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 .
Claims 1-15 are pending.
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 10 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.
It is unclear what is being claimed, “wherein gas pressure in the second volume is lower than a pressure of an ambient environment the second volume”. In reviewing claim 9, it appears that the term “surrounding” is missing in the claim.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, and 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELGAR (US 2018/0281236 A1) in view of SACHS (US 2019/0210277 A1) and KENWORTHY (US 2023/0008319 A1) .
Re: 1, ELGAR A system for an additive manufacturing from build material powder, comprising:
a first volume (see area 254 and also the ancillary chamber 240) at least partly within a printer containing gas at a first pressure;
a second volume (see processing chamber 226) within the printer that encloses a plurality of process modules (see Fig. 2 of layer dispensing mechanism 240 with material dispensing mechanism 116 and leveling mechanism 117, see [0178]) configured to deposit and bind build material powder during an additive manufacturing process, the second volume containing gas at a second pressure;
a boundary between the first volume and the second volume, the boundary including a partition providing separation between the first volume and the second volume, the partition controlling gaseous communication between the first volume and second volume (see stoppers 267 and also closure 256, see also [0178], see also boundary between 254 and 240, see Fig. 2); and
a gas management system configured to maintain a conditioned environment within the second volume during the process of additive manufacturing from a build material powder by selectively providing to the second volume an inflow of process gas, at least some amount of the flow of process gas originating from the first volume and flowing across the boundary; and wherein the first pressure of the gas in the first volume is greater than the second pressure of the gas in the second volume.
Here, ELGAR teaches of the gas management, see in [0039] of the different pressures, and more specifically in [0146]:
“For example, the shaft may be movable from the ancillary chamber to the processing chamber (e.g., for deposition of a layer of material). For example, the shaft may be movable from the processing chamber to the ancillary chamber (e.g., in preparation for transforming at least a portion of the material bed). FIG. 2 shows an example of a shaft, 236…. The atmosphere of the portion of the shaft residing within the ancillary chamber may be (e.g., substantially) the same atmosphere as the atmosphere of the ancillary chamber. The atmosphere of the ancillary chamber may be an inert atmosphere…. The atmosphere of the portion of the shaft residing out of the ancillary chamber may differ from the atmosphere of the ancillary chamber...”
ELGAR fails to teach of a binder jet printer. Instead, ELGAR teaches of sintering or fusing, see [0005, 0095] for the powder materials.
It is noted that the SACH reference teaches of a system for jet binding additive manufacturing from build material powder, see abstract, Fig. 1, comprising of a volume (115) within the printer and having a controlled environment, to be oxygen-free, by using inert gas, such as nitrogen, see [0135]. Whereby, there is also teaching of the desire of gas management in SACHS.
It is noted that the KENWORTHY reference teaches in the background information regarding additive manufacturing with the teaching powder bed fusion, and further of the binder jet process also uses a powder bed, the powder can have the same composition and characteristics as powder bed fusion powders, see [0004, 0005].
Whereby, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the system of ELGAR with a binder jet printing in a controlled environment as taught by SACHS as an alternative environment controlled housing for additive manufacturing, particularly in light of the teaching by KENWORTHY regarding that some of the powder materials can be the same in two processes. Here, the desire for a controlled environment with the prevention of the outside air/gas from entering the main build area can be utilized by the ELGAR teaching in the binder jet process of SACHS.
Re: 4 (upon 1) wherein the first volume and the second volume are at least partially isolated from one another by bellows at the boundary.
See teaching of ELGAR of a bellow 730 arrangement that provides for reducing migration of material and/or debris from chamber 770, the seal 730 also allows for operation of an actuator movement that passes through the hole 780 into the chamber 770, see [0195].
Re: 5 (upon 4) wherein the bellows are constructed from an electrostatic-dispersive material.
ELGAR [0195] also teaches of the seal 730, bellows that can be formed of metal, rubber, polymeric, plastic, latest, silicon, composite material, fiber-glass, can also be stainless steel, titanium, nickel, copper. The wide teaching of the materials is considered as encompassing the claimed material.
Re: 9 (upon 1) wherein a gas pressure in the second volume is higher than a pressure of an ambient environment surrounding the second volume.
Re: 10 (upon 1) wherein gas pressure in the second volume is lower than a pressure of an ambient environment the second volume.
Regarding claims 9 and 10, the teaching by ELGAR includes holding the pressure in various volumes that are higher than that of the ambient pressure, see teaching of positive pressure, [0041], and also see teaching of gas content with different pressures, see [0042].
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the teaching pressure of the volumes of the modified ELGAR with the desired operating conditions in relation to the ambient pressure as taught in regards to pressure differentials between the different atmospheres.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELGAR in view of SACHS and KENWORTHY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ALEJANDRO (US 2019/0160745 A1),
Re: 6 (upon 1) wherein the plurality of process modules includes a printhead mounted to a carriage and having a compressible seal therebetween.
