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 piston for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system” and “A powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system”, classified in B29C64/245.
II. Claims 15-19, 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 a process for their 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 PBF AM systems with a directed energy component for sintering such as a heating means for sintering or a single optical source, instead of an optical array component.
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 Group I invention of “A build piston 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 15-19 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).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 13 is 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 13 is indefinite as the means and structure for uncoupling the drive shaft are not disclosed. The claim cites “the drive shaft is configured to uncouple its rate of rotation and rate of vertical translation temporarily”, but ‘uncoupling rates’ is unclear and is interpreted by the Examiner to mean ‘configured to uncouple the drive shaft to uncouple the drive shaft means for rotation and vertical translation temporarily’. “Temporarily” is also a relative term, which gives no indication of what the time range is, or what event would change the reconfiguration.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Chang (WO2022150340A1). Claim elements are presented in italics.
1. A build piston for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: a build platform; and a drive shaft; and a bearing sleeve; and a drive shaft actuation mechanism, wherein an end of the drive shaft is configured to be attached to the bottom center of the build platform and move the build platform in concert with the drive shaft, wherein the bearing sleeve is configured to ensure linear alignment of the drive shaft; and wherein the drive shaft actuation mechanism is configured to rotate the drive shaft at a continuous rate that is coupled to the drive shaft’s rate of translation up and down, moving the build platform helically.
With respect to claim 1, the prior art of Chang teaches a build piston (Fig. 1C) for a powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system [0042-0043], comprising: a build platform (Fig. 1C, item 38); and a drive shaft (Fig. 1C, item 50); and a bearing sleeve (Fig. 9A, item 994; [0208]); and a drive shaft actuation mechanism (Fig. 1C, item 42), wherein an end of the drive shaft is configured to be attached to the bottom center of the build platform and move the build platform in concert with the drive shaft, wherein the bearing sleeve is configured to ensure linear alignment of the drive shaft [0214-0215]; and wherein the drive shaft actuation mechanism is configured to rotate the drive shaft at a continuous rate that is coupled to the drive shaft’s rate of translation up and down, moving the build platform helically [0072-0073].
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 2, 5, 7 & 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (WO2022150340A1), in view of Clark (GB2543305A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
2. A powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: the build piston of claim 1; and 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; 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 Chang teaches powder bed fusion (PBF) additive manufacturing system, comprising: the build piston of claim 1. Chang teaches the build plate is circular (Fig. 1C, item 38; [0080]) and configured to be positioned on the build piston and to move in concert with the build piston [0076].
Chang is silent on an annular build plate including an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall.
However, the prior art of Clark teaches an annular build plate (Fig. 1, item 4) including an inner radius wall (Fig. 1, item 5) and an outer radius wall (Fig. 1, item 2), 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 [0031]. Clark also teaches the annular build plate is configured to be positioned on the build piston (Fig. 1, shaft assembly located between items 4 & 13) and to move in concert with the build piston [0032].
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 annular build plate including an inner radius wall and an outer radius wall, taught by Clark, in place of the circular build plate and outer wall taught by Chang, to predictably result in the build piston of Chang supporting the annular build plate design of Clark. This modification would be motivated based on the desired product, and advantageously would require less powder than a full circular build layer.
5. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the drive shaft actuation mechanism comprises linear actuators configured to rotate the drive shaft and translate the drive shaft vertically, wherein rotation and vertical translation of the drive shaft are actuated independently.
With respect to claim 5, Chang teaches the drive shaft actuation mechanism comprises linear actuators configured to rotate the drive shaft and translate the drive shaft vertically, wherein rotation and vertical translation of the drive shaft are actuated independently [0210].
7. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the drive shaft is configured to be able to be exchanged for a drive shaft of a different configuration.
With respect to claim 7, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Chang teaches a drive shaft for controlling the movement of the build platform
Chang, in view of Clark, is silent on the system being configured to exchange the drive shaft having a different configuration.
However, The Examiner notes that the instant claim element of ‘being configured to exchange a drive shaft having a different configuration’ is considered functional language, reciting the function or intended use rather than describing the structure of the system. The attachment/detachment of the drives can be performed by numerous methods that would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The instant claims, specification, and figures do not provide information on attaching and detaching drive mechanisms. See MPEP 2173.05(g).
The claim elements of ‘being configured to exchange the drive shaft’, under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be met by an operator being motivated to manually replace the shafts based on a desired result for optimal processing, such as allowing for a different build geometry or layer build height, which would improve the versatility of the system.
It prima facie obviously would be within the knowledge and the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to attach and detach shafts as desired for best system results.
As the attachment/detachment means are not described, even a welded shaft could be cut out and replaced to meet the instant claim element.
13. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 5, wherein the drive shaft is configured to uncouple its rate of rotation and rate of vertical translation temporarily when linear actuators are in use to generate a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
With respect to claim 13, as set forth in the rejection of claim 5, Chang teaches the drive shaft actuation mechanism comprises linear actuators configured to rotate the drive shaft and translate the drive shaft vertically, wherein rotation and vertical translation of the drive shaft are actuated independently [0210].
The Examiner notes that the instant claim elements of ‘the drive shaft is configured to uncouple its rate of rotation and rate of vertical translation temporarily when linear actuators are in use’ are considered functional language, reciting the function or intended use rather than describing the structure of the system. The engagement/disengagement of the drive shaft can be performed by numerous methods that would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The instant claims, specification, and figures do not provide information on the engaging and disengaged mechanisms.
The claim elements of ‘being configured to engage and disengage from the drive shaft rate of rotation and rate of vertical translation temporarily’, under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be met by an operator manually or remotely engaging and disengaging the drive shaft.
It would be within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the system to configure components to engage and disengage as required to provide functional operation of the AM system.
Claims 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 12 & 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (WO2022150340A1), in view of Clark (GB2543305A), as set forth above in the rejection of claim 2, and further in view of Gibson (US20180305266A1).
3. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the drive shaft comprises a worm gear screw.
With respect to claim 3, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Chang, in view of Clark, teaches the drive shaft of the build platform can be configured to traverse in rotational and linear directions.
Chang, in view of Clark, is silent on the drive shaft comprising a worm gear screw.
However, the prior art of Gibson teaches a similar rotating bed PBF AM system, wherein the drive shaft for the build platform can comprise a worm gear screw [0086].
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 platform worm drive shaft taught by Gibson, in place of the drive shaft taught by Chang, in view of Clark, that does not describe the drive type. The modification would predictably result in a known driving means of a worm gear drive shaft for the AM system Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, with a reasonable expectation of success.
4. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the drive shaft actuation mechanism comprises a worm gear drive.
With respect to claim 4, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Chang, in view of Clark, teaches the drive shaft of the build platform can be configured to traverse in rotational and linear directions.
Chang, in view of Clark, is silent on the drive shaft comprising a worm gear drive.
However, Gibson teaches a similar rotating bed PBF AM system, wherein the drive shaft for the build platform can comprise a worm gear type [0086].
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 platform worm drive shaft taught by Gibson, in place of the drive shaft taught by Chang, in view of Clark, that does not describe the drive type. The modification would predictably result in a known driving means of a worm gear drive type for the AM system Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, with a reasonable expectation of success.
6. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the drive shaft actuation mechanism comprises a worm gear drive configured to be decoupled from the drive shaft and linear actuators configured to engage the drive shaft when the worm gear drive is decoupled and begin independently rotating and vertically translating the drive shaft.
With respect to claim 6, as set forth in the rejection of claim 2, Chang, in view of Clark, teaches the drive shaft of the build platform can be configured to traverse in rotational and linear directions.
Chang, in view of Clark, is silent on the drive shaft comprising a worm gear screw, and is silent on the build platform drive types.
However, Gibson teaches a similar rotating bed PBF AM system, wherein “the build plate 314 may also or instead be operably coupled to the robotics 308 such that the robotics 308 position the build plate 314 while the nozzle remains stationary [0085].” Gibson teaches “it will be understood that a variety of arrangements and techniques are known in the art to achieve controlled linear movement along one or more axes, and/or controlled rotational motion about one or more axes [0086]. Gibson teaches worm gears in addition to well-known means for linear motion including ‘DC motors, gears, belts, pulleys’ [0086].
From these broad teachings from Gibson of build platform motion actuator types and configurations, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the drive shaft actuator for the build platform could comprise a worm gear drive for rotational movement or configured with linear actuators for z-axis movement.
The Examiner notes that the instant claim elements of ‘the worm gear drive and linear actuators being configured to engage and disengage from the drive shaft for independent translation of the drive shaft’ are considered functional language, reciting the function or intended use rather than describing the structure of the system. The engagement/disengagement of the drives can be performed by numerous methods that would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The instant claims, specification, and figures do not provide information on the engaging and disengaged mechanisms.
The claim elements of ‘being configured to engage and disengage from the drive shaft’, under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be met by an operator manually or remotely engaging and disengaging the independent drives.
Gibson further teaches ‘the actuators for directional movements can include a number of motors to independently control a position of the build plate [0086]’, and it would be within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the system for engaging and disengaging actuators as required to provide functional operation of the AM system.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to substitute build platform actuators of worm gear drives and linear actuators, taught by Gibson, in place of the drive shaft taught by Chang, in view of Clark. The modification would predictably result in a known and independent driving means of a worm gear drive shaft for rotational build platform movement and linear platform movement via linear actuators in the modified AM system of Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, with a reasonable expectation of success. It would be within the knowledge and capability of a person of ordinary skill in the art to provide a means for engaging and disengaging the drives, as necessary, to provide functional operational of the AM system.
8. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 3, wherein the worm gear screw comprises a helically structured threading with a pitch, pitch angle, thread angle, and diameter that is selected to achieve a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
With respect to claim 8, as set forth in the rejection of claim 3, Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, teaches the worm gear screw, which prima facie obviously by its design comprises a helically structured threading with a pitch, pitch angle, thread angle, and diameter that would be selected to function to achieve a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
10. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 4, wherein the worm gear drive is configured to rotate at a variable speed in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction to generate a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
With respect to claim 10, as set forth in the rejection of claim 4, Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, teaches a worm gear drive is configured to rotate in a clockwise or counterclockwise direction to generate a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, does not explicitly teach the worm gear drive being configured to rotate at a variable speed.
The Examiner notes that the manner of operating the AM system does not differentiate the apparatus from prior art as it does not limit its structure, and the intended use for the apparatus of varying the speed of the build platform drive does not constitute eligible patentable material. See MPEP 2114 (II).
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Chang teaches the speed of the build platform can be selectively controlled to rotate about the central axis [0184], making it prima facie obvious that the speed control parameter for the build platform drive is configured to be selectively varied as desired or to optimize system operation.
12. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 4, wherein the worm gear drive is configured to be decoupled from the drive shaft and exchanged for a worm gear drive of a different diameter and/or different pattern of threading.
With respect to claim 12, as set forth in the rejection of claim 4, Gibson teaches a worm gear shaft for controlling the movement of the build platform.
Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, is silent on the system being configured to decouple and exchange the drive shaft with a shaft of a different configuration.
However, The Examiner notes that the instant claim element of ‘being configured to decouple and exchange a work gear drive shaft having a different configuration’ is considered functional language, reciting the function or intended use rather than describing the structure of the system. The attachment/detachment and replacement means of the drives can be performed by numerous methods that would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The instant claims, specification, and figures do not provide information on detaching and attaching drive mechanisms.
The claim elements of ‘being configured to decouple and exchange the drive shaft’, under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be met by an operator being motivated to manually replace the shafts based on a desired result for optimal processing, such as allowing for a different build geometry or layer build height, which would improve the versatility of the system.
It prima facie obviously would be within the knowledge and the ability of a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to detach and exchange worm gear shafts as desired for best system results.
As the attachment/detachment and replacement means are not described, even a welded shaft could be cut out and replaced to meet the instant claim element.
14. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 6, wherein the drive shaft is configured to uncouple its rate of rotation and rate of vertical translation temporarily when linear actuators are in use to generate a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
With respect to claim 14, as set forth in the rejection of claim 6, Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, teaches the worm gear drive shaft of the build platform can be configured to traverse in rotational and linear directions. Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, teaches the drive shaft comprises a worm gear screw. Gibson teaches “the build plate 314 may also or instead be operably coupled to the robotics 308 such that the robotics 308 position the build plate 314 while the nozzle remains stationary [0085]”, and “it will be understood that a variety of arrangements and techniques are known in the art to achieve controlled linear movement along one or more axes, and/or controlled rotational motion about one or more axes [0086]. Gibson teaches worm gears in addition to well-known means for linear motion including ‘DC motors, gears, belts, pulleys’ [0086].
From these broad teachings from Gibson of build platform motion actuator types and configurations, it would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that the drive shaft actuator for the build platform could comprise a worm gear drive for rotational movement or configured with linear actuators for z-axis movement.
The Examiner notes that the instant claim elements of ‘the worm gear drive and linear actuators being configured to engage and disengage from the drive shaft for independent translation of the drive shaft’ are considered functional language, reciting the function or intended use rather than describing the structure of the system. The engagement/disengagement of the drives can be performed by numerous methods that would be known to a person of ordinary skill in the art. The instant claims, specification, and figures do not provide information on the engaging and disengaged mechanisms.
The claim elements of ‘being configured to engage and disengage from the drive shaft’, under broadest reasonable interpretation, could be met by an operator manually or remotely engaging and disengaging the independent drives.
Gibson further teaches ‘the actuators for directional movements can include a number of motors to independently control a position of the build plate [0086]’, and it would be within the knowledge of a person of ordinary skill in the art to design the system for engaging and disengaging actuators as required to provide functional operation of the AM system.
With the modified system of Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, teaching ‘the worm gear drive is decoupled and a linear drive is engaged’ in the rejection of claim 6, it would be prima facie obvious that a detached worm gear drive would have its rate of rotation and rate of vertical translation temporarily uncoupled as well during the drive exchange.
Claims 9 & 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chang (WO2022150340A1), in view of Clark (GB2543305A) and Gibson (US20180305266A1), as set forth above in the rejections of claim 8 & 4, respectively, and further in view of Willmot (US20040079183A1).
9. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 8, wherein the helically structured threading is configured to have a pitch, pitch angle, and/or thread angle that is variable along the length of the worm gear screw to generate a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
With respect to claim 9, as set forth in the rejections of claim 8, Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, teaches the worm gear screw, having a known helically structured threading configured to have a pitch, pitch angle, and/or thread angle to generate a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, is silent on the worm gear screw having a variable characteristic along the length of the screw to produce a desired function during operation.
However, the prior art of Willmot teaches a worm screw gear that can have a variable thread pattern along the length of the worm gear screw [0096-0098], which if used in a PBF AM system would prima facie obviously generate a desired varied helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
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 variable thread pattern worm gear screw of Willmot in place of the worm gear screw of Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, with a reasonable expectation of success, if it were intended to have variable worm gear screw characteristics in order for the AM system to function as desired.
11. The PBF additive manufacturing system of claim 4, wherein the worm gear drive is configured to have a variable thread pattern to generate a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
With respect to claim 11, as set forth in the rejections of claim 8, Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, teaches the worm gear screw, having a known helically structured threading configured to have a pitch, pitch angle, and/or thread angle to generate a desired helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, is silent on the worm gear screw having a variable thread pattern along the length of the screw to produce a desired function during operation.
However, the prior art of Willmot teaches a worm screw gear that has a variable thread pattern along the length of the worm gear screw [0096-0098], which if used in a PBF AM system would prima facie obviously generate a desired variable helical layer structure of a part being produced by a PBF additive manufacturing system.
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 variable thread pattern worm gear screw of Willmot in place of the worm gear screw of Chang, in view of Clark and Gibson, with a reasonable expectation of success, if it were intended to have variable worm gear screw characteristics in order for the AM system to function as desired.
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