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/Restrictions
Claims 1-8 and 17-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to non-elected inventions, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/6/2026.
Applicant’s election without traverse of group II, claims 9-16, in the reply filed on 1/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Objections
Claims 9-11 & 13-16 are objected to because of the following informalities: inconsistent claim language, antecedent basis, and typographical errors.
For claim 9, line 8, consider amending to “wherein the upper surface”.
For claims 9(3x), 10, 13, 15(2x) & 16, the phrase “the robotic stages” should be amended to “the plurality of robotic stages” for consistency and clarity.
For claims 9, 11, 15(2x) & 16, the phrase “the robotic barriers” should be amended to “the plurality of robotic barriers” for consistency and clarity.
For claim 14, line 2, consider amending to “controlling the actuator for each of the robotic stages to set”, for clarity and to match the language from claim 13.
For claim 15, line 3, consider amending to “controller configured to determine”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 9-12 & 15-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Cao (CN116100045A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
9. A powder fusion three-dimensional (3D) additive manufacturing (AM) system comprising: a plurality of robotic stages having an adjustable upper surface, each of the robotic stages configured to self-align themselves to form a foundation of a modular powder bed; and a plurality of robotic barriers having vertical walls, each of the robotic barriers configured to self-align with the foundation established by the robotic stages, wherein an upper surface of at least one of the robotic stages is adjusted to set an initial height of the modular powder bed configured to receive an AM powder.
With respect to claim 9, the prior art of Cao teaches a powder fusion three-dimensional (3D) additive manufacturing (AM) system (Fig. 4) comprising: a plurality of robotic stages, or base cells (Fig. 2, items 21), having an adjustable upper surface, each of the robotic stages configured to self-align themselves to form a foundation of a modular powder bed [Embodiment 1, P. 5, ¶ 7 - P. 6, ¶ 2; Claim 5]; and a plurality of robotic barriers, or wall cells (Fig. 3, items 31), having vertical walls, each of the robotic barriers configured to self-align with the foundation established by the robotic stages [P. 6, ¶ 3-5; Claim 6], wherein an upper surface of at least one of the robotic stages is adjusted to set an initial height of the modular powder bed configured to receive an AM powder. Cao teaches the base cells (Fig. 2) are controlled by a controller to move to a desired position based on article profile data [P. 6, ¶ 1-2, 4-5].
10. The powder fusion 3D AM system of claim 9, wherein the robotic stages collaborate with one another to self-align with one another and dynamically define a profile of the modular powder bed that mimics a profile of a workpiece to be manufactured.
With respect to claim 10, Cao teaches the robotic stages collaborate with one another to self-align with one another and dynamically define a profile of the modular powder bed that mimics a profile of a workpiece to be manufactured. As set forth in the rejection of claim 9, Cao teaches the base cells (Fig. 2) are controlled by a controller to move to a desired position based on article profile data [P. 6, ¶ 1-2, 4-5]. Cao further teaches the controller performs ‘horizontal slice processing’ to build a powder-based article layer-by-layer following the profile data [P. 6, ¶ 1, 4].
11. The powder fusion 3D AM system of claim 10, wherein the robotic barriers collaborate with one another to self-align with one another and form a barrier wall of the modular powder bed.
With respect to claim 11, Cao teaches the robotic barriers collaborate with one another to self-align with one another and form a barrier wall of the modular powder bed. Cao teaches the controller coordinates movement between wall cells, wherein ‘movable unit grids’ (Fig. 3, left picture) which comprise the array of base/wall cells and their means of motion, self-align themselves and avoid interference with each other based on the article profile data exchanged with the controller (See Figs. 3-4; [Claims 5, 6]).
12. The powder fusion 3D AM system of claim 11, wherein the barrier wall surrounds an entire perimeter of the foundation.
With respect to claim 12, Cao teaches the barrier wall can surround an entire perimeter of the foundation (Fig. 4).
15. The powder fusion 3D AM system of claim 10, further comprising a controller in signal communication with the robotic stages and the robotic barriers, the controller configured determine the profile of workpiece to be manufactured, and to exchange data indicating the profile with the robotic stages and the robotic barriers.
With respect to claim 15, Cao teaches a controller in signal communication with the base and wall movable unit grids which provide the individual base and wall cell movements, with the controller configured to determine the profile of workpiece to be manufactured, and to exchange data indicating the article profile to the movable unit grids [Embodiment 4, P. 8, ¶ 9 - P. 9, ¶ 5; Claims 5, 6].
16. The powder fusion 3D AM system of claim 15, wherein the robotic stages and the robotic barriers self-align themselves based at least in part on the data exchanged with the controller.
With respect to claim 16, Cao teaches the controller coordinates movement between the base cells and wall cells, wherein the movable unit grids self-align themselves and avoid interference with each other based on the article profile data exchanged with the controller [Claims 5, 6].
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 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Cao (CN116100045A). Claim elements are presented in italics.
13. The powder fusion 3D AM system of claim 10, wherein each of the robotic stages include an actuator that adjusts a height of the upper surface.
With respect to claim 13, Cao teaches each of the robotic stages include an actuator for each of the base cells that adjusts a height of the upper surface. Although actuators for moving the base cells are not illustrated, Cao teaches movement of the individual base cells and wall cells are performed by a ‘movable unit grid’ (See Fig. 2, left picture) prima facie obviously comprising an array of actuators controlled by the controller [P. 2, ¶ 8; Claims 5, 8]; however, Cao is silent on the actuator type within the movable unit grid providing movement of the cells.
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing to use any fitting actuator type (hydraulic, electric motor, etc.) known within the art to control each individual base cell / wall cell.
14. The powder fusion 3D AM system of claim 13, further comprising controlling the actuator to set the initial height based on the profile of the workpiece to be manufactured.
With respect to claim 14, Cao teaches the controller controls the ‘movable unit grids’, which comprise the base cells’ movement actuators, based on the profile of the workpiece to be manufactured [Claim 5].
It would have been prima facie obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the time of filing that profile data acquired by the controller to command the movable unit grids would include settings for the initial base cell heights.
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