of elemental carbon; therefore the material conveyor system is configured to separate the materials).
Regarding claim 17, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses wherein the device is integrated, is part of, or is operatively coupled to, a three-dimensional printer configured to layerwise print one or more three-dimensional objects (¶ [0180] – 3D printer comprises a layer dispensing mechanism).
Regarding claim 18, Elgar discloses an apparatus for separating the powder (¶ [0010] – system for three-dimensional printing; ¶ [0148] – material conveyor system), the apparatus comprising: at least one controller (¶ [0059] – controller) configured to (i) operatively couple to the device of claim 1 (¶ [0059] – controller operatively coupled to the apparatus; see analysis of claim 1 above); and (ii) direct the device to execute one or more operations associated with the device, the one or more operations comprising separating the powder (¶ [0192] – separator actuated by controller), the at least one controller being configured to couple to a power source (¶ [0037] – a power source; ¶ [0236] – control of an output power).
Regarding claim 19, Elgar discloses a non-transitory computer readable program instructions (¶ [0018] – non-transitory computer-readable medium) that, when executed by one or more processors operatively coupled to the device of claim 1 (see analysis of claim 1 above), implement one or more operations associated with the device, the one or more operations comprising directing the device to separate the powder (¶ [0018] – cause the computer to perform operations directing conveying of a material), the non-transitory computer readable program instructions being inscribed on at least one media (¶ [0018] – program instructions area stored).
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.
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.
Claim(s) 3 and 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Elgar (US 2018/0281282 A1), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. In the embodiment depicted in FIG. 3 that material may be conveyed into the pressure container 330 (¶ [0148]). Elgar does not disclose the limitations of claim 3 in the embodiment depicted in FIG. 3.
Elgar discloses in another embodiment where material is inserted into pressure containers (¶ [0163]).
Elgar further discloses in the embodiment wherein (A) the first collection container is operatively coupled to the first separating unit at least in part by a first overflow container (¶ [0163] – excess amount of material from the processing chamber may be collected into an overflow container).
Elgar discloses embodiments where material is inserted into pressure containers (¶ [0148, 0163]) in a material conveyor system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the overflow container to a chamber in Elgar to the processing chamber to collect excess material (¶ [0163]) and transfer material to a recycling mechanism or a material dispensing mechanism facilitating the transfer of excess material (¶ [0191]).
Regarding claim 14, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses in the embodiment depicted in FIG. 3 that filter 350 may sieve material (¶ [0148]) and particulate material size separator (e.g., sieve) (¶ [0149]). Elgar does not disclose the limitations of claim 14 in the embodiment depicted in FIG. 3.
Elgar discloses in another embodiment the specifications of the sieve assembly (¶ [0241]).
Elgar further discloses wherein the device is configured to facilitate pressure isolation (A) of an atmosphere of the first collection container and/or (B) of an atmosphere of the second collection container (¶ [0241] – atmospheric isolation on an interior volume of the sieve assembly).
Elgar discloses embodiments where material is separated through sieves (¶ [0149, 0241]) in a material conveyor system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the atmospheric isolation through a sieve assembly to processing chamber or material source in Elgar to enable one or more maintenance operations to be performed without affecting an atmosphere in another portion of the material conveyor system (¶ [0241]).
Regarding claim 15, Elgar discloses the device of claim 1. Elgar discloses in the embodiment depicted in FIG. 3 that the conveyor system may be coupled to a recycling mechanism (¶ [0148]). Elgar does not disclose the limitations of claim 15 in the embodiment depicted in FIG. 3.
Elgar discloses in another embodiment with a recycling system and removal of excess material in the pressure container (¶ [0265-0266]).
Elgar further discloses wherein the device is configured to expel the powder sucked at least in part using a venturi feeder (¶ [0285] – venturi vacuum pump) integrated into an other channel configured to transport the powder away from the device (¶ [0264-0265] – suction mechanism to remove material, operatively coupled with pump, removal channel engaged with pressure chamber).
Elgar discloses embodiments where excess material is recycled (¶ [0150, 0264-0266]) in a material conveyor system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to apply the removal channel with a suction mechanism to the material conveyor system in Elgar to facilitate removal of excess material from the pressure container to the second pressure container and recycle excess material (¶ [0265-0266]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHAN B WOO whose telephone number is (571)272-5191. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8:30 am - 5:00 pm ET.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571) 270-1487. 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.
/JONATHAN B WOO/Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/SEYED MASOUD MALEKZADEH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights