DETAILED CORRESPONDENCE
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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments have been fully considered.
Applicant argues that Hower discloses gas permeable elements but not multiple gas permeable elements as required by claim 1.
Examiner does not find this persuasive after further review of the prior art:
The plain meaning of a membrane is a pliable sheet. Supporting a membrane (e.g., the membrane of Hower) with a mechanical support (e.g., the metal screen of Hower) is obvious. This arrangement is generally known for separation of fluids from powders. For example, when making coffee, the coffee filter (membrane) is supported by a mechanical support (metal screen).
The would be artisan would have known that when a membrane is used that it should be mechanically supported to hold the weight of the powder bed. Thus, when Hower indicates that “a permeable side wall or platform formed as a micro-structured porous membrane can help prevent “plugging,” “jamming” or “crowding” of particles within the pores of the membrane, which can enhance the flow of vapors” (paragraph 42), this encompasses using – and would be obvious to use – a filtering membrane is on a mechanical support.
This arrangement is also specifically known in art of separation as evidenced by US 20050242022 A1 who describes “the known idea of providing a suitable mechanical support structure for a permeable membrane (e.g., as considered in U.S. Pat. No. 3,505,180).” (Paragraph 8).
Second, claim 6 of Howard reads: “the permeable surface comprises a surface selected from a screen surface, a metal plate surface having drilled holes, and a micro-structured porous membrane”. Howard’s uses of “comprises” instead of “consists of” indicates that they did not intend to strictly limit the surface to a single embodiment.
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 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.
Claim 1-8, 11-14, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hower (US 20210331246 A1) or Hower (US 20210331246 A1) in view of Kang (US 20050242022 A1)
In reference to claim 1, Hower discloses a drying device, comprising:
a housing section configured to house a powder bound object (“build box 105” [P0036]. See Figs 2-4 and descriptions thereof.), the housing including a bottom, the bottom including a periphery. and the bottom including an air vent inside of the periphery; and
a dryer drying section to dry the powder bound object housed in the housing (see annotated Fig 4, shown below)
PNG
media_image1.png
574
1093
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hower acknowledges that powder can clog the vents (see, e.g., “prevent “plugging,” “jamming” or “crowding” of particles within the pores of the membrane, which can enhance the flow of vapors from evolving solvents and water… plugging can be reduced by using micro-structured enlarging pores that open outwardly to allow stable void formations” [0042]).
Hower discloses “the build platform 102 can comprise vapor permeable faces of the build box 105 that can be implemented, for example, as a metal screen, a metal plate with patterns of drilled holes, a micro-structured porous membrane, and so on” (P0027).
Howard’s claim 6 reads: “the permeable surface comprises a surface selected from a screen surface, a metal plate surface having drilled holes, and a micro-structured porous membrane”. The use of “comprises” instead of “consists of” indicates that they did not intend to strictly limit the surface to a single embodiment.
The plain meaning of a membrane is a pliable sheet. Supporting a membrane (e.g., the membrane of Hower) with a mechanical support (e.g., the metal screen of Hower) is obvious. This arrangement is generally known for separation of fluids from powders. For example, when making coffee, the coffee filter (membrane) is supported by a mechanical support (metal screen).
The would be artisan would have known that when a membrane is used that it should be mechanically supported to hold the weight of the powder bed. Thus, when Hower indicates that “a permeable side wall or platform formed as a micro-structured porous membrane can help prevent “plugging,” “jamming” or “crowding” of particles within the pores of the membrane, which can enhance the flow of vapors” (paragraph 42), this encompasses using – and would be obvious to use – a filtering membrane is on a mechanical support.
Thus, it would have been obvious to configure the device such that
PNG
media_image2.png
90
580
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Hower alone is believed to meet the claim. If Hower did not fairly teach using both a membrane and support structure, this arrangement is also specifically known in art of separation as evidenced by Kang who describes “the known idea of providing a suitable mechanical support structure for a permeable membrane (e.g., as considered in U.S. Pat. No. 3,505,180).” (Paragraph 8). Thus, it would have been obvious to provide the membrane on a support structure and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
In reference to claim 2-3, 5 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See image above regarding the additional limitations of these claims.
In reference to claim 4 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
The claim only recites intended use.
In reference to claim 6 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Hower discloses “The vacuum system can generate an active air flow that draws air into the top surface and/or other surfaces of the build volume, while pulling solvent and/or water vapor out of the build volume through the permeable build platform and side walls. The system can include a liquid trap catch to catch liquid solvent and/or liquid water that condenses when the vapor encounters walls of the vacuum system.” (P0022).
In reference to claim 7 the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Hower discloses the “build platform 102 can move in a vertical direction (i.e., up and down) in the z-axis” (P0028).
In reference to claim 8, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1. See image above regarding the additional limitations of these claims.
In reference to claim 11-13, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
See quote in rejection of claim 1. The use of a micro-structured porous membrane and a metal plate with patterns of drilled holes meets the claim. Hower’s use of the term “comprises” supports the interpretation of these elements in combination. Additionally, it would be obvious to prevent powder from being sucked out of the housing at least because the illustration and text describe vapors being removed, not the powder (e.g., “does not cause any disruption or deformation of the 3D green parts within the build box 105” [P0037]).
In reference to claim 14, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Hower shows the holes are staggered in Fig 6b.
In reference to claim 16, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 10.
See “the permeable surface comprises a surface selected from a screen surface, a metal plate surface having drilled holes, and a micro-structured porous membrane” (Claim 6). Also, membranes are known to be made from these materials (e.g., coffee filters are cellulose).
In reference to claim 17, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
The powder and part itself illustrated in Fig 2-5 of Hower can be the pressing materials as claimed.
In reference to claim 20, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Hower meets the claim, see P0036.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Hower (US 20210331246 A1) or Hower (US 20210331246 A1) in view of Kang (US 20050242022 A1)) and further in view of Yang (US 20070256399 A1).
In reference to claim 15, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Hower does not show grooves and holes as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, filters, Yang discloses a filter that would be suitable for Hower's use and is described as comprising grooves and holes as claimed (Fig 1-5 and descriptions thereof).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the filters of Yang as suitable for the intended use of filtering in Hower's and thereby arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim 17 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (Hower (US 20210331246 A1) or Hower (US 20210331246 A1) in view of Kang (US 20050242022 A1)) and in view of Kikuchi (US 5626751 A).
In reference to claim 17 and 18, the cited prior art discloses the invention as in claim 1.
Hower does not disclose the pressing member as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor or reasonably pertinent to the particular problem faced by the inventor, filtering (title), Kikuchi discloses an improved filter comprising a polycarbonate membrane interspersed between a metal perforated plate and a metal screen (Fig 6 and description thereof).
The arrangement of a plate, then a membrane, then a screen meets the claim requirement of a pressing member on a porous member on vents.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art with a reasonable expectation of success before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to arrive at the claimed invention by integrating the filter of Kikuchi as a separation means in the Hower device.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry about this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS KRASNOW whose telephone number is (571)270-1154. The examiner can normally be reached M-R: 8am-5pm.
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, Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information about 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.
/NICHOLAS KRASNOW/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights