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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues (pg. 6) that “modifying the robotic arm Newell to be fixed would render the robotic arm of Newell useless, In fact, it would cause the build platform described in Newell to lack linear axis and cause the robotic arm to be incapable of printing three dimensional layers as described in Newell” but this is not found persuasive. In fact, the combination proposed in the rejection allows for additional axis movement in the build platform while maintaining the capabilities in the robotic deposition arm. The claim requires only a controller to hold the deposition unit stationary while moving the print surface, and the combination renders this obvious. This can be achieved in the device of Newell with software holding the robotic arm stationary while using a build platform that moves taught by Selter. Although this may not be a preferred embodiment of Newell, it is an obvious intended use of the apparatus that does not render it inoperable. “The use of patents as references is not limited to what the patentees describe as their own inventions or to the problems with which they are concerned. They are part of the literature of the art, relevant for all they contain.” In re Heck, 699 F.2d 1331, 1332-33, 216 USPQ 1038, 1039 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (quoting In re Lemelson, 397 F.2d 1006, 1009, 158 USPQ 275, 277 (CCPA 1968)).
Applicant argues “Newell's build platform cannot move in X, Y or Z axis, but rather can only tilt and/or spin. A printer that can only tilt and spin cannot extrude a three dimensional object layer by layer. Therefore, if the robotic arm of Newell is stationary, then it cannot print a three-dimensional structure because it cannot perform the necessary movements” but this is not found persuasive. Although it is true that Newell teaches a tilt and spin build platform, Selter teaches an X, Y, Z motorized build platform, see para. [0041] and Fig. 1. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant argues “Modifying Newell to be stationary does not improve gravity utilization, but rather restricts the system's ability to reach the part as it tilts. In fact, if stationary, it would reduce the degrees of freedom available to orient the part relative to gravity and contradicting the reasoned motivation to combine references” but this is not found persuasive. Examiner notes that after the proposed modification of Newell (i.e. holding the print head stationary) the print head of Newell may be in a fixed and tilted position, where the effects of gravity remain relevant. Examiner notes that the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Applicant argues (pg. 7) “neither Newell nor Selter teach or suggest ‘filaments of a build material paste.’ As understood by one of skill in the art, a ‘paste’ is a viscous suspension or slurry” but this is not found persuasive. Independent claims 1 and 14 recite “deposition of filaments of a build material paste”, “deposition of the filaments by the deposition unit” and “deposition of the filaments”. Thus, the present claims do not clearly recite the viscosity of the material to be deposited as a paste. Newell teaches extrusion head 104 for printing parts from a filament feed stock, [0050], Selter teaches either a filament or a generic extrusion of material, see claim 3 of Selter. Thus, either or both references meet an apparatus capable of extruding the claimed “filament”.
Applicant argues (pg. 8) “one of skill in the art understands that a paste would typically require a reservoir” but this is not found persuasive. Firstly, para. [0033] of the instant specification discloses that a reservoir is not required in the present claimed invention. Secondly, Examiner notes that a reservoir is not claimed in either independent claim 1 or 14 and the terms “filaments of a build material paste” and “deposition of the filaments by the deposition unit” are understood to include filament stock materials. In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “a reservoir”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Regarding claim 10, the claimed reservoir is met by Selter teaching the build material to be stored in a hopper, tank, cartridge, container, spool, or other similar material holder [0032]. Thus, Selter contemplates materials of different viscosity requiring different storage (tank or spool).
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8-10, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (US 2019/0210286) in view of Selter (US 2021/0268725 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Newell meets the claimed additive manufacturing system for manufacturing one or more three-dimensional structures, (multi-axis robotic build system 100 that may be used for building three-dimensional (3D) parts, Fig. 1, [0049]) the system comprising: at least one deposition unit (Newell teaches robotic arm 102 carries a print head 104) including one or more nozzles arranged for dispensing a build material through an opening area thereof on a print surface; (build sheet 310, Fig. 3) a controller configured to operate the system (controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, [0052]) for deposition of filaments of a build material paste (extrusion head 104 for printing parts from a filament feed stock, [0050]) on the print surface in an interconnected arrangement in a plurality of stacked layers in order to form the one or more three-dimensional structures; (a 3D printer creates a 3D printed part in a layer-by-layer manner [0004]) and an actuation unit (Build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, also providing 6-axis movement, [0051]. Examiner notes the robotic arm of build platform 106 meet the claimed “actuation unit”) arranged to have printing access to the at least one deposition unit, wherein the actuation unit is configured to hold the print surface; (build sheet 310, Fig. 3) and wherein the controller is configured to control the actuation unit so as to move the print surface at the at least one deposition unit during deposition of the filaments by the deposition unit, (controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, [0052]).
Newell does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more nozzles of the at least one deposition unit are arranged to remain stationary during the deposition of the filaments.
Selter teaches wherein the one or more nozzles of the at least one deposition unit are arranged to remain stationary during the deposition of the filaments. Selter teaches alternatively, the motors 28 may move the build platform 14 (and hence the part 100) while the material deposition device 24 remains stationary, see [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use a stationary deposition head as taught by Selter in the apparatus of Newell where build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, because utilizing gravity to print the 3D part reduces or eliminates the need for support structure to account and compensate for the effects of gravity, see Newell [0057].
Regarding claim 2, Newell as modified by Selter meets the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 1, wherein the actuation unit and the at least one deposition unit are physically connectable to each other via a same base during a printing process.(Newell depicts robotic arm 102 and build platform 106 to share a base, see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, Newell as modified by Selter and Meess meets the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one deposition unit is free of a dedicated movable printing surface arranged in said at least one deposition unit. (Newell teaches robotic arm 102 carries a print head 104, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 9, Newell as modified by Selter and Meess meets the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 1, wherein the print surface is a detachable carrier. (Newell teaches build sheet 310 is removably adhered to the build platform 106, [0074], Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 10, Newell as modified by Selter does not meet the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one deposition unit includes a reservoir containing build material usable for deposition through the opening area of the one or more nozzles and/or a material providing unit configured to prepare and/or provide the build material, and wherein the reservoir and/or the material providing unit are arranged at the one or more nozzles of the at least one deposition unit.
Selter teaches wherein the at least one deposition unit includes a reservoir containing build material (additive manufacturing material reserve 16 retains additive manufacturing material 102 and may be a hopper, tank, cartridge, container, spool, or other similar material holder [0032]) usable for deposition through the opening area of the one or more nozzles and/or a material providing unit configured to prepare and/or provide the build material, and wherein the reservoir and/or the material providing unit are arranged at the one or more nozzles of the at least one deposition unit.
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 material reserve of Selter with the additive manufacturing apparatus of Newell in order to provide amble material for printing objects, see Selter [0032].
Regarding claim 14, Newell meets the claimed method for manufacturing one or more three-dimensional structures, ([0085] method of printing a part according to an embodiment of the present disclosure includes printing a part along a single tool path using a robotic arm capable of moving in six axes) the method comprising: dispensing, by means of at least one deposition unit with one or more nozzles, (an extrusion head 104 for printing parts from a filament feed stock [0050]) a build material on a print surface; operating, by means of a controller, (controller 108 contains software and hardware for controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, [0052]) the system for deposition of filaments of a build material paste on the print surface in an interconnected arrangement in a plurality of stacked layers in order to form the one or more three-dimensional structures; (a 3D printer creates a 3D printed part in a layer-by-layer manner [0004]) and providing an actuation unit arranged to have printing access to the at least one deposition unit, the actuation unit holding the print surface, (Build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, also providing 6-axis movement, [0051]. Examiner notes the robotic arm of build platform 106 meet the claimed “actuation unit”) and wherein the actuation unit moves the print surface at the at least one deposition unit during deposition of the filaments by said deposition unit. (controlling the motion of the robotic arm 102 and the build platform 106, [0052]).
Newell does not explicitly teach wherein the one or more nozzles of the at least one deposition unit are arranged to remain stationary during the deposition of the filaments.
Selter teaches wherein the one or more nozzles of the at least one deposition unit are arranged to remain stationary during the deposition of the filaments. Selter teaches alternatively, the motors 28 may move the build platform 14 (and hence the part 100) while the material deposition device 24 remains stationary, see [0041].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to use a stationary deposition head as taught by Selter in the apparatus of Newell where build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, Utilizing gravity to print the 3D part reduces or eliminates the need for support structure to account and compensate for the effects of gravity, see Newell [0057].
Claim(s) 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (US 2019/0210286) in view of Selter (US 20210268725 A1) and in further view of Meess (US 2018/0253080 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Newell as modified by Selter does not meet the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 1, wherein the system comprises a plurality of deposition units, wherein each of the plurality of the deposition units is accessible by the actuation unit for printing.
Meess meets the claimed wherein the system comprises a plurality of deposition units, wherein each of the plurality of the deposition units is accessible by the actuation unit for printing. Meess teaches a multi-tool manufacturing system 100, e.g., two fused filament fabrication (FFF) systems. The multi-tool manufacturing system 100 includes a build platform 106, one or more robot carriages 108a-108b, one or more platform carriages, e.g., platform carriage 110 of FIG. 1B, one or more robots 112a-112b, see [0024]. The multiple robots can use a filament of a material 114 that is fed to a hot end 116a or 116b of an extruder [0033].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the present application to duplicate the deposition units of Newell to have two separate deposition units as taught by Meess in order to can minimize or eliminate visible seams while strengthening the seams between build portions and reduce fabrication time by using multiple additive manufacturing robots that operate simultaneously in contiguous regions of a single printed part without colliding, see [0012].
Regarding claim 4, Newell as modified by Selter and Meess meets the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 3, wherein the system comprises a first deposition unit and a second deposition unit, wherein the first and second deposition units are different; (Meess teaches multiple robots can use a filament of a material 114 that is fed to a hot end 116a or 116b of an extruder [0033]) and wherein the actuation unit is configured to manipulate the print surface so as to perform a first part of a printing process at the first deposition unit, and to manipulate the print surface so as to perform a second part of the printing process at the second deposition unit. (Meess teaches the robots can automatically place objects made, modified, or located in one region of the build volume into another region of the build volume to perform additional manufacturing operations [0038]).
Regarding claim 5, Newell as modified by Selter and Meess meets the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 3, wherein the plurality of deposition units are arranged around the actuation unit. (Meess depicts deposition unites 122a and 112b around the build platform 106, Fig. 1D).
Regarding claim 6, Newell as modified by Selter and Meess does not meet the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 3, wherein each of the plurality of deposition units have a substantially same distance from the actuation unit.
Meess teaches wherein each of the plurality of deposition units have a substantially same distance from the actuation unit. Mees teaches adjacent portions can be a specified distance apart so that when the two or more additive manufacturing robots deposit filament at the edges of the adjacent portions the filament overlaps to bond or merge the adjacent portions at a seam.
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 distance of each manufacturing robot of Newell as modified by Meess to meet the claimed same distance from the actuation unit in order to bond or merge the adjacent portions at a seam, see Meess [0051].
Regarding claim 7, Newell as modified by Selter and Meess meets the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 3, wherein the actuation unit is movably arranged between the plurality of deposition units. (Newell teaches build platform 106 could also comprise an additional robotic arm, also providing 6-axis movement, [0051]. Examiner notes the robotic arm of build platform 106 meet the claimed “actuation unit”. Meess depicts deposition unites 122a and 112b around the build platform 106, Fig. 1D).
Claim(s) 11-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Newell (US 2019/0210286) in view of Selter (US 2021/0268725 A1) and in further view of Horn (US 2020/0070421 A1).
Regarding claim 11, Newell as modified by Selter does not meet the claimed
additive manufacturing system according to claim 1, wherein the actuation unit is a robotic unit controlled by a controller to perform one or more additional processing steps, the additional processing including at least one of: plate handling, inspection, cleaning or repositioning.
Horn teaches wherein the actuation unit is a robotic unit controlled by a controller to perform one or more additional processing steps, the additional processing including at least one of: plate handling, inspection, cleaning or repositioning.
Horn teaches a robot operatively associated with each of the cleaning apparatus and at least two additive manufacturing apparatuses [0007], [0061], Fig. 2-3. Where the effector (17) is operatively associated with the robot, the end effector configured to (releasably engage (e.g., lift and move) the build platforms, [0063].
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 cleaning apparatus and robot to move build platforms of Horn with the additive manufacturing apparatus of Newell because it allows for a reasonably compact size and their ability to serve more than one additive manufacturing apparatus, see [0061].
Regarding claim 12, Newell as modified by Selter does not meet the claimed additive manufacturing system according to claim 1, wherein the system further includes a treatment station, wherein the controller is configured to control the actuation unit actuation unit so as to directly transport the printing surface with printed one or more three-dimensional structures to the treatment station.
Horn teaches wherein the system further includes a treatment station, wherein the controller is configured to control the actuation unit actuation unit so as to directly transport the printing surface with printed one or more three-dimensional structures to the treatment station. Horn teaches a robot operatively associated with each of the cleaning apparatus and at least two additive manufacturing apparatuses [0007], [0061], Fig. 2-3. Where the effector (17) is operatively associated with the robot, the end effector configured to (releasably engage (e.g., lift and move) the build platforms, [0063].
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 cleaning apparatus and robot to move build platforms of Horn with the additive manufacturing apparatus of Newell because it allows for a reasonably compact size and their ability to serve more than one additive manufacturing apparatus, see [0061].
Regarding claim 13, Newell as modified by Selter and does not meet the claimed
additive manufacturing system according to claim 1, wherein the controller is configured to control the actuation unit so as to hold multiple printing surfaces at a same time for simultaneous printing at multiple different deposition units.
Horn teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the actuation unit so as to hold multiple printing surfaces at a same time for simultaneous printing at multiple different deposition units. Horn teaches a six additive manufacturing apparatus included for a single cleaner (n=6 in FIG. 3) [0065], and a controller to operate the build platform and additive manufacturing apparatuses, [0094].
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 cleaning apparatus and robot to move build platforms of Horn with the additive manufacturing apparatus of Newell because it allows for a reasonably compact size and their ability to serve more than one additive manufacturing apparatus, see [0061].
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Houben (US 2015/0290878 A1) teaches a production line (200) for layerwise manufacturing of tangible products is shown in FIG. 9, [0083], pick and place unit (214) for replacing products that have been tooled while being removed from the conveyor.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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