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/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-43, drawn to a method, classified in 419/PCA001.
II. Claims 44-49, drawn to an apparatus, classified in 700/157.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions I and II are related as process and apparatus for its practice. 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 as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
The apparatus as claimed can be used for manufacturing outside of additive manufacturing, for example blowing glass or CNC machining.
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Monty Falcoff on 07/29/2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 1-43. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 44-49 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 04/10/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1-49 are as originally filed.
Claim Objections
Claim 19 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the flowing the gas” in line 5 should be “flowing the gas.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, 14, 15, 17, 19, 23, 25, 27, and 31-34 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 3 recites the limitation “the air” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the air” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the depowdered additively manufactured workpiece" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the blower outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the excess powder" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the powder" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This powder is distinct from the “extra powder” in Claim 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the robotic gripping and depowdering steps" in lines 3 and 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. The steps in Claim 1 recite “robotically gripping” and “automatically blowing gas.”
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the at least one nozzle" in lines 8 and 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 15 recites the limitation "the robot" in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 17, it is not clear what is meant by “causing … energize fan to flow” in line 6.
Claim 19 recites the limitation "the excess powder" in line 8. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 23 recites the limitation "the robot" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In Claim 25, it is not clear what is meant by “causing … energize fan to flow” in line 7.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the robot" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 27 recites the limitation "the enclosure-mounted outlet" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 31 recites the limitation "the excess powder blown off" in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 32 recites the limitation "the removing steps" in lines 4 and 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only one removing step in Claim 25.
Claim 33 recites the limitation "the outlet" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 34 recites the limitation "between multiple positive gas flow conditions" in lines 2 and 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim for multiple positive gas flow conditions.
Claims dependent on any of the rejected claims are likewise rejected under this statute.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-4, 8, 9, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al (US 2024/0042496 A1).
Tong et al teaches removing a powder build material from a workpiece produced by an additive manufacturing process [0001] as represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image1.png
622
874
media_image1.png
Greyscale
This method can be used for cleaning surfaces of workpieces [0033]. The system includes a housing defining an enclosure, a holding structure within the enclosure configured to support a workpiece, and a powder removal device configured to propel a first media toward the holding structure such that it contacts the workpiece [0006]. The robotic arm supports and moves the workpiece [0009] and moves the workpiece relative to the first powder removal device [0018]. The cleaning media may include gases such as inert gases and carbon dioxide [0040]. The robotic arm includes a gripper to physically grasp the workpiece by direct contact [0050]. Tong et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, during depowdering, the cleaning media is sprayed on the surface of the workpiece [0059]. The cleaning process includes moving the powder removal device relative to the holding structure [0076].
Regarding Claim 3, the outlet is in stationarily mounted in the enclosure. The robotic arms may have three or more axes of articulation [0052].
Regarding Claim 4, robotic arms are configured for rotational motion and linear displacement [0049].
Regarding Claim 8, sensing devices sense, detect, and/or monitor surface characteristics of the workpiece such as color and reflectance using a camera, light scanning, surface reflectivity, and IR spectrography [0041], which reads on an optical sensor. A controller selectively operates to move a first or second powder removal device relative to the holding structure [0043, 0053]. A suction device is coupled with the outlet [0058]. The method includes generating a suction force [0077] based on an analysis with the sensing device [0078].
Regarding Claim 9, the workpiece is analyzed to determine the density of the surface of the workpiece compared to a baseline density to determine if the powder material remains on the surface [0041], which is directly proportional to the depowdered weight condition.
Regarding Claim 12, the housing can contain one or more outlets to create air flow and/or a low-pressure environment [0059], which reads on creating a “vortex’ as claimed.
Regarding Claim 13, a controller selectively operates various components including the powder removal device [0043, 0054] by the pressure, spray direction, and duration of cleaning media [0067].
Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al.
Tong et al teaches removing a powder build material from a workpiece produced by an additive manufacturing process [0001] as represented above in the drawing on page 8 of this Office action. The robotic arm supports and moves the workpiece [0009] and moves the workpiece relative to the first powder removal device [0018]. The robotic arm includes a gripper to physically grasp the workpiece by direct contact [0050]. Therefore, Tong et al teaches robotically gripping the workpiece and robotically moving the workpiece. The cleaning process includes moving the powder removal device relative to the holding structure [0076]. Tong et al teaches removing powder while the workpiece is robotically gripped. Tong et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 22, the nozzles are stationarily mounted.
Claims 35, 36, and 38-42 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tong et al.
Tong et al teaches removing a powder build material from a workpiece produced by an additive manufacturing process [0001] as represented above in the drawing on page 8 of this Office action. The robotic arm supports and moves the workpiece [0009] and moves the workpiece relative to the first powder removal device [0018]. The robotic arm includes a gripper to physically grasp the workpiece by direct contact [0050]. An identification module analyzes the workpiece data and/or the sensor data to determine whether the powder material and/or debris is present on surfaces of the workpiece [0062-0063]. The cleaning module determines a cleaning process including the duration of the cleaning media spraying [0067]. A controller executes instructions to control movement of one or more of the metal powder supply and metal powder bed relative to one another as the three-dimensional composition is formed (lines 49-53) with a movable metal powder bed (lines 52-56). Tong et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 36, the robotic arms are configured for rotational motion and linear displacement [0049]. The cleaning media may include gases such as inert gases and carbon dioxide [0040].
Regarding Claim 38, sensing devices sense, detect, and/or monitor surface characteristics of the workpiece such as color and reflectance using a camera, light scanning, surface reflectivity, and IR spectrography [0041], which reads on an optical sensor.
Regarding Claim 39, the workpiece is analyzed to determine a density of the surface of the workpiece compared to a baseline density to determine if the powder material remains on the surface [0041], which reads on a “scale” as claimed.
Regarding Claim 40, Tong et al teaches analyzing the sensor data to determine if the powder material and/or debris is present on surfaces of the workpiece [0065] and analyzing to determine if the workpiece as designed is identifiable and depowderable using sensing devices [0071], which reads on a visible alert.
Regarding Claim 41, during depowdering, the cleaning media is sprayed on the surface of the workpiece [0059]. The cleaning process includes moving the powder removal device relative to the holding structure [0076].
Regarding Claim 42, a controller selectively operates various components including the powder removal device [0043, 0054] by the pressure, spray direction, and duration of cleaning media [0067].
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 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 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Gibson et al in Additive Manufacturing Technologies.
Tong et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claim 10, Tong et al teaches a suction device coupled with the outlet of the depowdering system to generate a suction force. The enclosure has a low-pressure environment of less than 1 atm [0058]. The removed mixture is transported to a separation unit including a filtration system [0060]. The gas includes inert gases and carbon dioxide [0040]. A suction device is coupled with the outlet to extract powder material, first media, or second media [0058]. The temperature can be ambient or cooler [0057]. The enclosure is sealed to impede access [0035], such sealing reads on controlling humidity. However, Tong et al does not teach flowing gas from a compressor or the powder includes at least one of metal or ceramic particles as claimed.
Regarding flowing gas from a compressor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the source of the inert gas or carbon dioxide would be sourced from a compressor, since gas used for manufacturing processes must be stored in a compressed state.
Regarding the powder including at least one of metal or ceramic particles, Gibson et al teaches that additive manufacturing is used for developing metals and ceramics (page 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the powder in Tong et al would include metal or ceramic particles, since Tong et al and Gibson et al both teach using AM to produce workpieces.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Nick (12,397,502 B1).
Tong et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. However, Tong et al does not teach the steps of additively layering or sintering as recited in Claim 11.
Nick teaches fabricating sinterable metallic parts as represented below in the drawing:
PNG
media_image2.png
284
878
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Metal powder is deposited and formed into a green part (column 6, lines 7-18). A powder deposition mechanism and print head (column 21, lines 56 and 57) to deposit successive layers (column 22, line 3). A controller executes instructions to control movement of one or more of the metal powder supply and metal powder bed relative to one another as the three-dimensional composition is formed (lines 49-53) with a movable metal powder bed (lines 52-56), which reads on additively layering in a programmed workpiece pattern. Post-processing includes cleaning with pressurized air (column 25, lines 26-29). 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 process of Nick to form the workpiece and sinter the cleaned workpiece in the process of Tong et al, since Nick teaches a process that results in improved ability to handle the metal-based composite structure and improved consistency in metal objects formed from such metal-based composite structures (column 25, lines 16-22).
Claims 14, 15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al in view of Gibson et al.
Tong et al teaches removing a powder build material from a workpiece produced by an additive manufacturing process [0001] as represented above in the drawing on page 8 of this Office action. The robotic arm supports and moves the workpiece [0009] and moves the workpiece relative to the first powder removal device [0018]. The drawing above on page 14 of this Office action teaches at least one nozzle. The robotic arm includes a gripper to physically grasp the workpiece by direct contact [0050]. Therefore, Tong et al teaches robotically gripping the workpiece and robotically moving the workpiece. The cleaning process includes moving the powder removal device relative to the holding structure [0076]. The nozzles are stationarily mounted. Tong et al teaches removing powder while the workpiece is robotically gripped. The cleaning media may include gases such as inert gases and carbon dioxide [0040]. Regarding the step of moving the workpiece, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the workpiece produced by additive manufacturing would be moved to the powder removal system, since Tong et al does not teach additive manufacturing within the system. However, Tong et al does not teach the powder comprises one of metallic particles or ceramic particles as claimed.
Gibson et al teaches that additive manufacturing is used for developing metals and ceramics (page 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the powder in Tong et al would include metal or ceramic particles, since Tong et al and Gibson et al both teach using AM to produce workpieces.
Regarding Claim 15, Tong et al teaches robotic arms are configured for rotational motion and linear displacement [0049]. The powder removal includes treating recesses in the workpiece [0065], which reads on a hole.
Regarding Claim 18, Tong et al teaches an identification module that analyzes the workpiece data and/or the sensor data to determine whether the powder material and/or debris is present on surfaces of the workpiece [0062-0063]. The cleaning module determines a cleaning process including the duration of the cleaning media spraying [0067].
Regarding Claim 19, Tong et al teaches the robotic arm includes a gripper to physically grasp the workpiece by direct contact [0050] and the robotic arm 219 that includes two or more links coupled by a joint [0049], which reads on “gripping fingers” as claimed. The nozzles are directed at the workpiece. The cleaning media may include gases such as inert gases and carbon dioxide [0040]. The enclosure has a low-pressure environment of less than 1 atm [0058], which overlaps the claimed range. The removed mixture is transported to a separation unit including a filtration system [0060]. The temperature can be ambient (~20-25 °C) or cooler [0057], which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The enclosure is sealed to impede access [0035], which teaches controlling humidity. However, Tong et al does not teach energizing a compressor connected to a nozzle or the outlet diameter for at least one nozzle as claimed.
Regarding the compressor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the source of the inert gas or carbon dioxide would be sourced from a compressor in Tong et al, since gas used for manufacturing processes must be stored in a compressed state.
Regarding the size of the nozzle, a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B. In this case, the size of the nozzle in Tong et al is sufficient to carry out the claimed process of depowdering a workpiece.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al as applied to claim 20 above.
Tong et al discloses the invention substantially as claimed. Regarding Claim 21, the nozzles are directed at the workpiece. The cleaning media may include gases such as inert gases and carbon dioxide [0040]. However, Tong et al does not teach energizing a compressor connected to a nozzle as claimed. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the source of the inert gas or carbon dioxide would be sourced from a compressor in Tong et al, since gas used for manufacturing processes must be stored in a compressed state.
Claims 26, 27, 30, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al in view of Gibson et al.
Tong et al teaches removing a powder build material from a workpiece produced by an additive manufacturing process [0001] as represented above in the drawing on page 8 of this Office action. The robotic arm supports and moves the workpiece [0009] and moves the workpiece relative to the first powder removal device [0018]. The robotic arm includes a gripper to physically grasp the workpiece by direct contact [0050]. Therefore, Tong et al teaches robotically gripping the workpiece and robotically moving the workpiece. The cleaning process includes moving the powder removal device relative to the holding structure [0076]. Tong et al teaches removing powder while the workpiece is robotically gripped. Regarding energizing gas from a compressor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the source of the inert gas or carbon dioxide would be sourced from a compressor, since gas used for manufacturing processes must be stored in a compressed state and energy is necessary to cause it to flow from one location to another, which reads on “energizing.” However, Tong et al does not teach the powder is metal or ceramic as claimed.
Gibson et al teaches that additive manufacturing is used for developing metals and ceramics (page 9). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the powder in Tong et al would include metal or ceramic particles, since Tong et al and Gibson et al both teach using AM to produce workpieces.
Regarding Claim 27, Tong et al teaches the outlet is in stationarily mounted in the enclosure. The robotic arms may have three or more axes of articulation [0052]. The robotic arms are configured for rotational motion and linear displacement [0049]. The powder removal includes treating recesses in the workpiece [0065], which reads on a hole.
Regarding Claim 30, Tong et al teaches an identification module that analyzes the workpiece data and/or the sensor data to determine whether the powder material and/or debris is present on surfaces of the workpiece using predetermined dimensions [0062-0063].
Regarding Claim 31, Tong et al teaches the enclosure has a low-pressure environment of less than 1 atm [0058], which overlaps the claimed range. The removed mixture is transported to a separation unit including a filtration system [0060]. The temperature can be ambient (~20-25 °C) or cooler [0057], which overlaps with the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists because the prior art discloses the utility of the composition over the entire disclosed range. See MPEP § 2144.05. The enclosure is sealed to impede access [0035], which teaches controlling humidity. However, Tong et al does not teach energizing a compressor connected to a nozzle or the outlet diameter for at least one nozzle as claimed.
Regarding the compressor, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the source of the inert gas or carbon dioxide would be sourced from a compressor in Tong et al, since gas used for manufacturing processes must be stored in a compressed state.
Regarding the size of the nozzle, a particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e., a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation; therefore, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP § 2144.05 II B. In this case, the size of the nozzle in Tong et al is sufficient to carry out the claimed process of depowdering a workpiece.
Regarding Claim 33, Tong et al teaches the housing can contain one or more outlets to create air flow and/or a low-pressure environment [0059], which reads on creating a “vortex’ as claimed.
Regarding Claim 34, Tong et al teaches the controller selectively operates various components including the powder removal device [0043, 0054] by the pressure, spray direction, and duration of cleaning media [0067].
Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tong et al in view of Gibson et al as applied to claim 26 above, and further in view of Nick.
Nick teaches fabricating sinterable metallic parts as represented above in the drawing on page 14 of this Office action. Metal powder is deposited and forms a green part (column 6, lines 7-18). A powder deposition mechanism and print head (column 21, lines 56 and 57) to deposit successive layers (column 22, line 3). A controller executes instructions to control movement of one or more of the metal powder supply and metal powder bed relative to one another as the three-dimensional composition is formed (lines 49-53) with a movable metal powder bed (lines 52-56), which reads on additively layering in a programmed workpiece pattern. Post-processing includes cleaning with pressurized air (column 25, lines 26-29). 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 process of Nick to form the workpiece and sinter the cleaned workpiece in the process of Tong et al in view of Gibson et al, since Nick teaches a process that results in improved ability to handle the metal-based composite structure and improved consistency in metal objects formed from such metal-based composite structures (column 25, lines 16-22).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7, 17, 23, 16, and 25 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 5, 6, 24, 28, 29, 37, and 43 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding Claims 5, 16, 24, 28, and 37, the cited prior art does not suggest a sintering tray to which the workpiece is placed.
Regarding Claims 6 and 24, the cited prior art does not suggest a group of additively manufactured workpieces in the enclosure as claimed.
Regarding Claims 7, 17, 25, and 29, the cited prior art does not suggest moving the workpiece to a tray as claimed.
Regarding Claim 23, the cited prior art does not suggest an outlet for blowing gas mounted on the robot as claimed.
Regarding Claim 43, the cited prior art does not suggest a holding location for additional removal of excess powder as claimed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crabtree et al (US 2021/0221063 A1) teaches removing powder from a powder-based additively manufactured part (abstract). DE 10 2018009041 A1 teaches a method for cleaning three-dimensional objects in a cleaning device (abstract). Salfity et al (US 12,311,605 B2) teaches a reader to extract cleaning instructions associated with a three-dimensional printed object (abstract).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:30 am to 4:00 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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights