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 .
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, claims 1-18, in the reply filed on 12/11/2025 is acknowledged.
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.
Claims 1-18 are 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.
Claims 1-5, 8 and 16-17 are indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as “tube-like”. Claim 1 is further indefinite because the claim fails to positively recite a step of removing powder from the three dimensional workpiece. Additionally, the preamble recites power removal, but line 6 recites “residual powder”. It is suggestive to amend the preamble to “residual powder removal”. Claim 7 is indefinite for the following reasons. Claim 7 is dependent on claims 6, 3, 2, and 1, and therefore it is unclear what applicant means by the phrase “for a further process according to the method of claim 1. Claim 7 as amended is dependent on claim 1, the examiner suggests amending claim 7 to delete the above phrase. Claims 8 and 18 are indefinite because of the phrase “optionally” and “in particular”, as the phrase renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 12 should be amended to recite “residual powder”. Claim 17 is indefinite because it is unclear the difference between “a closed volume” and “an inner volume” recited in claim 1. Claim 18 is indefinite because it is unclear what the skilled artisan would consider as “powder-tight” or “gas-tight”. Does powder-tight refer to the residual powder not escaping the inner volume of the workpiece? Similarly, does gas-tight refer to an external gas not penetrating the inner volume of the workpiece or does it mean that gas present in the inner volume is prevented from escaping as a result of the foil. Clarification is requested.
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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 14-15 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Winiarski et al. (WO2019/094276A1).
It is noted that applicant’s specification does not define “tube-like foil” and therefore the limitation of “tube-like foil” is broadly interpreted to read on a cover which encapsulates the workpiece and the residual powder.
Re claim 1, Winiarski et al. teach a method of removing powder from a three-dimensional object 106 (Fig. 1) generated by additive manufacturing (abstract), the method comprising: mounting a build cylinder 104 (Fig. 1) to a build cylinder fixture 110, wherein the build cylinder comprises a base plate 108 holding the 3D workpiece (Fig. 1) , and sidewalls separably attached to the base plate (Fig.1), wherein the build cylinder comprises residual powder 107 (Fig. 1), attaching a tube-like foil (200; Figs. 2-3) to the build cylinder fixture 110 and/or to the base plate, wherein the workpiece is enclosed by the tube like foil in a manner that the workpiece is within an inner volume (201) defined by the tube-like foil. Re claim 14, refer to Fig. 5, which teaches rotating the build plate 108. Re claim 15, refer to paragraph 31 which teaches a vacuum system 212 connected to port 206 within the cover 200 so as to draw the loose powder 107, 202. Re claim 18, in view of the indefiniteness the limitations of the foil (i.e. cover) being powder-tight are meant since the residual cover is contained in the foil.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-13 and 16-17 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include 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 fails to teach the limitations of claims 2 and 9. The dependent claims which depend on claims 2 and 9 are deemed allowable.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The examiner cites the publication of the instant application for the record.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc