Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 .
Restriction/Election
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1 – 10 and 12 in the reply filed on 07/08/26 is acknowledged. Claims 11 and 13 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II and III, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/08/26.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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 – 2, 9 – 10, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Garcia (US 11,571,855)
Regarding claim 1, Garcia teaches a method and system of sorting powdered build material [Title; Col 4, line 1 – 2]. The method comprises:
Formation of an additively manufactured component using successive layers of powdered build material which are selectively solidified and unified with previous layers [Col 1, line 47 – 55].
Meeting the claimed limitation of depositing layers of batch powder and fusing the layers to form a workpiece and excess powder
Collecting the unsolidified build material [Fig 1A.; Col 4, line 1 – 3]
Meeting the claimed limitation of a recovering excess powder from the workpiece
Measuring the color of the extracted powdered build material to generate a signal [Fig 1A., Col 4, line 3 – 5]
Meeting the claimed limitation of concurrently analyzing a color value of the excess powder recovered
Dependent upon the signal, the powder is routed to different storage areas [Fig 1A, Col 4, line 8 – 10]. One storage area can be for recycling the powder wherein it is mixed with fresh material [Col 4, line 15 – 25] and the other storage area can be for powder which is too degraded to be reused [Col 4, line 32 – 42].
Meeting the claimed limitation of distributing the powder based on color value to either reuse by mixing with a portion of supply powder or quarantining the excess powder
Regarding claim 2, Garcia teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Garcia teaches that the signal (i.e., color value) of powder as it passes the sensor [Abstract] is compared against a threshold to determine whether to use the powder in a recycled manner or whether the powder is too degraded to be used [Col 4, line 15 – 25; Col 4, line 32 – 42]. As such the analyzing would include/result in determining whether the powder is to be reused and how much of it is reused versus disposed of, meeting the claimed limitation.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Garcia teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Garcia teaches that a processor can be included which signals to begin collecting powdered build material and sort to a plurality of storage tanks [Col 11, line 35 – 40]. Garcia states that dependent upon the signal, the powder is routed to different storage areas [Fig 1A, Col 4, line 8 – 10]. One storage area can be for recycling the powder wherein it is mixed with fresh material [Col 4, line 15 – 25] and the other storage area can be for powder which is too degraded to be reused [Col 4, line 32 – 42].
This meets the claimed limitation of automatically beginning collecting/recovery of the excess powder (claim 9) and automatically diverting the excess powder away to quarantine it (claim 10).
Regarding claim 12, Garcia teaches a method and system of sorting powdered build material [Title; Col 4, line 1 – 2]. The method comprises:
Formation of an additively manufactured component using successive layers of powdered build material which are selectively solidified and unified with previous layers [Col 1, line 47 – 55].
Meeting the claimed limitation of depositing layers of batch powder and fusing the layers to form a workpiece and excess powder
Collecting the unsolidified build material [Fig 1A.; Col 4, line 1 – 3]
Meeting the claimed limitation of a recovering excess powder from the three-dimensional workpiece
Measuring the color of the extracted powdered build material to generate a signal [Fig 1A., Col 4, line 3 – 5]
Meeting the claimed limitation of concurrently analyzing and assigning a plurality of color values of the excess powder recovered
Dependent upon the signal value and its comparison, the powder is routed to different storage areas [Fig 1A, Col 7, line 24 – 27].
When the signal value is below a threshold the powder is sent to the first storage area [Col 7, line 55 – 64] which can be for recycling the powder by mixing it with fresh material [Col 4, line 15 – 25]. Garcia notes that beyond the threshold the powder is too degraded [Col 4, line 35 – 38].
When it is above the threshold the powder is sent to the second storage area [Col 7, line 55 – 64] and the second storage area can be for powder which is too degraded to be reused [Col 4, line 32 – 42].
This meets the claimed limitations of a usable condition at or below a threshold which is designated as recovered powder and which is concurrently mixed with a supply powder in a ratio. This also meets the claimed limitation of a non-usable condition at greater than a threshold which is designated as waste powder and quarantined.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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 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.
Claims 3 – 4 and 6 – 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US 11,571,855), as applied to claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Garcia teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Garcia teaches that the system/method can possess a plurality/multiple storage tanks that are each associated with one or more qualities (i.e., color values) of powder [Col 13, line 38 – 55]. Garcia teaches an example [Col 13, line 46; Fig 2] in which two storage tanks of two differing qualities of powder are provided for recycling and a third storage tank is provided for powder which has been too degraded. However, Garcia does not expressly disclose an example in which three storage tanks of three different qualities is provided and a fourth storage tank for discharge/disposal is provided.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method/system of Garcia and included 4 (or even more) storage tanks in the process with a reasonable expectation of success in achieving predictable results. Garcia does not provide an upper limit to the amount of storage tanks that can be included and therefore, a reasonable expectation of success would be present. Additionally, the more storage tanks which are included the more precise/narrowly distributed the quality range of each storage tank can be. An ordinarily skilled artisan would appreciate that a narrower distribution of quality within each storage tank would provide a more accurate picture on the necessary mixing ratio to achieve a desired overall quality. As such, the inclusion of an additional storage tank to the example described by Garcia would achieve a predictable result of having 4 storage tanks and would provide a motivation/benefit for modifying the teaching of Garcia.
Garcia suggests in both Fig 1 and Fig 2 that a disposal tank is provided for powder that is too degraded and as such, the other 3 (or more) tanks would be associated with varying levels of quality from best to worst which would necessitate different mixing ratios depending upon the desired overall quality as well as the quality of the recycled powder in each storage tank. This would meet the claimed limitation of a first ratio associated with a first condition (e.g., the best quality and therefore lowest blending ratio), a second ratio associated with a second condition, a third ratio associated with a third condition, and a fourth condition associated with powder too degraded to be reused.
"A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007)”. “Office personnel may also take into account "the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ." Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396.” (MPEP 2141.03 I).
Moreover, it has been held that a mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance without evidence of new or unexpected results. In this case, the mere duplication of storage tanks from the amount disclosed in the prior art is a prima facie case of obviousness without evidence of new and/or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.04 VI B).
Regarding claim 4, Garcia teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Garcia teaches that the mixing ratio is adjusted based on the quality of the powdered build material stored within the respective storage tanks (which is determined by the color value) [Col 4, line 63 – 67]. That is, one such threshold (i.e., “condition” as claimed) is mixed to together with a specific ratio of fresh build material while another threshold indicates a different quality of the recycled powdered build material and is thus mixed together with a different ratio of fresh build material. See [Col 4, line 51 – 56]. As discussed in claim 3, it would have been obvious to have modified Garcia to possess three powdered build material quality “thresholds” for recycling as well as a disposal threshold. Meeting the claimed limitation of a “second ratio” and “second condition”.
Regarding claim 6, Garcia teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Garcia teaches that one such threshold or quality level can be designated as the quality of the powdered build material being so degraded as to be disposed of [Col 4, line 42 – 47; Col 10, line 17 – 21], meeting the claimed limitation of a fourth condition designating excess powder as waste powder and diverting it away.
Regarding claim 7, Garcia teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Garcia teaches that the mixing ratio is adjusted based on the quality of the powdered build material stored within the respective storage tanks (which is determined by the color value) [Col 4, line 63 – 67]. That is, one such threshold (i.e., “condition” as claimed) is mixed to together with a specific ratio of fresh build material while another threshold indicates a different quality of the recycled powdered build material and is thus mixed together with a different ratio of fresh build material. See [Col 4, line 51 – 56]. As discussed in claim 3, it would have been obvious to have modified Garcia to possess three powdered build material quality “thresholds” for recycling as well as a disposal threshold. Meeting the claimed limitation of a “third ratio” and “third condition”.
Regarding claim 8, Garcia teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Garcia teaches that the mixing ratio is adjusted based on the quality of the powdered build material stored within the respective storage tanks (which is determined by the color value) [Col 4, line 63 – 67]. That is, one such threshold (i.e., “condition” as claimed) is mixed to together with a specific ratio of fresh build material while another threshold indicates a different quality of the recycled powdered build material and is thus mixed together with a different ratio of fresh build material. See [Col 4, line 51 – 56]. As discussed in claim 3, it would have been obvious to have modified Garcia to possess three powdered build material quality “thresholds” for recycling as well as a disposal threshold. Meeting the claimed limitation of a “first ratio” and “first condition”.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garcia (US 11,571,855), as applied to claim 3, in further view of Vega (US2021/0053294)
Regarding claim 5, Garcia teaches the invention as applied in claim 3. Garcia discloses that the storage tank(s) can be linked with information related to the quality of the powdered build material and therefore, the mixing ratio. Garcia does not teach or suggest that the mixing ratio is automatically adjusted based on the quality/color value.
Vega teaches an apparatus and method for determining and controlling the quality level of a mixed build material [Abstract]. The mixture can be comprised of recycled build material and fresh build material [0020]. Vega teaches that the method/system possesses a blender which receives the designated amounts of first build material and second build material to achieve a desired quality [0024, 0027, Fig 1]. Additionally, Vega discusses that a controller is used to determine the appropriate mixing ratio based on the quality of the first build material (i.e., recycled build material) and the quality of the second build material (i.e., fresh build material) [0032]. This ratio can be adjusted based on the measured quality versus the expected quality [0032] which can be determined based on the color value [0038]. Vega states that the ratio may be modified in order to obtain the desired quality when it is outside the threshold [0043 – 0045].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have taken the method of Garcia and modified it with the teachings/method of Vega such that the mixing ratios for the one or more storage tanks for recyclable powder was adjusted automatically to achieve an overall quality of blended material within a threshold. Garcia and Vega are directed to the same field of endeavor and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would consider the teachings of Vega to be pertinent to the disclosure of Garcia. Moreover, Garcia expressly discloses that the recycled powder is mixed with fresh build material and as such, an ordinarily skilled artisan would have had a reasonable expectation of success in applying the teachings to Garcia.
Additionally, Garcia expressly recognizes that the mixing ratio of the recycled powder and fresh powder must be adjusted in order to ensure the proper quality of the blend and that this would depend upon the quality level of the recycled powder [Col 4, line 45 – 56]. Garcia also recognizes that the quality of the powered build being captured changes and that this affects the overall quality of the storage tank [Col 10, line 25 – 40]. Therefore, Vega provides a beneficial modification to the disclosure of Garcia by providing a controller/process/sensor system that is connected with the quality (i.e., color value) of the recycled build material, the fresh build material, and the blend produced by the mixer such that when the blend falls outside a parameter/threshold a mixing ratio can be adjusted. This would ensure that the quality of the blended material remained relatively consistent (within a threshold) even when the quality of the recycled build material/storage tank(s) was changing.
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2022/0274180 – Metal powder management system which is closed-loop and involves recycling powder, mixing it with virgin powder, validating the quality of the blend, and adjusting the mixing ratio and other parameters to ensure ongoing quality with the reused blended feedstock
US2021/0354371 – Feedback loop for monitoring the quality of blended feedstock via color and providing adjustments to mixing ratio
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 5).
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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights