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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/28/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13 and 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, Applicant has been advised to replace “a first and a second powder holding chamber” in lines 2-3 to -- a first and a second powder holding chambers --, and “the first and a second powder holding chambers” in lines 4-5 and 7 to -- the first and second powder holding chambers --;
In claim 5, Applicant has been advised to replace “the respective first and a second powder holding chambers” in line 2 to -- the respective first and second powder holding chambers --;
In claim 6, Applicant has been advised to replace “a first and a second powder holding chamber” in lines 2-3 to -- a first and a second powder holding chambers --, and “the first and a second powder holding chambers” in lines 4-5 and 7 to -- the first and second powder holding chambers --;
In claim 9, Applicant has been advised to replace “the respective first and a second powder holding chambers” in line 2 to -- the respective first and second powder holding chambers --;
In claim 10, Applicant has been advised to replace “a first and a second powder holding chamber” in lines 2-3 to -- a first and a second powder holding chambers --,
In claim 12, Applicant has been advised to replace “the respective first and a second powder holding chambers” in line 2 to -- the respective first and second powder holding chambers --;
In claim 13, Applicant has been advised to replace “a first and a second powder holding chamber” in line 4 to -- a first and a second powder holding chambers --, and “the first and a second powder holding chambers” in lines 5-6 and 8 to -- the first and second powder holding chambers --; and
In claim 16, Applicant has been advised to replace “the respective first and a second powder holding chambers” in lines 2-3 to -- the respective first and second powder holding chambers --.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 6-9 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.
Claim 6 recites the limitation " the powder spreader" in lines 6-7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For the compact prosecution, Examiner has interpreted it as – the powder roller – recited in line 2.
The remaining dependent claims 7-9 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 6.
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.
(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, 3, 5, 6, 9, 10, 12, 13, 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Vatani et al. (US 2023/0016497).
With respect to claim 1, Vatani teaches a print engine of an additive manufacturing system (“print system 600”, Fig. 6), comprising:
a print station (“print system 600”) with a print bed (“the substrate 670”), powder spreader (“the powder uniformization device 640”), and a first and a second powder holding chambers (“a plurality of powder feeders 650, 655”) (Pa [0067]);
first and second powder nozzles (the outlet portions of the powder feeders 650, 655) respectively connected to the first and second powder holding chambers;
at least one vibratory element (“a vibrating device”) attached to at least one of the print bed and the powder spreader (“the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to a roller of the powder uniformization device 640, similar to vibrating device 410 a functionally connected to the roller 440. Further, the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to the substrate 670, similar to the vibrating device 410 b functionally connected to the substrate 470.”, Pa [0072]).
With respect to claim 3, Vatani as applied to claim 1 above teaches that the vibratory element comprises a vibrational head (“the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to a roller of the powder uniformization device 640, similar to vibrating device 410 a functionally connected to the roller 440. Further, the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to the substrate 670, similar to the vibrating device 410 b functionally connected to the substrate 470.”, Pa [0072] and Figs. 4A, 4B).
With respect to claim 5, Vatani as applied to claim 1 above further teaches that the powder feeders 650, 655 may contain different powder materials (Pa [0071]). It is noted that the limitation “size of powder held in the respective first and second powder holding chambers is different” is an intended use since the powder feeders of Vatani are capable of containing different size of powders. The Courts have held that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
With respect to claim 6, Vatani teaches a print engine of an additive manufacturing system (“print system 600”, Fig. 6), comprising:
a print station (“print system 600”) with a print bed (“the substrate 670”), powder roller (“the powder uniformization device 640”, “a roller”), and a first and a second powder holding chambers (“a plurality of powder feeders 650, 655”) (Pa [0067] and [0070]);
first and second powder nozzles (the outlet portions of the powder feeders 650, 655) respectively connected to the first and a second powder holding chambers;
at least one vibratory element (“a vibrating device”) attached to at least one of the print bed and the powder roller (“the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to a roller of the powder uniformization device 640, similar to vibrating device 410 a functionally connected to the roller 440. Further, the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to the substrate 670, similar to the vibrating device 410 b functionally connected to the substrate 470.”, Pa [0072]).
With respect to claim 9, Vatani as applied to claim 6 above further teaches that the powder feeders 650, 655 may contain different powder materials (Pa [0071]). It is noted that the limitation “size of powder held in the respective first and second powder holding chambers is different” is an intended use since the powder feeders of Vatani are capable of containing different size of powders. The Courts have held that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
With respect to claim 10, Vatani teaches a print engine of an additive manufacturing system (“print system 600”, Fig. 6), comprising:
a print station (“print system 600”) with a print bed (“the substrate 670”), powder spreader (“the powder uniformization device 640”) with ultrasonic agitation (“the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to a roller of the powder uniformization device 640, similar to vibrating device 410 a functionally connected to the roller 440”, Pa [0072]), and a first and a second powder holding chambers (“a plurality of powder feeders 650, 655”) (Pa [0067]); and
first and second powder nozzles (the outlet portions of the powder feeders 650, 655) respectively connected to the first and a second powder holding chambers.
With respect to claim 12, Vatani as applied to claim 10 above further teaches that the powder feeders 650, 655 may contain different powder materials (Pa [0071]). It is noted that the limitation “size of powder held in the respective first and second powder holding chambers is different” is an intended use since the powder feeders of Vatani are capable of containing different size of powders. The Courts have held that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
With respect to claim 13, Vatani teaches a method of operating a print engine of an additive manufacturing system (“print system 600”, Fig. 6), comprising:
providing a print station (“print system 600”) with a print bed (“the substrate 670”), at least one of a powder spreader and a powder roller (“the powder uniformization device 640”), and a first and second powder holding chambers (“a plurality of powder feeders 650, 655”) (Pa [0067]), with first and second powder nozzles (the outlet portions of the powder feeders 650, 655) respectively connected to the first and a second powder holding chambers;
activating at least one vibratory element attached to at least one of the print bed or the powder spreader (“the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to a roller of the powder uniformization device 640, similar to vibrating device 410 a functionally connected to the roller 440. Further, the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to the substrate 670, similar to the vibrating device 410 b functionally connected to the substrate 470.”, Pa [0072]; “the vibrating device 410 a is functionally connected, e.g., integrally connected, to the roller 440, and may be configured to vibrate at a rapid frequency in order to make the roller 440 vibrate at the rapid frequency”, Pa [0061]; “the vibrating device 410 b is functionally connected, e.g., integrally connected, to the substrate 470, and may be configured to vibrate at a rapid frequency in order to make the substrate 470 vibrate at the rapid frequency.”, Pa [0062]).
Furthermore, regarding process or method claims, a prior art device anticipates a claimed process, if the device carries out the process during normal operation (see MPEP § 2112.02).
With respect to claim 16, Vatani as applied to claim 13 above further teaches that the powder feeders 650, 655 may contain different powder materials (Pa [0071]). It is noted that the limitation “size of powder held in the respective first and second powder holding chambers is different” is an intended use since the powder feeders of Vatani are capable of containing different size of powders. The Courts have held that “Expressions relating the apparatus to contents thereof during an intended operation are of no significance in determining patentability of the apparatus claim.” Ex parte Thibault, 164 USPQ 666, 667 (Bd. App. 1969). Furthermore, “[i]nclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See In re Young, 75 F.2d *>996<, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935) (as restated in In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963)) (see MPEP § 2115).
With respect to claim 18, Vatani as applied to claim 13 above teaches that the vibratory element comprises a vibrational head (“the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to a roller of the powder uniformization device 640, similar to vibrating device 410 a functionally connected to the roller 440. Further, the print system 600 may include a vibrating device (not shown) connected to the substrate 670, similar to the vibrating device 410 b functionally connected to the substrate 470.”, Pa [0072] and Figs. 4A, 4B).
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.
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 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.
Claims 2 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatani et al. (US 2023/0016497) as applied to claims 1 and 13, and further in view of Stroud et al. (US 2021/0114289).
With respect to claims 2 and 17, Vatani as applied to claims 1 and 13 above does not explicitly teach that the vibratory element comprises an ultrasonic agitated blade.
In the same field of endeavor, a powder-layer three-dimensional printer, Stroud teaches that a powder-layer three-dimensional printer comprises an oscillating smoothing device using ultrasonic vibration frequency (Pa [0012] and [0027]), the oscillating smoothing device 30 includes a leading blade 32 and a leveling sled 34, which are supported by a smoothening device mount 36, one or more oscillating motors 38 mounted to the smoothening device mount 36 (Pa [0024]), and the leading blade of the oscillating smoothing device provides a shearing force to the surface of the deposited powder in the powder bed as the leading blade 32 moves across the powder bed, in this way, the leading blade 32 removes excess powder from high portions the powder bed surface and helps redistribute powder to low spots or depressions in the powder layer and removes excess powder from the build box (Pa [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of invention to modify Vatani with the teachings of Stroud and provide the oscillating smoothing device for the purpose of leveling and smoothing the powder layer.
Claims 4, 8, 11 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatani et al. (US 2023/0016497) as applied to claims 1, 6, 10 and 13, and further in view of Fulop et al. (US 2018/0162013-of record).
With respect to claims 4, 8, 11 and 15, Vatani as applied to claims 1, 6, 10 and 13 above further teaches that the printing system 1 includes a dispensing device 20, a compaction device 30, a binder printing device 40, a fixing device 50 and a fluidized materials removal device 60 (Pa [0032]), and the fixing device 50 can be configured to solidify the liquid binding material, thus fixing the fluidized material exposed to the liquid binding material in a robust solid pattern, and the fixing device 50 can be a source of radiant energy that may interact with the liquid binding material to cause it to become solid (Pa [0036]), but does not explicitly teach a laser able to direct a two dimensional laser image against the print bed.
In the same field of endeavor, a laser binding process for powder materials, Fulop teaches that the binder in the powder/binder mixture 501 may be activated on a layer-by-layer basis using an activation source 506 (e.g., a laser) to create a low strength bond in the binder in the powder/binder mixture for each cross section of a target shape (Pa [0100]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of invention to modify Vatani with the teachings of Fulop and substitute the laser for the fixing device for the purpose of a laser binding process.
Claims 7 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vatani et al. (US 2023/0016497) as applied to claims 6 and 13, and further in view of Pang et al. (CN 112238610A-Machine Translation provided herewith).
With respect to claims 7 and 14, Vatani as applied to claims 6 and 13 above does not explicitly teach that the powder roller includes a structured or patterned surface.
In the same field of endeavor, a 3D printing device and a powder spreading method, Pang teaches that the powder spreading device includes a powder spreading roller 60, and the surface of the powder spreading roller 60 is provided with a flexible brush structure 61, and in use, the roller drive 70 drives the powder spreading roller 60 to rotate, and the powder layer on the area to be powdered is leveled by the flexible brush structure 61, this reduces the powder spreading shear force, minimizes interference with the workpiece to be processed, and ensures a smooth powder spreading (Pa [0041]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of invention to modify Vatani with the teachings of Pang and provide a flexible brush structure on the surface of the roller in order to reduce the powder spreading shear force, minimize interference with the workpiece to be processed, and ensure a smooth powder spreading.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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 on 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 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 http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. 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.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742