DETAILED ACTION
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 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. This claim depends on cancelled claim 14.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 4, 10, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Davidson (US 7,971,991).
As to claim 1, Davidson teaches a powder collection system disposed in an interior of a binder jetting printer adjacent a print deck (312) and is interpreted to meet a downdraft system (see 10:4-12, also 121’ and 121 connected to vacuum source 150 through 170). The Davidson system is configured to receive an amount of excess build material dislodged from the print deck (at 312) by a powder spreading process (130). Davidson provides a pneumatic conveyance system that includes a conveyance plumbing tube (between 121/121’ and 600, also 170) providing gaseous communication between the downdraft system and a powder collection unit (500 and 400). Davidson provides a gas management system (vacuum source 150) configured to provide a flow of process gas through the downdraft system and pneumatic conveyance system at a rate sufficient to convey excess build material received by the downdraft system to the powder collection unit (500 and 400) by mechanical conveyance. The filter (500) in Davidson’s powder collection unit is configured to separate excess build material powder from the flow of process gas and collect the excess build material powder (in hopper 400). As to claim 3, Davidson teaches a filter (500). As to claim 4, since Davidson teaches a spreader (130), the powder dislodged from the print deck would necessarily include either excess or spilled powder, although it is noted that this is a process feature and not a structural apparatus feature. As to claim 10, Davidson teaches a powder collection unit (120, 120’) as discussed above which is external to the binder jetting printer (130, “gantry 130 can also include binder jets”).
As to claim 11, Davidson teaches a powder collection system interpreted to be a downdraft system (see 10:4-12, also 121’ and 121 connected to vacuum source 150 through 170). Davidson provides an arrangement of powder collection chutes (120, 120’) disposed adjacent to a print deck (at 312) and configured to receive an amount of excess build material dislodged from the print deck (at 312) by a powder spreading and binder jetting printing process (9:37). Each of the Davidson chutes includes a plurality of sloped walls (see above 121 and 121’) configured to facilitate delivery of excess build material powder received to the respective powder collection chute to a conveyance plumbing tube (between 121/121’ to 600).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Hofmann (US 20180133635). Davidson teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 2, Davidson is silent to the gas management system recirculating the process gas separated from the powder in the powder collection unit.
Hofmann teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus which applies suction (13) to pull gas through a filter (7) and recirculate a separated stream of process gas to the additive manufacturing apparatus (8). In the combination with Davidson, one would have recognized that the Davidson gas pumped by vacuum source (150) could be recirculated into the additive manufacturing as taught by Hofman, and doing so recirculates the separated stream of process gas to the gas management system.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Hofmann recirculation apparatus into Davidson because:
(a) Davidson teaches/suggests an additive manufacturing apparatus with a pump and Hofmann teaches a recirculation system specifically for an additive manufacturing apparatus with a pump ([0001] and item 13), with a reasonable expectation of success evident in view of the fact that both references are for additive manufacturing.
(b) Davidson provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by recirculating process gas. Hofmann provides a comparable additive manufacturing apparatus improved in the same way by recirculating process gas, and one could have applied the same Hofman improvement to Davidson to provide the predictable result that the Hofman recirculation tube would filter impurities ([0001]-[0003]) and send pure process gas into the chamber.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Kawada (US 20170348771). Davidson teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 5, Davidson is silent to the powder collection chute including a baffle.
Kawada teaches plates with an opening (27b) that constitutes a baffle, or alternatively, plates (28b) mounted within a chute that also constitute a baffle.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kawada baffles into Davidson because one would have been motivated to control and guide the excess powder into the collection unit in the Davidson apparatus in the same manner provided by Kawada. Davidson depicts open chambers (120, 120’) equivalent to the claimed downdraft system, and one would have had a reasonable expectation of success incorporating the Kawada baffles into these chambers in light of their similarity to the similar chambers already provided by Kawada.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Russell (US 20050280185). Davidson teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claims 6-8, Davidson teaches a plurality of primary powder collection chutes at the ends of the direction of travel of the print module (120, 120’).
Davidson does not specifically teach a plurality of secondary chutes arranged at third and fourth ends (or sides) parallel to the traverse direction of the print module.
Russell teaches a powder bed additive manufacturing process with a printed binder. Russell provides channels or chutes (55 and 52) around all four sides of the powder bed so that excess build material spills over side walls (55) surrounding the build surface ([0061]). Russell’s plurality of chutes parallel to the direction of movement of the print deck (Fig. 9) meet the claimed secondary powder chutes at the third end and fourth end of the print deck.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate or duplicate Davidson powder chutes adjacent the Davidson powder bed parallel to the direction of traverse/movement of the print module motivated by removing excess powder from all sides of the print bed. There is a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both Russell and Davidson teach powder bed processes.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Boyd (US 20040084814). Davidson teaches the subject matter of claim 1 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 9, Davidson does not specifically teach a valve which isolates each conveyance plumbing tube.
Boyd teaches a valve (82) on the conveyance plumbing tube. In the combination with Davidson, one would have found it obvious to place a Boyd valve on each conveyance plumbing tube in Davidson for the obvious reason of allowing the pneumatic flow to be stopped between the overflow and a vacuum system.
It would have been prima facie obvious to incorporate the Boyd valve into Davidson motivated by controlling the flow of overflow powder to the vacuum system. There would be a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both references are directed to handling overflow or excess powder.
Claims 12, 13, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Kaufman (US 3,777,706). Davidson teaches the subject matter of claim 11 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claims 12, 13, and 15, Davidson is silent to the particular collection system defined in these claims.
Kaufman teaches a collection chute with four trapezoidal walls (Fig. 2) and a conveyance plumbing tube exits parallel to the horizontal top surface of the chute. In the combination with Davidson’s print deck, Kaufman’s collection chute would provide a plumbing tube which exits parallel to the Davidson print deck. While Kaufman does not specifically teach any particular theta angle, one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the angle is a result effective variable since the angle of the walls in the collection chute would influence the collection behavior. One would have arrived at the claimed angle as a matter of routine experimentation in order to collect material in the chute.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Kaufman chute into Davidson because Davidson teaches/suggests a collection chute for powder, and Kaufman provides a collection chute within the teaching/suggestion of Davidson.
Claims 16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Russell (US 20050280185). Davidson teaches the subject matter of claim 11 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 16, Davidson teaches a plurality of primary powder collection chutes at the ends of the direction of travel of the print module (120, 120’).
Davidson does not specifically teach a plurality of secondary chutes arranged at third and fourth ends (or sides) parallel to the traverse direction of the print module.
Russell teaches a powder bed additive manufacturing process with a printed binder. Russell provides channels or chutes (55 and 52) around all four sides of the powder bed so that excess build material spills over side walls (55) surrounding the build surface ([0061]). Russell’s plurality of chutes parallel to the direction of movement of the print deck (Fig. 9) meet the claimed secondary powder chutes at the third end and fourth end of the print deck.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate or duplicate Davidson powder chutes adjacent the Davidson powder bed parallel to the direction of traverse/movement of the print module as taught by Russell motivated by removing excess powder from all sides of the print bed. There is a reasonable expectation of success in light of the fact that both Russell and Davidson teach powder bed processes.
As to claim 19, in the combination set forth above for claim 16, Russell would motivate one to provide the secondary powder chutes at the third end and fourth end of the print deck.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Chen (US 20150298397). Davidson teaches the subject matter of claim 11 above under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1).
As to claim 20, Davidson teaches a gas management system configured to provide a flow of process gas through the chutes.
Davidson does not specifically teach a powder collection chute including a vibration system configured to provide vibration to facilitate powder delivery to a conveyance plumbing tube.
Chen teaches a vibrator (Fig. 6, item 334) on a chute for loosening powder and avoiding bridge effect ([0042]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Chen vibrator into the Davidson chutes motivated by loosening powder and avoiding bridge effects in the same manner in the Davidson device. A reasonable expectation of success would be present in light of the fact that both references are chutes for powder material.
Claims 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Hofmann (US 20180133635).
As to claim 22, Davidson teaches a powder collection system disposed in an interior of a binder jetting printer which uses powder (9:65). Davidson provides a collection chute (120, 120’) in an interior of a binder jetting printer which is configured to accept excess build material, excess binder, and process gas via a chute opening. Davidson teaches a pneumatic conveyance system including a powder collection unit (500 and 400) and a conveyance plumbing tube (170) providing gaseous communication between the collection chute (121, 121’and the powder collection unit (500 and 400). Davidson teaches a gas management system (150) configured to provide a flow of process gas through the collection chute (121, 121’) and the pneumatic conveyance system (170) at a rate sufficient to convey the excess build material received at the chute opening from the collection chute through the pneumatical conveyance system to the powder collection unit (500 and 400). Davidson provides a powder collection unit (500 and 400) configured to (1) create a separated stream of process gas by separating the excess build material powder from the flow of process gas (using filter 500), and (2) collect the excess build material.
Davidson is silent to (2) recirculate at least a portion of the separated stream of process gas to the gas management system.
Hofmann teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus which applies suction (13) to pull gas through a filter (7) and recirculate a separated stream of process gas to the additive manufacturing apparatus (8). In the combination with Davidson, one would have recognized that the Davidson gas pumped by vacuum source (150) could be recirculated into the additive manufacturing as taught by Hofman, and doing so recirculates the separated stream of process gas to the gas management system.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to filing to incorporate the Hofmann recirculation apparatus into Davidson because:
(a) Davidson teaches/suggests an additive manufacturing apparatus with a pump and Hofmann teaches a recirculation system specifically for an additive manufacturing apparatus with a pump ([0001] and item 13), with a reasonable expectation of success evident in view of the fact that both references are for additive manufacturing.
(b) Davidson provides a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an improvement by recirculating process gas. Hofmann provides a comparable additive manufacturing apparatus improved in the same way by recirculating process gas, and one could have applied the same Hofman improvement to Davidson to provide the predictable result that the Hofman recirculation tube would filter impurities ([0001]-[0003]) and send pure process gas into the chamber.
Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Davidson (US 7,971,991) in view of Hofmann (US 20180133635), and further in view of Frey (US 20120067702). Davidson and Hofmann teach the subject matter of claim 22 above under 35 U.S.C. 103.
As to claim 23, Davidson’s process would inherently eject excess build material into a collection chute, and Hofman provides recirculation of process gas, but these references are silent to the collection chute including a diffuser.
Frey teaches a hopper which is interpreted to include a diffuser and jets (238 and 240).
One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to incorporate these features from Frey into Davidson motivated by controlling the temperature or fluidizing the feed material. There would have been a reasonable expectation of success since Frey’s device is for solid feed and Davidson is also for solid/powdered material.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 18 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art simply does not teach the relative lengths of the primary powder chutes to the secondary powder chutes recited in claim 18.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MATTHEW J DANIELS whose telephone number is (313)446-4826. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 8:30-5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Christina Johnson can be reached at 571-272-1176. 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.
/MATTHEW J DANIELS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742