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
Applicant's election without traverse of Group l: Claims 1-8 and 11 in the reply filed on 1/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-10 are hereby withdrawn.
IDS
The IDS entered 06/14/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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 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.
Claims 1-3, 6-7 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa of record (US 20210154744 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Ishikawa teaches a process for additive manufacturing of a part by successive deposition of powder layers within a manufacturing machine (ABS, P0006) having a preparation zone of at least one layer (A in annotated fig.4A below) and a consolidation zone of the powder (AM chamber 100, P0031, B in annotated fig.4A below), the preparation zone and the consolidation zone being offset from each other (fig.4A), the process comprising the following steps:
preparing at least one layer comprising at least two zones filled with at least two different powders (P0045-46) in the preparation zone;
moving the at least one layer from the preparation zone into the consolidation zone (P0039-40, fig.4A);
accommodating the at least one layer on either a manufacturing support or on an already consolidated portion of the part (104, fig.4A); and
consolidating at least one portion of the at least one layer by sintering, by melting, or by adding a binder (P0041, “a sintering process, a melting process, or other process to cause the powder to form a solid mass of material”).
While Ishikawa does not explicitly state placing the at least one layer on either a manufacturing support or on an already consolidated portion of the part after moving the at least one layer from the preparation zone into the consolidation zone as in the instant claim, omission of an element and its function where not needed has been held to be obvious, Ex parte Rainu, 168 USPQ 375, and In re Kuhle, 188 USPQ 7. In this case, the layers are built on a build plate that is moved and therefore there is not need to place a layer on the build plate or already consolidated portion as the layers are formed directly on them.
Ishikawa discloses the claimed invention except for placing the at least one layer on either a manufacturing support or on an already consolidated portion. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to omit the placing step, since it has been held that omission of an element and its function in combination where the remaining elements perform the same functions as before involves only routine skill in the art. In the instance case, the omitted element would not be required in that its removal solely eliminates its function of moving a layer, and Ishikawa moves the layers all at once. Further, one would have been motivated to omit the element in order simplify the process.
PNG
media_image1.png
214
538
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.4A of Ishikawa
Regarding claim 2, Ishikawa teaches wherein the steps (a) to (d) are repeated successively so as to form several layers of the part superimposed on each other (P0023).
Regarding claim 3, Ishikawa teaches wherein an inert gas is added to the consolidation zone at least during step (d) (P0036).
Regarding claim 6, Ishikawa teaches wherein, during step (a), at least one first zone is filled with a first powder using a first nozzle (on top of build plate 104), and at least one second zone is filled with a second powder using a second nozzle (area on top of first powder layer, fig.4A, P0045-47).
Regarding claim 7, Ishikawa teaches wherein, in step (a), at least one first zone is filled with a first powder using a first hopper, and at least one second zone is filled with a second powder using a second hopper (fig.4A, P0045-47).
Regarding claim 11, Ishikawa teaches wherein the at least two different powders differ in material and/or particle size from each other (P0046-47).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ishikawa of record (US 20210154744 A1) as applied to claim 7, in view of Hou (US 11007570 B2).
Regarding claim 8, Ishikawa teaches multiple hoppers each containing a shut off valve (P0039, fig.4A, 131, 134) but is silent to each hopper comprising several zones openable and closable independently of each other.
Hou, in the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, teaches wherein each hopper comprises several zones openable and closable independently of each other (Fig.5A, 106a, col.17, ll53-65).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the hoppers of Ishikawa to have multiple zones openable and closable independently of each other to arrive at the claimed invention since the skilled artisan would have expected the ability to selectively dispense powder along the Y-axis without requiring relative motion between the dispenser and the platform as taught by Hou (col.17, ll60-65).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claims 4-5, Ishikawa teaches a tray having the at least one layer is moved into the consolidation zone during step (b) wherein the at least one layer is prepared in the tray (plate 104, P0039-40, fig.4A), but is silent to wherein, during step (a), different powder types are deposited in distinct cells of a tray and wherein the tray is equipped with a bottom that is at least in part movable, wherein the bottom blocks the cells during steps (a) and (b), and wherein the bottom is moved so as to free the cells during step (c) to allow the release by gravity of the powder contained in the freed cells.
None of the prior art alone or in combination disclose these features as claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741