ELGAR fails to teach of a compressible seal between the printhead and carriage.
In the ALEJANDRO reference, [0038], there is a seal 322 provided between printhead 104-1 and mounting structure 206-1 of the carriage 102, and seal can be O-ring seal or rubber or foam film, and can be formed of a compressible material such as elastomer or other pliable material to provide an air seal to block airflow from leaking through the passage between printhead and the mounting of the carriage.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the jet binder of the modified ELGAR with the printhead having a compressible seal and mounted to the carriage as taught by e ALEJANDRO, as it would prevent any leakages from the printhead and carriage.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELGAR in view of SACHS and KENWORTHY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of OTT (EP 3028841 A1).
Re: 2 (upon 1) wherein the inflow of process gas includes an amount of gas recycled from the second volume.
Re: 3 (upon 1) wherein the inflow of process gas is provided by an external gas source.
ELGAR does not specifically teach of the recycling or of a specific gas source.
Regarding both claims 2 and 3, the OTT reference teaches in Figure 1, of a containment housing 22, and of a containment chamber 34 that surrounds the build chamber 36, the containment chamber is at a low pressure operating atmosphere, while the build chamber is under positive pressure generated by an inert gas source, see [0025-0028]. The additive manufacturing technique can be laser powder bed, laser powder deposition, cold spray, see [0026]. Further, the inert gas can be exhausted back through conduit 46 to the filter system 26 and wherein, joins the inlet conduit 40 of the inert gas source 28.
Wherein, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the gas flow into second volume of the modified ELGAR with the external gas source and recycling as taught by OTT as it provides less inert gas consumption, see [0028-0029].
Claim(s) 7-8 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELGAR in view of SACHS and KENWORTHY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BULLER (US 2018/0001557 A1).
Re: 7 (upon 1), further comprising: a z-lift enclosure accessible to a printing chamber of the binder jet printer via an aperture and configured to deliver a work surface of a build box to the printing chamber.
ELGAR fails to teach the z-lift enclosure to the printing chamber via aperture.
See teaching of BULLER in Figs. 3-4, [0187], particularly of the build modules 320 that engages with the processing chamber 310, see also build module with build platform 320 with elevator shaft 323, and further having a load lock 314 with the aperture and the shutters 324, 312, 354, 374, see [0203], as it allows for the exchanging and mounting of the build modules.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the z-lift enclosure as taught by the modified ELGAR with the additional aperture and configuration to deliver a work surface as taught by BULLER as it allows for the exchanging and mounting of the build modules.
Re: 8 (upon 7) wherein the gas management system is configured to maintain a conditioned environment in the z-lift enclosure independently of the second volume.
See teaching by BULLER for claim 7 above concerning the configuration to maintain the conditioned environment, see Figs. 2-3.
Re: 15 (upon 8), further comprising a pressure equalization tube between the second volume and the z-lift enclosure.
See teaching by BULLER of the concept of gas equilibration channel 1945 between the build module and the processing chamber, see [0011, 0201, 0202], see also Fig. 19.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ELGAR in view of SACHS and KENWORTHY as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WEINSTEIN (US 2020/0015509 A1).
Re: 11 (upon 1) wherein the second volume is a sealable printing chamber sealed via a plurality of multi-pane doors.
ELGAR does not teach of multi-pane doors.
WEINSTEIN in FIGS. 20 and 21, teaches:
[0103] “The door 524 can be hingedly coupled to the front wall 504 via hinges 526, 528 and includes a handle 530 for operating the door 524 between a closed and open position. The door 524 includes a cutout or opening 532 covered by a transparent window 534. The door 524 can be insulated and the window 534 can be formed from double-paned polycarbonate to prevent infiltration into the housing 502 and for maintaining the temperature within the housing 502. In some embodiments, an air gap of about 0.45 inches or about 0.5 inches can exist between the polycarbonate panes to assist in insulating the inner chamber. Although the other doors have been removed for clarity (e.g., only handles 536, 538 are visible in FIG. 21), it should be understood that the doors covering the cutouts 520, 522 can be substantially similar to the door 524… The space surrounded by the walls and doors of the housing 502 can form a build chamber having a controlled or controllable inner temperature.”
Wherein, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the construction of the doors of the modified ELGAR with multi-pane windows as it allows for a user to view into the chamber, and further the double pane allows for preventing of infiltration into the chamber and further in assisting of insulating of the chamber whereby aiding in controlling the inner temperature of the chamber, see [0103] of WEINSTEIN.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified ELGAR as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of STATHATOS (US 2022/0276541 A1)
Re: 12 (upon 11) wherein the multi-pane doors include a set of inner panes constructed from an electrostatically dispersive transparent material and a set of outer panes constructed from polycarbonate.
See teaching by WEINSTEIN of the polycarbonate materials for the windows. However, the modified ELGAR reference does not teach of an electrostatically dispersive transparent material for the inner pane.
Further, for the set of inner panes, the teaching in STATHATOS regarding electrochemic pane which are glass pane composed of nanocomposite semiconducting oxides on glass substrates, example is the fluorine-doped tin oxide coated glass which are ideal for a wide range of use, and are known for being relatively stable under atmospheric conditions, chemically inert, mechanically hard, high-temperature resistant, and high tolerance for physical abrasion, see [0063]. It is noted that the material taught by STATHATOS matches with the defined ‘electrocstatically dispersive transparent material’ as per applicant’s example in their disclosure of a glass with a coating of fluorine-doped tin oxide.
It would have been obvious for one ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the panes of the of the modified ELGAR, via having the double paned windows of WEINSTEIN, with the interior panes be of fluorine-doped tin oxide coated glass as taught by STATHATOS as it allows for a window facing the conditions within the build chamber that is stable and inert to the process, resistant to the temperatures and the abrasions of the powder.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified ELGAR as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of KRIPPNER (US 7393373 B1).
Re: 13 (upon 12) wherein the inner pane and outer pane are spaced apart a distance sufficient to store a set of gloves connected to a set of glove ports in the outer pane.
ELGAR does not specifically teach of the glove ports through the pane of the door.
However this concept is known in the art, and as seen in the KRIPPNER teaching, there are glove ports (glove access ports 28) that are installed through the clear panels into the chamber 20 of a molding machine 10, see Figs. 1-3, see Col. 6, lines 3-53. The concept of having the ports through the panel for chamber access can be accommodated allowing for users to access the interior of the chamber allowing for a user to inspect and sort the items as necessary, see Col. 12, line 38 to Col. 13, line 28.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the doors of the modified ELGAR with the addition of glove ports as taught by KRIPPNER as it allows for user access to the interior of the closed chamber without opening the chamber to the outside environment, thus allowing for the ability to inspect and sort in a controlled environment.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified ELGAR as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of BREZOCZKY (US 2018/0111319 A1) and SOSNOWSKI (US 2021/0023795 A1).
Re: 14 (upon 11), further comprising:
wherein the plurality of multi-pane doors include a center door and a first side door and a second side door, wherein the center door is configured to only be closeable when the first side door and the second side door are closed, and wherein the first side door and second side door are configured to only be openable when the center door is open; and a lock out device configured to lock the center door during the binder jetting additive manufacturing process.
The modified ELGAR reference does not specifically teach of the claimed door arrangements and of the lock out device.
See BREZOCZKY (US 2018/0111319 A1), [0227, 0228] teaches of plural sealable doors 1360, 1380, 1335, 1364 that are along the chamber 1300 to isolate the atmosphere in the chamber. The positions are at various locations for accessibility within the chamber. Further, SOSNOWSKI, see [0094], there is teaching of an actuation interface 816 that are coupled to door locks 830 to prevent access to the build material containers while they are being moved, the actuation interface 816 also controlling the various actuators in the 3D printer and thereby controlling the operating conditions desired of the system. This actuation interface of SOSNOWSKI teaches of the concept of a lock out device for the doors.
Whereby it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modify the doors of ELGAR with the plurality of doors as taught by BREZOCZKY as it would allow for variable access to the interior of the chamber and further with the lock out device as taught by SOSNOWSKI in order to prevent access to the chamber during operation.
Regarding the arrangement of particular side doors to the central door and to configure of how they can close in relation to one another, these are considered positioning of the doors to the desired access to the interior environment. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have further modified the positions of the doors of the modified ELGAR to locations such as a central and side doors position allowing for the desired accessibility within the chamber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See attached PTO-892 form, of particular note:
MCMUTRY (US 2024/0001447 A1) teaches of powder bed fusion with z lift mechanism and in a housing.
CHOW (US 2019/0177676 A1) teaches of 3D printing with gases in a chamber.
HUDELSON (US 2024/0424572 A1) teaches of inert environment for additive manufacturing, same applicant, several inventors are the same.
NIELSEN (US 2007/0063372 A1) teaches of interchangeable powder and build bins.
JUAN (US 11072027 B2) teaches of removable build modules.
NICAISE (US 2019/0009336 A1) a clean room environment in a housing 24 that is water tight, air tight via panels 16 that prevents leakage of gas or powder or liquid into the environment external to the installation, see [0025], and further an additive manufacturing machine M1 within, see [0027], the manufacturing chamber being supplied with inert gas, see [0030], whereby, teaching of two different volumes and with different environment being maintained.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMANUEL S LUK whose telephone number is (571)272-1134. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9 to 5.
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, Xiao S Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
/EMMANUEL S LUK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744