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 1-14, drawn to “A build plate for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system” and “A powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, classified in B22F12/37.
II. Claims 15-20, drawn to “A method of making an annular part with a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, classified in B33Y10/00.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions of Groups I and II are related as apparatuses and process 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 apparatuses as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatuses as claimed can be used to practice materially different processes such as a PBF AM method which sinters the powder by a single beam source instead of an array.
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 inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification
--the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter
--the inventions require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of a 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 in order 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.
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, in order 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.
During a telephone conversation with George Romanik on 5/8/2026, a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of “A build plate for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system” and “A powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, claims 1-14. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 15-20 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 cancellation 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).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-14 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18758428 in view of Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), Goodwin (US20200346407A1), Phillips (WO2021003256A1), and Holford (US20180345378A1).
For claims 1-14, an obvious rationale for the combination of the prior art of Corsmeier exists to improve a PBF AM system, as Corsmeier teaches an annular build plate with inner and outer radius walls; a build head for a PBF AM apparatus and details its components. Corsmeier teaches the build head comprises a powder delivery mechanism, a recoater, and an optical array over an annular build plate, with relative rotation between the build head and build plate. Corsmeier teaches the array comprises multiple energy sources, and can be laser or electron beam-type. Corsmeier also teaches the claim elements of an inert gas flow across the irradiation zones and that the build head covers the build area and translates in the z-direction as it rotates.
For claims 1-14, a rationale for the combination of the prior art of Goodwin exists, as Goodwin teaches relative rotation between a rotating circular build plate and a stationary overhead build unit; build plate can translate in the z-direction and moves with a build piston.
For claims 7-14, a rationale for the combination of the prior art of Phillips exists, as Phillips teaches the build head can comprise a preheater.
For claim 10, a rationale for the combination of the prior art of Holford exists, as Holford teaches the build head can be configured to translate radially to cover the build area.
Claim 1 of copending Application No. 18758428 is not identical to, but teaches all elements of claims 2 & 3.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Objections
Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: lack of antecedent basis and typographical errors.
In line 10, the phrase “the melt pool” lacks antecedent basis, while line 13 cites the phrase “a melt pool”. These phrases should be exchanged to correct the lack of antecedent basis error.
In lines 14 & 15, the word ‘and’ is repeated. Please amend to “and .
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 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 non-obviousness.
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 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), in view of Goodwin (US20200346407A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A build plate for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, wherein the build plate is an annular build plate comprising: an inner radius wall; and an outer radius wall, wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall define a build area on the annular build plate between the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall; and wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on a build piston and to move in concert with the build piston, wherein the build piston is configured to rotate around a drive shaft in a continuous circular motion and to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Corsmeier teaches a build plate (Fig. 2A, items 222, 224, 228) for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system (Fig. 2A), wherein the build plate is an annular build plate comprising: an inner radius wall (Fig. 2A, item 224); and an outer radius wall (Fig. 2A, item 222), wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall define a build area on the annular build plate between the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall [0035].
Corsmeier teaches relative rotation between the build head (Fig. 2A, item 208) and built plate (Fig. 2A, item 202), as the build head above the annular build plate will rotate (Fig. 2A, item 236) around the plate central axis to layerwise build an annular product [0035-0036].
Corsmeier is silent on relative rotation between the build head and built plate created by a moving build plate and a stationary build head, wherein a build piston is configured to rotate around a drive shaft in a continuous circular motion and to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate, wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston.
However, the prior art of Goodwin teaches relative rotation between a rotating circular build plate and a stationary overhead build unit. Goodwin teaches a build piston (Fig. 1A, item 26B) is configured to rotate around a drive shaft (Fig. 1A, item 28B) in a continuous circular motion, wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston [0057]. Goodwin teaches the build piston is configured to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate, by teaching “the powder bed 426 or the top assembly is continuously moved along the Z axis while printing to maintain a substantially constant height [0058-0059, 0132]”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the build piston with rotating build plate, taught by Goodwin, in place of the rotating means for the build unit taught by Corsmeier, to predictably result in matching function while providing relative rotation between the build unit and the build plate by a different moving section of the apparatus. This modification could be selected as desired or based on the available equipment for building the PBF AM apparatus.
2. A powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: an annular build plate including an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall, wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall define a build area on the annular build plate between the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall; a build piston configured to rotate around a drive shaft in a continuous circular motion and to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate; wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston.
With respect to claim 2, the prior art of Corsmeier teaches a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system (Fig. 2A), comprising: an annular build plate (Fig. 2A, items 222, 224, 228) including an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall, (Fig. 2A, item 224) and an outer radius wall (Fig. 2A, item 222), wherein the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall define a build area on the annular build plate between the inner radius wall and the outer radius wall [0035].
Corsmeier teaches relative rotation between the build head (Fig. 2A, item 208) and built plate (Fig. 2A, item 202), as the build head above the annular build plate will rotate (Fig. 2A, item 236) around the plate central axis to layerwise build an annular product [0035-0036].
Corsmeier is silent on relative rotation between the build head and built plate created by a moving build plate and a stationary build head, wherein a build piston is configured to rotate around a drive shaft in a continuous circular motion and to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate, wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston.
However, the prior art of Goodwin teaches relative rotation between a rotating circular build plate and a stationary overhead build unit. Goodwin teaches a build piston (Fig. 1A, item 26B) is configured to rotate around a drive shaft (Fig. 1A, item 28B) in a continuous circular motion, wherein the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston [0057]. Goodwin teaches the build piston is configured to translate up and down with respect to the annular build plate, by teaching “the powder bed 426 or the top assembly is continuously moved along the Z axis while printing to maintain a substantially constant height [0058-0059, 0132]”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute the build piston with rotating build plate, taught by Goodwin, in place of the rotating means for the build unit taught by Corsmeier, to predictably result in matching function while providing relative rotation between the build unit and the build plate by a different moving section of the apparatus. This modification could be selected as desired or based on the available equipment for building the PBF AM apparatus.
3. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 2, further comprising: a build powder delivery mechanism configured to deliver build powder to the build area to form a build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; a recoater configured to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; and an optical array positioned over the build area on the build plate, wherein the optical array is configured to project energy onto the build powder bed to form a melt pool in the build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 3, Corsmeier teaches a build powder delivery mechanism (Fig. 2B, item 214) configured to deliver build powder (Fig. 2B, item 230) to the build area to form a build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0038]; a recoater (Fig. 2B, item 216) configured to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0035]; an optical array (Fig. 2B, item 212 – the rectangle above the beam with angle θ, see Fig 2A, item 212) positioned over the build area on the build plate, wherein the optical array is configured to project energy onto the build powder bed to form a melt pool in the build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0043].
4. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 3, wherein the optical array includes a plurality of energy sources configured to project energy onto the build powder bed.
With respect to claim 4, Corsmeier teaches the optical array can comprise a plurality of energy sources [0043] configured to project energy onto the build powder bed [0038].
5. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of energy sources comprises lasers.
With respect to claim 5, Corsmeier teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources can be a laser [0017, 0036].
6. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 4, wherein the plurality of energy sources comprises electron beam sources.
With respect to claim 6, Corsmeier teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources can be an electron beam source [0017, 0036].
Claims 7-9 & 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), in view of Goodwin (US20200346407A1), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 3, and further in view of Phillips (WO2021003256A1; of record from 1/29/2025 IDS). Claim elements are presented in italics.
7. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 3, further comprising: a build powder preheater configured to preheat build powder after distribution by the recoater and before formation of the melt pool.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Corsmeier teaches a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: a powder delivery mechanism, a recoater, and an irradiation beam directing mechanism.
Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin, is silent on a build powder preheater configured to preheat build powder after distribution by the recoater and before formation of the melt pool.
However, the prior art of Phillips teaches a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system embodiment wherein an integrated and rotating build head assembly can comprise a powder depositor, an irradiation device, a preheat device (Fig. 1B, item 16), a cooler device, and a temperature measurement device [0071, 0210].
Phillips teaches “the preheat device preheats the powder particles 12 to inhibit smoking of the powder particles 12 when they are subsequently melted by the irradiation device 22 [0074]”. Phillips teaches ‘in one embodiment, the pre-heat device 16 extends along a pre-heat axis (direction) 16B and is arranged between the powder supply device 18 and the irradiation device 22 along the movement direction 26A [0072]”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known pre-heating device to preheat powder prior to irradiation melting, taught by Phillips, to improve the similar PBF system, taught by Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin, in the same way. Phillips teaches an advantage of preheating the powder is to inhibit smoking of the powder particles during irradiation melting.
8. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 2, further comprising: a build head that includes: a powder delivery mechanism configured to deliver build powder to the build area to form a build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; a recoater configured to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; a build powder preheater configured to preheat build powder after distribution by the recoater and before formation of a melt pool; an optical array positioned over the build area on the build plate, wherein the optical array is configured to project energy onto the build powder bed to form the melt pool in the build powder bed when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation; and a gas manifold configured to direct a flow of inert gas across the optical array when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 8, Corsmeier teaches a build head (Figs. 2B & 2C; item 208) for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: a powder delivery mechanism (Fig. 2B, item 214) configured to deliver build powder to a build area of an annular build plate to form a build powder bed with relative rotation between the build head and build plate when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0040]; a recoater (Fig. 2B, item 216) configured to provide even distribution of the build powder in the build powder bed with relative rotation between the build head and build plate when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0035, 0040]; and an irradiation beam directing mechanism, which can be an optical array (Fig. 2B, item 212 – the rectangle above the beam with angle θ, see Fig 2A, item 212; [0043]), positioned over the build area on the build plate [0040], wherein the optical array is configured to project energy onto the build powder bed to form a melt pool in the build powder bed with relative rotation between the build head and build plate when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation [0038].
Corsmeier teaches “a build unit having a laser beam irradiation mechanism may advantageously include a gas-flow mechanism with gas inlet(s) and outlet(s) providing a substantially laminar gas flow in a gas-flow zone to a build area on the powder bed [0048]”. Corsmeier teaches the gas atmosphere of the build chamber can be inert [0046].
Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin, is silent on a build powder preheater configured to preheat build powder after distribution by the recoater and before formation of the melt pool.
However, the prior art of Phillips teaches a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system embodiment wherein an integrated and rotating build head assembly can comprise a powder depositor, an irradiation device, a preheat device (Fig. 1B, item 16), a cooler device, and a temperature measurement device [0071, 0210].
Phillips teaches “the preheat device preheats the powder particles 12 to inhibit smoking of the powder particles 12 when they are subsequently melted by the irradiation device 22 [0074]”. Phillips teaches ‘in one embodiment, the pre-heat device 16 extends along a pre-heat axis (direction) 16B and is arranged between the powder supply device 18 and the irradiation device 22 along the movement direction 26A [0072]”.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the known pre-heating device to preheat powder prior to irradiation melting, taught by Phillips, to improve the similar PBF system, taught by Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin, in the same way. Phillips teaches an advantage of preheating the powder is to inhibit smoking of the powder particles during irradiation melting.
9. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 8, wherein the build head is configured to cover the build area as the build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 9, Corsmeier teaches the build head (Figs. 2B & 2C, item 208) is configured to cover the build area as the build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation (See Fig. 2C; [0035]).
11. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 8, wherein the build head is configured to translate up and down when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 11, Corsmeier teaches the build head is configured to translate along a z-axis with respect to the build plate, wherein an embodiment having a single build head will helically rise the vertical height of one layer for each full 360° rotation around the powder bed (Fig. 4A; [0050]).
Although the modification of Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2 teaches relative motion of the build unit and build plate is performed by the build plate modification from Goodwin, and not build head movement taught by Corsmeier, the build head of Corsmeier could still be configured for z-direction motion while the build plate of Goodwin provides the rotation.
12. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 8, wherein the optical array includes a plurality of energy sources configured to project energy onto the build powder bed.
With respect to claim 12, Corsmeier teaches the optical array can comprise a plurality of energy sources [0043] configured to project energy onto the build powder bed [0038].
13. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of energy sources comprises lasers.
With respect to claim 13, Corsmeier teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources can be a laser [0017, 0036].
14. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 12, wherein the plurality of energy sources comprises electron beam sources.
With respect to claim 14, Corsmeier teaches each of the plurality of individual energy sources can be an electron beam source [0017, 0036].
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Corsmeier (US20180345369A1), in view of Goodwin (US20200346407A1) and Phillips (WO2021003256A1; of record from 1/29/2025 IDS), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 9, and further in view of Holford (US20180345378A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
10. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 9, wherein the build head is configured to translate radially to cover the build area as the build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
With respect to claim 10, Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin and Phillips, is silent on the build head being configured to translate radially to cover the build area as the build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation.
However, the prior art of Holford teaches a PBF AM annular build system, wherein the build head is configured to translate radially to cover the build area as the build plate rotates when the PBF additive manufacturing system is in operation. Holford teaches the “mobile build unit (Fig. 2B & 2C, item 202) may include, for example, a powder delivery mechanism, a powder recoating mechanism, a gas-flow mechanism with a gas-flow zone and an irradiation beam directing mechanism” and can be configured to move radially (See Fig. 2C, ‘x-direction arrows’) along gantry crossbeams over the build platform [0025-0026].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use the technique of radially movement for the build unit over the build plate, taught by Holford, to improve the apparatus of Corsmeier, in view of Goodwin and Phillips, in the same way. This modification would allow extended radial range of the build unit components, necessary in the case where a component could not fully access the build area when stationary.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to GREGORY C GROSSO whose telephone number is (571)270-1363. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8AM - 5PM.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached on 571-270-7457. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
GREGORY C. GROSSO
Examiner
Art Unit 1748
/GREGORY C. GROSSO/Examiner, Art Unit 1748
/Abbas Rashid/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights