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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 2 and 9-10 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 2 recites the limitation “at least two contact support regions” in lines 1-2). There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the “at least one contact support region” (claim 1 lines 8-9), or (2) another new at least two contact support regions. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “a control unit” in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “a tool-internal or tool-external control unit” (claim 1 line 6), or (2) another new control unit. Instant Specification does not seem to support the latter case (see [0043, 0046] of Instant Specification, as published). For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “at least one removal tool” in line 2. There is ambiguous antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the limitation means (1) the same as “at least one removal tool” (claim 6 lines 2-3), or (2) another new at least one removal tool. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitations of “the at least one compressed air nozzle device” (lines 2-3) and “the vibration application device” (line 3). There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. Of note, claim 9 is not dependent from claim 8. For the purpose of examination, the limitations would be interpreted as “at least one compressed air nozzle device” and “ a vibration application device,” respectively.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “so that a removal process and a cleaning process may be carried out” in lines 4-5. It is unclear whether the recited processes are carried out or not, i.e., whether the limitation are part of the claimed invention or not. For the purpose of examination, either of these interpretations would read on the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitations of “the control unit” (line 1), “the removal process and cleaning process” (line 2), and “the camera device” (line 3). There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitations in the claim. Of note, claim 10 is not dependent from claim 7, 8, and/or 9. For the purpose of examination, the limitations would be interpreted as “a control unit”, “a removal process and a cleaning process”, and “a camera device,” respectively.
Appropriate correction or clarification is required.
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.
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.
Examiner wishes to point out to applicant that claims are directed towards an apparatus and as such will be examined under such conditions.
The limitations which are directed to articles or products worked upon by the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2115 and In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) for further details.
The limitations which are directed to intended uses or capabilities of the claimed apparatus are only given patentable weight to the extent which effects the structure of the claimed invention. Please see MPEP 2114, Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) and Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) for further details.
Claims 1-6 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMuth (US 20170120387 A1) in view of Powell (US 20230020113 A1).
Regarding claim 1, DeMuth teaches a removal tool (manipulator 512) to remove from a powder bed at least one component manufactured via 3D printing methods (figs. 5A-C; [0093]; of note, here, the preamble “to remove from a powder bed at least one component manufactured via 3D printing methods” is directed to intended use of the removal tool), the removal tool comprising:
a connection unit to couple the removal tool to an at least partially automated movement device (figs. 5A-C; [0093]: a portion of the manipulator 512, which is connected to a robotic arm; of note, the limitation “an at least partially automated movement device” is not directed to a component of the removal tool as being presented in the claim);
a removal unit adapted to be coupled to the connection unit and controlled via a tool-internal or tool-external control unit, for removing, from the powder bed, the at least one component manufactured via 3D printing methods (figs. 5A-C; [0093-0094]: a portion of the manipulator 512, which grasps a 3D printed part 530 such as clamping graspers, cranes, hydraulic arms, clamps, tracks or rails, pinning mechanisms, or any other type of manually or automatically controllable manipulation device can be used; [0064]: control processor 150 can be connected to any components of additive manufacturing system; of note, (1) the limitation “controlled via a tool-internal or tool-external control unit, for removing, from the powder bed, the at least one component manufactured via 3D printing methods” directed to intended use and/or capability of the removal unit does not further effect the structure of the claimed invention, MPEP 2114, and (2) the limitation “a tool-internal or tool-external control unit” is not directed to a component of the removal tool as being presented in the claim),
wherein the removal unit is at least partially movable in at least one contact support region (e.g., clamping/grasping region(s) that contact the part 530) facing the component to be removed during a removal process for the purpose of lifting the component [from below] so that a defined removal process is effected via the removal tool (figs. 5A-C; [0093-0094, 0096-0097]; here, when the printed part 530 is lifted from a powder bed 504 of a powder chamber 502, and further reoriented or relocated, the powders remaining on the printed part 530 are removed).
DeMuth does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above, i.e., for the purpose of lifting the component [from below], but Powell teaches the limitation(s) as follows:
Powell teaches a system for lifting a deformable object including a support structure and two pairs of opposing arms coupled to the support structure (fig. 1; abstract; claim 1). The system 100 includes a removal unit (as shown in fig. 1, at least excluding a coupling mechanism 118) that is at least partially movable in at least one contact support region (at least including a plurality of pairs of arms 120 and corresponding inclined surfaces 130) facing a deformable object to be moved for the purpose of lifting the object from below (figs. 1, 3-8; [0042-0045]; fig. 2 and [0051]: controller 146).
In the same field of endeavor of a system for mechanical holding/lifting of an object (DeMuth: figs. 5A-C and [0093-0097]; Powell: abstract, fig. 1), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the clamping/grasping/lifting unit (i.e., “the removal unit” as recited) and its control unit of DeMuth with a plurality of arms and a plurality of inclined surface located thereto, respectively, and its corresponding control unit as taught by Powell in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of clamping/grasping/ lifting an object safely from a bottom, which can be easily deformable or fragile, so as to minimize undesired impacts or damages on the object (Powell: derived from [0003, 0086]).
Regarding claim 2, modified DeMuth teaches the removal tool according to claim 1, wherein the removal tool includes at least two contact support regions (at least including a plurality of pairs of arms 120 and corresponding inclined surfaces 130) designed to be movable separately from each other (Powell: figs. 1, 3-8; claim 1; [0042-0045]; [0005]: each of the first/second pairs of opposing arms independently closes a distance; [0023]: each of the inclined surfaces independently move a distance).
Regarding claim 3, modified DeMuth teaches the removal tool according to claim 1, wherein the at least one contact support region (at least including a plurality of pairs of arms 120 and corresponding inclined surfaces 130) is a finger element protruding from the removal tool (Powell: figs. 1, 3-8; claim 1; [0042-0045]).
Regarding claim 4, modified DeMuth teaches the removal tool according to claim 1, wherein the at least one contact support region (at least including a plurality of pairs of arms 120 and corresponding inclined surfaces 130) has an essentially tapered end region in a region facing the powder bed so that the removal unit dips into the powder bed in a defined manner (DeMuth: figs. 5A-C and [0093-0097]; Powell: figs. 1, 3-8; claim 1; [0042-0045]; of note, here, the removal unit of modified DeMuth is capable of being dipped into the powder bed to grasp and lift the printed object).
Regarding claim 5, modified DeMuth teaches the removal tool according to claim 1, wherein the tool-internal or tool-external control unit comprises a movement program, which is designed to at least partially require defined removal processes, depending on design data of the components (DeMuth: figs. 5A-C; [0093-0094]: automatically controllable manipulation device can be used; [0064]: control processor 150 can be connected to any components of additive manufacturing system; Powell: fig. 2 and [0054]: a controller 146; figs. 15-16 and [0093-0094, 0097, 0101]: the computing device 700 having processing element 705 and memory 710, and the memory is capable of storing programs, codes, codes, machine code, or any other information). Of note, (1) the limitation “the tool-internal or tool-external control unit” is not directed to a component of the removal tool as being presented in claim 1, (2) the control unit of modified DeMuth is capable of “comprising a movement program, which is designed to at least partially require defined removal processes, depending on design data of the components” as this limitation is directed to intended use and/or capability of the control unit and does not further effect the structure of the claimed invention, MPEP 2114, and (3) “a movement program” is directed to “software per se” which does not belong to a patentable subject matter without other structural elements. See MPEP 2106.03 and 2181.
Regarding claim 6, modified DeMuth teaches a removal system (DeMuth: figs. 5A-C and [0093-0097]: system 500) for removing, from a powder bed, and cleaning at least one component manufactured via 3D printing methods, the system comprising at least one removal tool according to claim 1 (see above, the 35 U.S. C. 103 rejection of claim 1).
Regarding claim 2, modified DeMuth teaches the removal system according to claim 6, wherein the system further comprises at least one compressed air nozzle device and/or a vibration application device (DeMuth: [0062]: unwanted material can be removed for disposable or recycling by use of blowers, vacuum systems, sweeping, vibrating, shaking, tipping, or inversion of the bed 146; of note, here, a vibrating application device is implied).
Claims 7 and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DeMuth (US 20170120387 A1) in view of Powell (US 20230020113 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Menold (DE 102018206358 A1).
Regarding claims 7 and 9-10, modified DeMuth teaches the removal system according to claim 6, wherein the system further comprises [at least one camera device], wherein the system further comprises a control unit (DeMuth: fig. 2 and [0051]: controller 146; figs. 5A-C and [0094]: automatically controllable manipulation device; Powell: fig. 2 and [0051]: controller 146), which is designed to control at least one removal tool, [the at least one compressed air nozzle device], and the vibration application device (DeMuth: [0062]: removal of powder by vibrating or shaking), at least partially depending on each other, so that a removal process and a cleaning process may be carried out, or wherein the control unit is further designed to control the removal process and cleaning process at least partially [via image recordings provided by the camera device], but does not specifically teach the bracketed limitation(s) as presented above.
Menold teaches a cleaning device for powder removal in an additive manufacturing plant, and the cleaning device includes an interface for transferring object data and a powder removal device. (figs. 1-2; [0001]). The cleaning device includes at least one camera device (fig. 1; [0035]: integrated sensors 21 such as a camera for determining object data) and/or at least one compressed air nozzle device (fig. 2; [0037-0039]: blow-off units 18), and a control unit is designed to control the devices for a cleaning/removal process ([0032]: a planning module 12; [0035]: a camera in communication with the planning module 12 for determining object data; [0038-0039]: the blow-off units 18 are variable and adjustable by the planning module 12).
In the same field of endeavor of powder-based additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of the ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing invention the additive manufacturing system of modified DeMuth to further include at least one camera device, and/or at least one compressed air nozzle device, along with its control unit in order to obtain known results or a reasonable expectation of successful results of removing residual powders in a necessary cleaning step to prepare a printed object for subsequent processing such as relocating, grasping, lifting, conveying, or packing so as to ensure proper functionality and quality of the printed object (Menold: derived from [0003, 0010-0013]). Upon the modification, the control device is capable of “controlling at least one removal tool, the at least one compressed air nozzle device, and the vibration application device, at least partially depending on each other, so that a removal process and a cleaning process may be carried out” or “controlling the removal process and cleaning process at least partially via image recordings provided by the camera device” as recited (DeMuth: fig. 2 and [0051]: controller 146; figs. 5A-C and [0094]: automatically controllable manipulation device; Powell: fig. 2 and [0051]: controller 146; Menold: [0032, 0035, 0038-0039]), and the recited limitations are directed to intended use or capability of the control unit and does not further effect the structure of the claimed invention, MPEP 2114. Also, of note, a control unit "designed to" perform the recited functional limitation(s) is directed to intended use or capability of the control unit as presented above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kiener (US 20190193148 A1) teaches a method for removing filling material from a cavity in a manufactured component using a vibrator attached on a robotic arm (abstract, fig. 1, [0014, 0043-0044]).
Atwi (US 20230077236 A) teaches an automated additive manufacturing production (AAMP) system including one or more stations configured to perform one or more routines such as cleaning and removing residual powders (abstract, figs. 2-3).
Karri (US 20230086488 A1) teaches a 3D printing assembly system including a robotic arm 140 with a gripper and a vision monitoring system 150 (abstract, fig. 2, [0019-0022]).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to INJA SONG whose telephone number is (571)270-1605. The examiner can normally be reached Mon. - Fri. 8 AM - 5 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, Xiao (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.
/INJA SONG/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights