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 1-14 in the reply filed on 7/22/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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.
Claims 1-4, 7, 11, 12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Roman (US 2021/0069987 A1).
Regarding claims 1, 3, and 4, Roman teaches a three-dimensional object fabrication system comprising:
A 3D printer fabrication unit that fabricates a fabricated object containing metal powder [0001,0022].
A powder feeder to feed at least a part of the powder as recovered powder ([0032] and Fig.2 # 206, 212, 214, 216, 218, 222). A recovery feeder 214 discharges recovered material 216 held in vessel 212 into a conveyer system 206 that ultimately feeds back into a dispense vessel 218 and build enclosure 222.
A powder mixer that generates mixed powder containing at least the recovered powder ([0032], Fig. 2 # 202, 206, and 212, 218, 222). The new material and recovered material are being discharged into the conveyer system 206. Conveyer system 206, in conjunction with vessels 202, 208, & 212 and feeders 204, 210, & 214 is a powder mixer.
Control circuitry that controls a mixing ratio of new powder of the powder and the recovered powder based on information on at least one state of the powder, the recovered powder, or the mixed powder ([0031-32], [0037], [0056], [0100]; Fig. 2 # 204, 210; Fig. 3 # 312, 304, 308; Fig. 18 #1800) Roman teaches a controller (312 or 1800), further comprising a hardware processor and a memory, that can adjust the operation of material feeders 204 and 210 via weight sensors 304 and 308 to maintain a desired ratio of new material and recycled material ([0037], [0056]).
Regarding claim 2 and 11, Roman teaches that their fabrication system can conduct 3D printing using ink-type and solvent binders (i.e. a liquid) [0033, 0035]. Since the liquid is taught as being added to the powder, Roman teaches a liquid discharger to apply the fabrication liquid.
Regarding claim 7, as discussed above, Roman teaches a controller (312 or 1800), further comprising a hardware processor and a memory, that can adjust the operation of material feeders 204 and 210 via weight sensors 304 and 308 to maintain a desired ratio of new material and recycled material ([0037], [0056]). Additionally, Fig. 18 displays a circuit schematic of controller 1800. Data from sensors 1816, 1818, 1820, and 1822 are sent into the controller 1800, which ultimately uses the data to control the mixing ratios [0115-0122]. Therefore, the circuitry in Fig. 18 reads on the claimed state estimation circuitry.
Regarding claim 12, as discussed above, Roman teaches that their powder can comprise metal [0001].
Regarding claim 14, as discussed above, Roman teaches a controller (312 or 1800), further comprising a hardware processor and a memory, that can adjust the operation of material feeders 204 and 210 via weight sensors 304 and 308 to maintain a desired ratio of new material and recycled material ([0037], [0056]).
Claims 5, 6, 8, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman (US 2021/0069987 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Champion (US 2020/0238625 A1).
Regarding claims 5, 6, 8, and 13, Roman fails to teach that the powder states include powder fluidity, filling density, of particle distribution. Additionally, Roman fails to teach that their controller adjusts the mixing ratio based on a fabrication condition. Also, while Roman teaches a powder applicator to apply a layer [0049], they do not exemplify a roller applicator. Lastly, Roman fails to teach the inclusion of a camera to monitor the surface of the powder.
Champion teaches a sensor/stereo system 113/150 that comprises cameras in their additive manufacturing system (Fig.1B # 113, 150, 154, and 155). The cameras image applied powder on surface 115 on build platform 102 [0024]. Data obtained from images taken by the stereo system 150 is sent to a build controller 106 (Figs. 1 and 2) to derive the spatial distribution of applied powder particle sizes and extract metrics such as the powder packing density [0017, 0023]. Based on the metrics, controller 106 takes corrective action to adjust manufacturing parameters (which read on the mixing ratio) (Fig. 7B, [0014-15, 0086]). Particularly, the metrics include the thicknesses of each layer of the applied build material, which reads on the claimed fabrication condition ([0023], Fig. 2 #235, Fig. 7 #760). Additionally, based on these metrics, the controller 106 is also able to adjust the mechanics of a material dispenser in the form of a roller (Fig. 1A #108 and 110, [0020, 0059, 0061]). In all, Champion incorporates their cameras and data collection process in order to ensure that a produced 3D object satisfies predetermined build criteria [0013].
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Champion’s cameras, roller, and associated data/metric collection system into Roman’s fabrication system because doing so enables an advantageous result of manufactured 3D objects that satisfy specified build criteria.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman (US 2021/0069987 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tegelkamp (US 20230130492 A1, claiming foreign priority date of Sep. 20, 2021 (DE 102021004708 A1)) and Tanikella (US 20230211463 A1, filed Dec. 30, 2022).
Regarding claim 9, Roman is silent on motorized mixing/stirring of their powders. Additionally, Roman does not teach the determination of powder state information based on a motor driving force.
Tagelkamp teaches a device for mixing a powder for use in additive manufacturing (Abstract). The device mixes unused powder with a recycled powder from a previous additive manufacturing process [0001]. Mixing of the two powders is conducted via a motorized vibrating screen 10 in a mixing container 5 (Fig. 2 #5, 9”, & 10, [0020, 0031, 0056]). Tagelkamp utilizes their mixing device in order to produce a homogenous powder mixture [0013].
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Tagelkamp’s mixing system into Roman’s fabrication system because doing so enables a well-known and predicable advantage of a homogenized mixed powder.
However, neither Roman or Tagelkamp teach the determination of powder state information based on a motor driving force.
Tanikella teaches a method for producing an article via additive manufacturing (Abstract). The method comprises blending recycled material from a previous additive manufacturing process with virgin powder material (Fig. 6C, [0081, 0082, 0134]). Additionally, Tanikella teaches that the blending process is controlled in response to measurements of the flowability of the powder material [0247,0248]. Tanikella teaches that their method facilitates advantageous forming ratio compared to previous methods [0194].
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate Tanikella’s control method into the combined teachings of Roman and Tagelkamp because doing so enables an advantageous result of a improved forming ratios.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roman (US 2021/0069987 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Park (KR 20190060958 A).
Regarding claim 10, Roman is silent on operating modes.
Park teaches a 3D printing apparatus comprising a speed control unit. The speed control unit 200 controls the amount of feed material dispensed, the feeding speed, the temperature of the feed source, and the overall output speed of a manufactured 3D structure (“Description of Embodiments”). The overall output speed is controlled according to an operation mode selected from a standard mode, a high-precision mode, a high-speed mode, and a passive mode. Additionally, the speed control unit controls feed temperature according to sensed feed speed (“Description of Embodiments”, Clm. 1). In using their controls, Park prevents deterioration in output structure quality due to increases in output speed.
Therefore, it would be obvious for a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to incorporate the Park’s speed control and operation modes into Roman’s system because it enables an advantageous result of output structures with optimized build quality in relation to selected build speeds.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAVIER FLORES whose telephone number is 571-272-9130. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30AM-5:00PM.
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, KEITH WALKER can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.F./Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights