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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restrictions
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 3/23/2026.
Applicant's election with traverse of Groups I (claims 1-17) in the reply filed on 3/23/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups II (claims 18-19) and Group III (claim 20) requires all the limitations of claim 1. This is not found persuasive because claim 19 recites an apparatus configured to “operatively couple to the device of claim 1”. That is, claim 19 does not require the limitations of claim 1, but recites the ability to couple to the device of claim 1. Claim 19 recites a computer readable program “when read by one or more processors operatively coupled to the device of claim 1” which does not require all of the features of claim 1 to be present.
Claim 20 recites a method of using the device of claim 1. As described in the restriction requirement, the inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be used in a 2D powder dispensing process.
Applicant further argues that there is no burden to examine groups I, II, and III together. However, the groups are (A) classified separately and (B) require a different field of search (ex. employing different search queries) thus causing a search and examination burden.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8, 11-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Elgar et al. (US 2018/0281284 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Elgar meets the claimed device for directional powder displacement in three-dimensional (3D) printing, the device comprising: a planar body; (a separating portion (e.g., sieve cartridge) 1570, Fig. 15A-B, [0243]) springs coupled to the planar body; (FIG. 15B depicts the sieve cartridge comprising isolation elements 1580 and 1582 [0243] the isolation element comprises a gasket, a bumper, a spring, [0047]) and at least one actuator (agitator 1560) configured to repeatedly alter a position of the planar body in a first direction (Examiner notes that agitator is shown to move in y-axis in Fig. 15B) to cause powder disposed on the planar body to repeatedly displace in a second direction relative to the planar body, (Elgar teaches facilitates translation of the sieved material to the removal container (e.g., using gravity). Examiner notes that this is the z-axis in Fig. 15B) the at least one actuator being operatively coupled to the planar body, (an agitator 1510 coupled with the portion 1516 (e.g., via an agitator shaft 1520) [0243] agitator may cause the sieve to move (e.g., directly by moving the sieve, and/or indirectly by moving the cartridge frame). The movement may comprise a translation (e.g., along an x-axis, along a y-axis, along a z-axis, or any combination thereof). The movement may comprise a vibration [0237]) the second direction being different from the first direction, (z-axis and y-axis) the device being configured to operatively couple to an enclosure in which one or more 3D objects are printed during the 3D printing, (the closure is configured to engage and/or disengage from the filtering enclosure during printing of the at least one three-dimensional object without (e.g., substantially) disrupting the printing [0244]) the enclosure being of a 3D printer, the device being configured to facilitate displacement of the powder in the second direction away from the enclosure. (material received may be from another portion of the 3D printing system (e.g., from a processing chamber, e.g., from the material remover) Particles above the maximal FLS may be separated by the sieve assembly and removed (e.g., to a removal container, e.g., trash can), see [0243]).
Regarding claim 2, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator is configured for tunability of at least one property comprising (I) force output, (II) frequency output, (agitator comprises a controller operable to control one or more movement parameters. The movement parameters can comprise an amplitude of movement, a direction of movement, or a frequency of movement [0235]) or (III) directional output. (actuator may be adjusted to cause the angle of the sieve cartridge to vary [0248]).
Regarding claim 3, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator comprises actuators configured for rotary motion that results in a collective linear motion. (The oscillating and/or translational movement may comprise a lateral (e.g., a horizontal) component. A tilted vibrating surface may facilitate movement of the debris particles along a given (e.g., horizontal) axis, [0247]).
Regarding claim 5, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator exerts linear motion on the planar body in the first direction that is incident to the planar body at an angle with respect to a normal to the planar body, the angle being less than about 90 degrees. (Elgar teaches the angle to be about 5 deg to about 10 deg, [0247]).
Regarding claim 6, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 5, wherein the at least one actuator exerts linear motion on the planar body in the first direction that is incident to the planar body at an angle with respect to a normal to the planar body, the angle being at most about 70 degrees. (Elgar teaches the angle to be about 5 deg to about 10 deg, [0247]).
Regarding claim 7, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 1, wherein altering the position of the planar body comprises perturbations by the at least one actuator, the perturbations comprising (i) mechanical perturbations (The oscillating and/or translational movement may comprise a lateral (e.g., a horizontal) component. A tilted vibrating surface may facilitate movement of the debris particles along a given (e.g., horizontal) axis, [0247]) or (ii) acoustic perturbations.
Regarding claim 8, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 1, wherein the device further comprises, or is operatively coupled to, one or more flexible couplers configured to couple the device to the enclosure. (the closure comprises a compressible and/or elastic material that seals the closure upon the cartridge opening by pressure [0244])
Regarding claim 11, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 1, wherein the enclosure is a first enclosure, and wherein a second enclosure comprises an internal atmosphere different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device. (the sieve assembly atmosphere is different than the atmosphere in a remainder of the material conveyor system. For example, the sieve assembly may comprise one or more valves for selective opening and closing of material and/or gas flow channels from the sieve assembly to other portions of the material conveyor system, the atmosphere may be a non-reactive and/or inert atmosphere, [0240]).
Regarding claim 12, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 11, wherein the internal atmosphere comprising (I) a pressure above ambient pressure external to the device, or (II) depletion of a reactive agent relative to its concentration in an ambient atmosphere external to the device, the reactive agent being configured to react with the powder at least during 3D printing. (the atmosphere may be a non-reactive and/or inert atmosphere, [0240])
Regarding claim 13, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 11, wherein the second enclosure is configured to enclose (i) the planar body, (ii) the springs, (iii) the at least one actuator, or (iv) any combination of (i) (ii) and (iii). (Elgar teaches the all parts of the sieve assembly to be isolated and sealed, see [0240], and Fig. 17A).
Regarding claim 14, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 11, wherein the second enclosure is configured to include the planar body as part of a body of the second enclosure. (Elgar teaches a frame 1708 to support the sieve screen, [0255], Fig. 17A).
Regarding claim 15, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 1, wherein the powder is a remainder of a starting material utilized in a first printing cycle of the 3D printing during which of the one or more 3D objects is printed by the 3D printing, and wherein the device is configured to facilitate recycling the remainder to be used in the first printing cycle or in a second printing cycle to print one or more other 3D objects by the 3D printing. (the apparatus further comprises a recycling mechanism that is configured to collect the excess amount of the pre-transformed material, which recycling mechanism is operatively coupled to the processing chamber, [0023]).
Regarding claim 16, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 1, wherein (I) the powder is disposed in the second direction to a housing in which a sieve is disposed to sieve the powder, the sieve is coupled to a frame that is reversibly retractable and insertable relative to the housing, (II) during operation of the sieve, the framing is tilted with respect to a horizon, ( FIG. 16B, the sieve cartridge is tilted about the y-axis, [0245]) (III) the device is operatively coupled to a powder conveyance system configured to convey the powder against an environmental gravitational force, ( (d) conveying the pre-transformed material from the at least two material reservoirs to an enclosure within which the at least one three-dimensional object is printing. In some embodiments, flowing the pre-transformed material in (c) and/or conveyance of the pre-transformed material in (d) is against a gravitational field, [0045]) (IV) the device is operatively coupled to a layer dispensing mechanism comprising a cyclonic separator, (V) the enclosure comprises a processing chamber coupled to an ancillary chamber coupled to it, the ancillary chamber configured to house the layer dispensing mechanism, or (VI) any combination of (I) (II) (III) (IV) and (V). (Examiner notes the limitations are alternatives and Elgar meets at least (II) and (III)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 4, 9, and 10 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elgar et al. (US 2018/0281284 A1) in view of Charlebois (US 2021/0121918 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Elgar does not explicitly teach the device of claim 1, wherein the at least one actuator comprises a first actuator and a second actuator, and wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are (i) of a same type, (ii) configured to rotate in a synchronized manner, (iii) configured to rotate at the same speed, (iv) configured to rotate opposing directions and/or phases, (v) configured to exert the same magnitude of forces, or (vi) any combination of (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) and (v).
Elgar teaches an agitator 1510, [0243] The movement may comprise a translation (e.g., along an x-axis, along a y-axis, along a z-axis, or any combination thereof). The movement may comprise a vibration [0237].
Charlebois teaches wherein the at least one actuator comprises a first actuator and a second actuator, and wherein the first actuator and the second actuator are (i) of a same type, (Charlebois teaches sieving system for a powder from additive manufacturing [0004], where the vibration assembly 90 includes a first motor 91 and a second motor 92, the first motor 91 is a first linear displacement motor and the second motor 92 is a second linear displacement motor. In this manner, the first motor 91 and the second motor 92 provide linear movement to the filter housing 32 relative to the support structure 30, [0058]) (ii) configured to rotate in a synchronized manner, (iii) configured to rotate at the same speed, (iv) configured to rotate opposing directions and/or phases, (v) configured to exert the same magnitude of forces, or (vi) any combination of (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) and (v).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine the second vibration motor of Charlebois with the vibration sieving apparatus of Elgar because it achieves an efficient powder recycling and sieving process, see [0002].
Regarding claim 9, Elgar does not meet the claimed device of claim 8, wherein the flexible couplers are configured to damp vibrational motion of the device from one or more other components of the 3D printer wherein damping of the vibrational motion is such that the 3D printer prints the one or more 3D objects according to their requested tolerances.
Charlebois meets the claimed wherein the flexible couplers are configured to damp vibrational motion of the device from one or more other components of the 3D printer (a plurality of dampers 58 that extend between the support structure 30 and the filter housing 32 for mechanically isolating a movement of the filter housing 32 during operation of the powder sieving system assembly 12, [0064]) wherein damping of the vibrational motion is such that the 3D printer prints the one or more 3D objects according to their requested tolerances. (Examiner notes the “requested tolerances” are not a recited element of the claimed apparatus. The apparatus of Elgar as modified by Charlebois includes isolation elements capable of damping and meet the claimed structure, see MPEP 2114).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to combine dampers of Charlebois with the vibration sieving apparatus of Elgar because it mechanically isolated the filter operation from other equipment, see [0068].
Regarding claim 10, Elgar meets the claimed device of claim 9, wherein the vibrational motion comprises (I) acoustic vibrational motion or (II) mechanical vibrational motion. (Charlebois teaches mechanically isolating [0064], [0068]).
Claims 17 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Elgar et al. (US 2018/0281284 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Elgar does not explicitly teach the device of claim 1, wherein the device is configured to displace at least 10 kilograms of powder per minute along the second direction.
Elgar teaches the recycling system and/or sieve is configured to filter at least 500 kilograms. In some embodiments, the recycling system and/or sieve is configured to filter at a throughput of at least about six (6) cubic centimeters of material per hour (cc/hr) [0035], and the recycling comprises sieving at a rate of at least 0.5 cubic centimeters of the excess amount of the pre-transformed material per minute, per square centimeter of a sieving area [0039].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to vary the size of the sieving area to achieve the claimed at least 10 kilograms of powder per minute in order maintain a recycled amount equal or greater to a total material bed volume at the completion of the printing cycle, see [0039].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Alves (US 2020/0290278 A1) teaches Fig. 2, [0016] An apparatus for the treatment of residual thermoplastic powder (also referred to herein simply as “residual powder”) from an additive manufacturing process is provided. The additive manufacturing process, in which the residual powder arises, can be selective laser sintering (SLS).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL M. ROBINSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0467. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:30AM-6PM.
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, Sam 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 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.
/MICHAEL M. ROBINSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights