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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-2 & 5-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) & (a)(2) as being anticipated by Redko et al (U.S. PGPub # 2006/0127267).
Regarding Independent claim 1, Redko teaches:
A device for characterizing a residual powder remaining after an operation of additive manufacturing by a powder bed fusion process, the device comprising:
a powder receptacle for receiving a sample of said residual powder (Fig. 2 Elements 1 & 13. See paragraphs 0065-0070.), the receptacle being calibrated in terms of its dimensions to contain said sample (Fig. 2 Elements 1 & 13. See paragraphs 0065-0070.) and comprising an upper lid composed of a covering film and a sealing lid (Fig. 2 Elements 1 & 13. See paragraphs 0065-0070.);
an eddy current emitting/receiving apparatus (304) (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.), having a coil with a diameter dimensioned in accordance with the dimensions of the powder receptacle (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.), and configured to emit to the surface of the powder sample, through the covering film, electromagnetic signals within a range of predefined working frequencies (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.); and
an acquisition and control system (306), configured to:
measure, for each working frequency, impedance values across the terminals of a receiving coil of the eddy current emitting/receiving apparatus (Paragraphs 0014, 0042, 0064, 0071, 0085-0086, 0093-0094, 0097-0100, & 0157.); and
evaluate the quality of the remaining powder according to the impedance values measured for the powder sample (Paragraphs 0014, 0042, 0064, 0071, 0085-0086, 0093-0094, 0097-0100, & 0157.).
PNG
media_image1.png
758
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Redko teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Redko teaches the powder receptacle comprises a main body comprising at least one powder receiving chamber (Fig. 2 Elements 1 & 13. See paragraphs 0065-0070.), and a bearing block for pressing the powder (Fig. 2 Elements 1 & 13. See paragraphs 0065-0070.), the powder receiving chamber being dimensioned to receive a powder sample representative of the remaining powder (Fig. 2 Elements 1 & 13. See paragraphs 0065-0070.).
Regarding claim 5, Redko teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Redko teaches the eddy current emitting/receiving apparatus comprises a sensor composed of a coil without amplification in absolute mode (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.), the diameter of the coil being dimensioned in accordance with the dimensions of the powder receptacle (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.).
Regarding claim 6, Redko teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Redko teaches the eddy current emitting/receiving apparatus comprises a sensor composed of a coil (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.) of which the number of layers and the number of turns is predefined in order to ensure that the resonant frequency of the coil is higher than the range of working frequencies of the sensor (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.).
Regarding claim 7, Redko teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Redko teaches the acquisition and control system comprises an impedance meter for measuring the impedance values (Fig. 5 Elements capacitance meters.).
PNG
media_image2.png
492
782
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Independent claim 8, Redko teaches:
A method for characterizing a residual powder remaining after an operation of additive manufacturing by a powder bed fusion process, the method being implemented for a sample of said residual powder contained in a powder receptacle calibrated in terms of its dimensions to contain said sample and comprising an upper lid composed of a covering film and a sealing lid, and comprising the steps of:
(402) activating, via an eddy current EC sensor having a coil with a diameter dimensioned in accordance with the dimensions of the powder receptacle (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.), the emission of electromagnetic signals, within a range of predefined working frequencies, to the surface of said powder sample through the covering film (Fig. 2 Elements 11 & 12. See paragraphs 0073 & 0117.);
(404) measuring, for each working frequency, the impedance across the terminals of the receiving coil of the EC sensor (Paragraphs 0014, 0042, 0064, 0071, 0085-0086, 0093-0094, 0097-0100, & 0157.); and
(406) evaluating the quality of the remaining powder according to the impedance values measured for the powder sample (Paragraphs 0014, 0042, 0064, 0071, 0085-0086, 0093-0094, 0097-0100, & 0157.).
PNG
media_image1.png
758
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 9, Redko teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Redko teaches the activation step of the EC sensor is carried out within a range of working frequencies between 2 MHz and 10 MHz (See paragraph 0149.).
Regarding claim 10, Redko teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Redko teaches the activation step of the EC sensor is carried out within a range of working frequencies between 4 MHz and 5 MHz (See paragraphs 0093-0094 & 0149.).
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redko et al (U.S. PGPub # 2006/0127267) in view of Hoshina et al (U.S. PGPub # 2010/0271158).
Regarding claim 3, Redko teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Redko does not explicitly teach the powder receptacle comprises an air evacuation device configured to suck out the air contained in the powder receptacle.
Hoshina teaches the powder receptacle comprises an air evacuation device configured to suck out the air contained in the powder receptacle (Paragraph 0039.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Hoshina to the teachings of Redko such that the powder receptacle comprises an air evacuation device configured to suck out the air contained in the powder receptacle because this allows one to achieve a vacuum atmosphere for siliconizing powder in a sealed space. See paragraph 0039.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redko et al (U.S. PGPub # 2006/0127267) in view of Shkolnik (U.S. PGPub # 2017/0225393).
Regarding claim 4, Redko teaches all elements of claim 1, upon which this claim depends.
Redko does not explicitly teach the receptacle is made from a range of non-metallic materials, including in particular Delrin (polyoxymethylene POM), Plexiglas (polymethyl methacrylate), acrylic (polyacrylonitrile PAN), Mylar (PET polyester film), rubber.
Shkolnik teaches the receptacle is made from a range of non-metallic materials, including in particular Delrin (polyoxymethylene POM), Plexiglas (polymethyl methacrylate), acrylic (polyacrylonitrile PAN) (Paragraph 0045.), Mylar (PET polyester film), rubber.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Shkolnik to the teachings of Redko such that the receptacle is made from a range of non-metallic materials, including in particular Delrin (polyoxymethylene POM), Plexiglas (polymethyl methacrylate), acrylic (polyacrylonitrile PAN) (Paragraph 0045.), Mylar (PET polyester film), rubber because these are insulators that, in the case of acrylic can be transparent and allow observation of the material within.
Claims 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redko et al (U.S. PGPub # 2006/0127267).
Regarding claim 11, Redko teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Redko may not explicitly teach step 406 of evaluating the quality of the remaining powder comprises a step of comparing the impedance measurements with predefined impedance values and of quantifying the presence of ferrite particles in the powder sample according to the differences between the measured values and the predefined values.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to evaluate the quality of the remaining powder comprises a step of comparing the impedance measurements with predefined impedance values and of quantifying the presence of ferrite particles in the powder sample according to the differences between the measured values and the predefined values because this the standard way to evaluate anything. One compares a known, good value of a material or item to a measured value to see if they are the same or substantially similar so that one would know if the measured value is good or bad. This is common to any evaluation.
Regarding claim 12, Redko teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Redko may not explicitly teach step 406 of evaluating the quality of the remaining powder comprises a step of defining an acceptable ratio of ferrite particles present in the powder sample for retaining the remaining powder for a subsequent additive manufacture or not.
But it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to evaluate the quality of the remaining powder comprises a step of defining an acceptable ratio of ferrite particles present in the powder sample for retaining the remaining powder for a subsequent additive manufacture or not because this the standard way to evaluate anything. One defines a variable that is known to be good for an intended task and then uses that to evaluate a measured value of a material or item to see if they are the same or substantially similar so that one would know if the measured value is good or bad. This is common to any evaluation.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redko et al (U.S. PGPub # 2006/0127267) in view of Porret et al (U.S. PGPub # 2019/0151951).
Regarding claim 13, Redko teaches all elements of claim 8, upon which this claim depends.
Redko does not explicitly teach the characterization of a powder consists of characterizing a sample of 316L-type austenitic powder.
Porret teaches the characterization of a powder consists of characterizing a sample of 316L-type austenitic powder (Paragraph 0020.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective time of filing to apply the teachings of Porret to the teachings of Redko such that the characterization of a powder consists of characterizing a sample of 316L-type austenitic powder because the powder being analyzed should be any useful powder that one can use in manufacturing processes so that any manufacturing process can be improved.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The prior art listed but not cited represents the previous state of the art and analogous art that teaches some of the limitations claimed by applicant.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW whose telephone number is (469)295-9025. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 6-4:30.
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, Lee Rodak can be reached on 571-270-5628. 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.
/CHRISTOPHER P MCANDREW/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2858