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 of the invention of Group II, claims 30 and 33-40, in the reply filed on 08/07/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 21-29, 31-32 and 41 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.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 08/07/2025. It is noted that the applicants state that they wish to elect claims 31 and 32 together with claims 30 and 33-40. However, the referenced claims 31 and 32 depend on claim 21 and thereby belong to the non-elected Group I. The applicants have not amended the referenced claims to make them part of the elected Group II in the response filed 08/07/2025.
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 38 is 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 38 is indefinite because the term “the objects” lacks proper antecedent basis.
The claim is further indefinite and could not be properly understood because it is not clear from the claim how what is disclosed by claim 38 is related to what is disclosed by the parent claim.
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) 30, 34-37, and 39-40 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hutchinson et al (WO 2021/211658, US 2023/0150203, citation by the US document).
Hutchinson et al teach a method for fluidizing particles presented as a particle bed. Hutchinson et al disclosed the particle bed as including powder and objects.
Hutchinson et al disclose the apparatus as comprising a vertical movable supported container 620, which defines a processing space for receiving the particle bed including powder and objects.
The apparatus is further disclosed as comprising an oscillation generator 670 for vertical (up and down) oscillation of the container 620.
The generator 670 is controlled by control unit 600.
The apparatus is best shown at Figure 9 and described at [0049-82].
The disclosed method comprises fluidization by placing the particle bed into the container and oscillating the particle bed to fluidize the particles and de-powder the objects.
As to claim 34:
Hutchinson et al teach frequencies and amplitude as claimed. See at least [0066-67], [0032].
As to claims 35-36:
The disclosed method comprises fluidization by placing the particle bed into the container and oscillating the particle bed to separate the particles and de-powder the objects. See at least [0066].
As to claims 37:
The claimed sorting by weight is an inherent action of the applied oscillation. Further, since Hutchinson et al teach application of the oscillation with the same frequency and amplitude the results of the referenced application are inherently the same or the invention is not disclosed/claimed in the correspondence with the requirements of 35 USC 112(a).
As to claims 39 and 40:
Hutchinson et al teach adding abrasive powder during the process. See at least [0028], [0032], [0066].
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.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 33 and 38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al (WO 2021/211658, US 2023/0150203, citation by the US document).
The discussion of Hutchinson et al provided above is incorporated here.
AS to claim 33 Hutchinson et al do not specifically teach changing the states of the bed as claimed.
However, Hutchinson et al teach that the operating parameters, i.e., including frequency, amplitude, and duration of vibration, are selectable and result effective. Hutchinson et al also teach that “One or more cycles, each with a different set of operating parameters, may be determined.”
See at least [0066], which states:
“As described in connection with other embodiments, the operating parameters, i.e., including frequency, amplitude, and duration of vibration, are selectable. Selection of appropriate operating parameters, including frequency, amplitude, and duration of vibration, is based on factors including efficient removal of powder, reducing damage to the objects, and amount of powder to be removed. Selection of an appropriate frequency, amplitude, and duration of vibration takes into account information and parameters about the powder and the objects encased in the powder, including the sizes of the objects, wall thicknesses of the objects, material composition of the objects, internal and external surfaces, and internal passages, as well as other factors. In one embodiment, information and parameters about the objects are obtained from the design file used by the 3D printer to produce the objects. In this embodiment, information and parameters about the objects in the design file are used to select appropriate operating parameters, including frequency, amplitude, and duration of vibration, to depowder the objects in the processing chamber 620. One or more cycles, each with a different set of operating parameters, may be determined. Use of the design file information to select appropriate operating parameters for frequency, amplitude, and duration of vibration in the processing chamber 620 can be done automatically by software programming in the system 600, or alternatively the use of the design file information to select appropriate operating parameters for frequency, amplitude, and duration of vibration in the processing chamber 620 can be done manually or by an operator or by reference to previously stored recipes or profiles.”
Thus, it has been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to find an optimum process including one or more cycles at the optimum operating parameters in the method of Hutchinson et al by routine experimentation depending from the specifics of the particular application.
As to claim 38:
This claim is indefinite and could not be properly understood.
The claim is examined at the best examiner’s understanding of what is claimed.
Hutchinson et al teach adding abrasive media into the container. See at least [0028], [0032], [0066].
Hutchinson et al does not limit the type abrasive media to be used. They teach that different abrasive media can be used (at least [0028]).
It would have been obvious to an ordinary artisan at the time the invention was filed to choose an optimal abrasive media depending from the specific of the application (including the properties of the objects) since Hutchinson et al teach the use of different abrasive media (at least [0028]) and teach selecting operating parameters “based on factors including efficient removal of powder, reducing damage to the objects, and amount of powder to be removed” and taking “into account information and parameters about the powder and the objects encased in the powder, including the sizes of the objects, wall thicknesses of the objects, material composition of the objects, internal and external surfaces, and internal passages, as well as other factors (at least [0066]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The documents listed on the attached PTO 892 are cited to show the state of the art with respect to methods for fluidizing particle beds.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER MARKOFF whose telephone number is (571)272-1304. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
/ALEXANDER MARKOFF/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711