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 Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 06/29/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 19-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 06/29/2026.
Drawings
Figures 5a-5b should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated (filed specification, last page, last paragraph). See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
In claim 1, an apparatus for forming objects by “means of optical interaction” is interpreted as an SLM device (filed specification, p. 1, first paragraph, p. 2, third paragraph).
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: in claim 11, reciting “means of a positioning element,” a “positioning element” for coupling a component is conventionally known in the art and thus is interpreted broadly as any structure capable of coupling one component to another; in claim 12, “measuring means,” which is conventionally known in the art and thus is interpreted broadly as any device capable of performing measurements.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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(s) 1-18 is/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 the limitation "the area" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "the region" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation "individual main components" in lines 10-11. The limitation is unclear in the context of the claim as to whether it is intended to reference some or all of the previously recited components of the apparatus (e.g., process chamber, optical module, lifting apparatus) or introduce new/different components. If the former, the limitation is unclear as to which of the previously introduced components are considered “main” components. The dependent claims do not clarify this issue and instead further complicate the interpretation, as they seem to indicate randomly that some of the specifically introduced components in claim 1 would be “main” components while some may not be.
Claim 2 recites that “the individual main components” including “at least one of” a number of elements “are mounted separately from one another and…” The limitation is unclear as to whether it is intended to require that “the individual main components,” a plurality of “components,” includes at least one of the subsequently recited elements and each of these elements are mounted separately from one another, or if it requires that at least one of the recited elements is “mounted separately from one another and…” If the latter, the claim is unclear as to how one element could be mounted “separately from one another.”
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the construction cylinder" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the junction" in line 3. Claim 1 introduced “a first junction” and at least one “second junction,” such that the limitation in claim 4 is unclear as to which junction is referenced.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “function carriers” in line 4. The limitation is unclear as to whether it is intended to reference previously introduced elements/modules, and if so which ones would be considered “function carriers,” or if it is intended to introduce new/different elements.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the environment" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the adapter element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation "the adapter element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the adapter element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the process atmosphere contaminated with particles" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the common reference plane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the orientation or positioning of the respective component" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the machine control" in lines 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "the determined displacements" in lines 5-6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the common reference plane" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the reference plane" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the common reference plane" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the construction cylinder" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the position and orientation of the alignment apparatus" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "it" in line 6. The limitation is unclear as to whether “it” refers to the coater, the alignment apparatus, or something else.
Claim 16 recites the limitation "the common reference plane" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the position and orientation of the measuring system" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 17 recites the limitation "the common reference plane" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the common reference plane" in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The indicated dependent claims are rejected for the reasons provided above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5, 10-13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Huebinger et al., US 20200276640 A1 (corresponds to WO 2019096421 A1 provided in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 1, Huebinger discloses an apparatus for forming objects from powdery material layer by layer by means of optical interaction (Fig. 1, Abstract), wherein the apparatus comprises:
A process chamber (process chamber 18, Fig. 1, [0056]) for providing a working space in the area of a construction field (Fig. 1, [0056]),
At least one optical module of an irradiation unit (irradiation unit 14 comprising one or more radiation sources and a corresponding scanning unit, Fig. 1, [0049]-[0054]) for spatially selective irradiation of the material present in the region of the construction field (for site-selective irradiation of the raw material 4 on the carrier 2, Fig. 1, [0052]),
A lifting apparatus (carrier movement unit 12, Fig. 1, [0047]) for vertically positioning a construction panel to support the construction field (for enabling vertical movement of the carrier 2 on which the work piece 10 is built from the powder, Fig. 1, [0047]), and
A collective receiving element (support structure 22, Fig. 1, [0059]) for joint connection of individual main components of the apparatus (for supporting components of the apparatus including the irradiation unit 14, process chamber 18, carrier movement unit 12, etc., Fig. 1, [0059]-[0067]), wherein
The optical module is arranged on the receiving element at a first junction (irradiation unit 14 is supported by the support structure 22 via attachment members 24, Fig. 1, [0059]) and the process chamber is arranged separately from the optical module at at least one spaced-apart second junction on the receiving element (process chamber 18 is supported by the support structure 22 via separate attachment members 24, Fig. 1, [0061], [0071]).
Regarding claim 2, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the individual main components including at least one of the process chamber, the optical module, the lifting apparatus and/or a construction cylinder are mounted separately from one another and directly on the receiving element (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 3, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the main components including the process chamber, the optical module, the lifting apparatus and/or the construction cylinder is mounted on the receiving element in a thermally decoupled manner (Fig. 1, thermally decoupled, [0059], [0061], [0063], [0067], [0071]).
Regarding claim 5, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the process chamber is mounted at only one bearing joint on the receiving element and/or wherein all function carriers are mounted separately from the process chamber (function carriers such as the irradiation unit 14 and carrier movement unit 12 are mounted separately from the process chamber 18, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 10, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the individual main components have a common reference plane (0-level reference plane, Fig. 1, [0062]) and the individual main components are aligned with respect to one another via the common reference plane (the 0-level maintains its position with regard to the support structure 22, [0062], and a location of the components with regard to the common reference does not change, [0070]).
Regarding claim 11, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein at least one of the main components is coupled to the common reference plane by means of a positioning element (components such as the irradiation unit 14, process chamber 18, carrier movement unit 12, are coupled to the support structure 22 and thus to the reference plane by attachment members 24, Fig. 1) for determining deviations in the orientation or positioning of the respective component (the attachment members achieve the mounting of the respective components, e.g., [0012], [0015], [0027], [0071], Fig. 1, and thus determine deviations in their orientation or positioning).
Regarding claim 12, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein displacements of the main components are electronically determined (location of the carrier 2 and uppermost layer of powder being determined by control unit, [0068]) via measuring means (via vertical location measurement device 26 providing measurement results, [0068]) and are calculated directly and/or simultaneously in the machine control (determined by the control unit, [0068]) in order to compensate for the determined displacements (so that a location of an uppermost layer of powder may be precisely estimated, [0030]-[0031], which is necessary for directing the radiation beam to the predetermined locations of the powder for achieving a high quality work piece, [0041]).
Regarding claim 13, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the individual main components are at least partially directly mechanically connected to the common reference plane via positioning elements for setting a constant distance to the common reference plane (mechanical connection via attachment members 24 and support structure 22, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the receiving element is a rack (support structure 22, Fig. 1, [0044]) that encloses at least the process chamber (enclosing process chamber 18, Fig. 1) and wherein the receiving element also encloses the lifting apparatus and/or the construction cylinder (also enclosing carrier movement unit 12 and build cylinder 13, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 17, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus comprises a measuring system of the z-axis (vertical location measurement device 26, [0030], [0068]), and for constant maintenance of the position of the measuring system, the latter (interpreted to mean the measuring system) is directly connected to the common reference plane (note that a “reference plane” is an imaginary plane that is selected for establishing a reference position, thus the term “connected” is interpreted in view of the specification to mean referenced to the common reference plane, p. 13, lines 24-26; vertical location measurement device 26 is configured to measure a vertical location of the carrier with regard to the carrier movement device 12 and therefore with regard to the support structure 22, [0068], the location of the components being referenced to a common reference system/plane, [0062], [0070]) by positioning elements (connection by carrier movement unit 12 and attachment members 24, Fig. 1).
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.
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) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebinger et al., US 20200276640 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Gauzer et al., US 20230405679 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Huebinger teaches thermally decoupling the process chamber from the support structure such that process heat does not cause thermal deformation of the support structure ([0014]), including by an air gap ([0018]), and that the attachment members have thermally decoupling properties ([0015], [0059]). Huebinger is silent as to a cooling unit for cooling the junction being provided at least at the second junction.
In the analogous art, Gauzer discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, Fig. 1) wherein thermal decoupling between neighboring structures is similarly provided via a gap between the adjacent structures ([0054]), and Gauzer teaches additionally providing a cooling unit to the junction, such as a coolant flown through the gap and/or a thermally insulating material ([0054]).
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 apparatus of Huebinger to include a cooling unit for cooling the junction provided at least at the second junction in order to improve the thermal decoupling at the gap and thereby prevent excess heat transfer from the process chamber as taught by Gauzer.
Claim(s) 6-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebinger et al., US 20200276640 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Stammberger et al., US 20180133799 A1 (corresponds to EP 3321068 A1, provided in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 6, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the main components of the apparatus are thermally and mechanically decoupled from the process chamber (components are thermally decoupled from each other, [0071], and mechanically decoupled in that they are separately mounted, Fig. 1). Huebinger is silent as to an adapter element provided between the optical module and the process chamber for gas-tight and/or laser-safe shielding of a beam guiding region from the environment.
In the analogous art, Stammberger discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus (Abstract, Fig. 1) including an adapter element (shielding element 16, Fig. 1) provided between the optical module and the process chamber (between exposure device 6 and process chamber 7, Fig. 1) for gas-tight and/or laser-safe shielding of a beam guiding region from the environment (shielding the laser beam 4 extending between the exposure device 6 and the process chamber 7, [0037]). Stammberger teaches the element provides shielding for a laser beam decoupled between the exposure device and the process chamber and prevents the laser beam from undesirably exiting the apparatus via the gap ([0020], [0037]).
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 apparatus of Huebinger to include an adapter element provided between the optical module and the process chamber for gas-tight and/or laser-safe shielding of a beam guiding region from the environment in order to shield the beam in the gap between the optical module and the process chamber so as to prevent the beam from undesirably exiting the apparatus as taught by Stammberger.
Regarding claim 7, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Huebinger does not disclose the [an] adapter element is flexibly designed so that a relative displacement of the process chamber to the optical module free of mechanical stresses becomes possible.
In the analogous art, Stammberger as applied above teaches an adapter element (shielding element, see claim 6) and further discloses the adapter element is flexibly designed (having a corrugated bellows-like or sleeve-like geometric structural design, [0037]) so that a relative displacement of the process chamber to the optical module free of mechanical stresses becomes possible (effect of positively recited design structure).
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 apparatus of Huebinger to include the adapter element that is flexibly designed so that a relative displacement of the process chamber to the optical module free of mechanical stresses becomes possible in order to successfully shield the beam in the gap between the optical module and the process chamber so as to prevent the beam from undesirably exiting the apparatus as taught by Stammberger.
Regarding claim 8, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Huebinger does not disclose the [an] adapter element comprises a membrane and/or a sealing ring.
In the analogous art, Stammberger as applied above teaches an adapter element comprising at least a sealing ring (shielding element 16 that prevents the laser beam 4 from exiting the gap 12, [0037], Fig. 1, and thus functions as a sealing ring).
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 apparatus of Huebinger to include an adapter element comprising a sealing ring in order to successfully shield the beam in the gap between the optical module and the process chamber so as to prevent the beam from undesirably exiting the apparatus as taught by Stammberger.
Regarding claim 9, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Huebinger does not disclose the [an] adapter element comprising an integrated protective glass to protect the optical module from the process chamber contaminated with particles, and wherein the protective glass is rigidly connected to the optical module to avoid relative displacements of the protective glass to the optical module.
In the analogous art, Stammberger as applied above teaches an adapter element (shielding element, see claim 6) comprising an integrated protective glass to protect the optical module from the process chamber contaminated with particles (formed of a suitable shielding material such as glass, [0037]), and wherein the protective glass is rigidly connected to the optical module to avoid relative displacements of the protective glass to the optical module (connected to exposure device 6 to prevent beam 4 from exiting gap 12, Fig. 1, thus avoiding relative displacements that would enable exiting of the beam).
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 apparatus of Huebinger to include an adapter element comprising an integrated protective glass to protect the optical module from the process chamber contaminated with particles, and wherein the protective glass is rigidly connected to the optical module to avoid relative displacements of the protective glass to the optical module in order to successfully prevent the beam from undesirably exiting the apparatus as taught by Stammberger.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebinger et al., US 20200276640 A1, as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 14, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the reference plane of the process chamber is the common reference plane (0-level, Fig. 1, [0062]). In the applied embodiment, Huebinger does not disclose the reference plane of the optical module is the common reference plane. Note that the common reference plane is not a physical structure of the apparatus but is an imaginary plane that is selected for establishing a reference position. Huebinger further discloses that the position of the irradiation unit with regard to the support structure can be regarded as a reference coordinate system of the apparatus that remains unchanged such that the position of other components stay constant ([0013]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the reference plane of the optical module instead of the reference plane of the process chamber as the common reference plane as a substitution of one known element for another yielding predictable results of serving as a common reference point for maintaining a position of the components with respect to one another as taught by Huebinger. MPEP 2143(I)(B).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebinger et al., US 20200276640 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Mattes et al., US 20210146624 A1 (provided in Applicant’s IDS).
Regarding claim 16, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the apparatus further comprises a coater for preparing the powdered material (powder application device 6, Fig. 1, [0045]). Huebinger does not disclose the coater comprises an alignment apparatus, and wherein, in order to maintain the position and orientation of the alignment apparatus constant, it (currently interpreted as the coater and/or alignment apparatus) is directly connected to the common reference plane by positioning elements.
In the analogous art, Mattes discloses a coater (recoater 16, [0034], Figs. 1 and 3) comprising an alignment apparatus (measuring device 40 used for determining and correcting orientation of the recoater, [0071]) and wherein, in order to maintain the position and orientation of the alignment apparatus constant, it (currently interpreted as the coater and/or alignment apparatus) is directly connected to a common reference plane by positioning elements (measuring device 40 is aligned with the coordinate system of the machine by means of elements and methods known per se, [0058]). Mattes teaches the configuration enables the recoater and/or the measurement system to be aligned with reference to a reference plane of the device, which allows for calibration or adjustment of individual components to each other when the device is put into operation ([0017]).
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 apparatus of Huebinger such that the coater comprises an alignment apparatus, and wherein, in order to maintain the position and orientation of the alignment apparatus constant, it is directly connected to the common reference plane by positioning elements in order to maintain an alignment of the recoater with the reference plane of the device as taught by Mattes.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huebinger et al., US 20200276640 A1, as applied to claim 1, in view of Aota et al., WO 2019159642 A1 (Espacenet translation provided and referenced below).
Regarding claim 18, Huebinger discloses the apparatus of claim 1. Huebinger does not disclose process monitoring systems including at least one of a camera system, a powder bed monitoring system, and/or a melting point monitoring system are provided, which are each coupled to the [a] common reference plane.
In the analogous art, Aota discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus with decoupled components (Fig. 4, [0055]) having processing monitoring systems including at least a camera system and/or a powder bed monitoring system (imaging system 12 that images the inside of the chamber 2, can be configured for inspection that photographs the shape or temperature of the underlying powder material, [0055]-[0056], Fig. 4), coupled to a common reference plane (coupled to same plane as irradiation devices 8, Fig. 4).
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 apparatus of Huebinger to have process monitoring systems including at least one of a camera system and/or a powder bed monitoring system coupled to a common reference plane in order to provide the capability of imaging the molded object or measuring a temperature of the powder material as taught by Aota.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20110259862 A1, Scott et al. disclose a relevant device including an adapter element for coupling an optical module to a process chamber.
US 20230085428 A1, Schmuland et al. disclose a cooled mounting bracket for a laser device (Fig. 5).
US 20210370406 A1, Bayramian et al. disclose a relevant adapter element between a laser head and a process chamber (e.g., Fig. 1I).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JENNIFER L GROUX whose telephone number is (571)272-7938. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday: 9am - 5pm 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.
/J.L.G./Examiner, Art Unit 1754
/FARAH TAUFIQ/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights