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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/28/2024 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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) 1-4, 11-13, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Redding et al. [Redding] (US PGPub 2018/0200791).
As to claim 1
Redding discloses an apparatus (dynamically damped recoater 300, see Fig. 3A) for recoating a printer bed (powder bed 114, see Fig. 1) of an additive manufacturing machine (system 100, see Fig. 1), comprising:
a blade (recoater blade 305, see Fig. 3A); and
a control element (blade pivot actuator 301, see Fig. 3A) to move the blade between a first position (move up into the body of the blade pivot actuator; see paragraph 0030, lines 9-10) and a second position (extend from the body of the pivot actuator), the apparatus having a first stiffness (very stiff, rigid recoater blade; see paragraph 0031, lines 14-15) when the blade is in the first position, the apparatus having a second stiffness (recoater blade become more flexible; see paragraph 0031, line 30) when the blade is in the second position, the first stiffness greater than the second stiffness (see paragraph 0030, lines 1-11 and paragraph 0031).
As to claim 2
Redding discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control element is a pin, the first position includes the blade at a first vertical displacement, and the second position includes the blade at a second vertical displacement, the second vertical displacement greater than the first vertical displacement (see paragraph 0029, lines 10-15).
As to claim 3
Redding discloses the apparatus of claim 2, wherein the pin is a split control pin (see paragraph 0029, lines 7-24).
As to claim 4
Redding discloses the apparatus of claim 1, wherein the control element is a joint, the first position includes the blade at a first rotational position, and the second position includes the blade at a second rotational position (see paragraph 0029, lines 7-24).
As to claim 11
Redding discloses an apparatus (system 100, see Fig. 1) for manufacturing an object (part 122, see Fig. 1) via additive manufacturing, the apparatus comprising:
a bed (powder bed 114, see Fig. 1) including a material substrate;
a beam emitter (laser 120/galvo scanner 132, see Fig. 1); and
a recoater (dynamically damped recoater 300, see Fig. 3A) to coat material (powder material) across the bed, the recoater including:
a blade (recoater blade 305, see Fig. 3A); and
a control element (blade pivot actuator 301, see Fig. 3A) to move the blade between a first position (move up into the body of the blade pivot actuator; see paragraph 0030, lines 9-10) and a second position (extend from the body of the pivot actuator), the apparatus having a first stiffness (very stiff, rigid recoater blade; see paragraph 0031, lines 14-15) when the blade is in the first position, the apparatus having a second stiffness (recoater blade become more flexible; see paragraph 0031, line 30) when the blade is in the second position, the first stiffness greater than the second stiffness (see paragraph 0030, lines 1-11 and paragraph 0031).
As to claim 12
Redding discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the control element is a pin, the first position includes the blade at a first vertical displacement, and the second position includes the blade at a second vertical displacement, the second vertical displacement greater than the first vertical displacement (see paragraph 0029, lines 10-15).
As to claim 13
Redding discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the control element is a joint, the first position includes the blade at a first rotational position, and the second position includes the blade at a second rotational position (see paragraph 0029, lines 7-24).
As to claim 20
Redding discloses the apparatus of claim 11, wherein the control element includes at least one of a hydraulic system or a pneumatic system (see paragraph 0032, lines 1-2).
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(s) 8-10 and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Redding et al. [Redding] (US PGPub 2018/0200791) in view of Breuer et al. [Breuer] (US PGPub 2017/0266704).
As to claim 8
Redding discloses the apparatus of claim 1, further including a controller (actuator controller; see paragraph 0016, line 7) to adjust the control element (see paragraph 0016, lines 6-8); however, Redding fails to specifically disclose the controller to adjust the control element based on a geometry of a fused layer on the print bed.
Breuer discloses adjusting stiffness (thickness; see paragraph 0026, line
2/stiffness; see paragraph 0007, line 8) of a blade (roller; see paragraph 0026, line 2)
based on a geometry (geometry; see paragraph 0020, line 1/shape; see paragraph
0020, line 3) of a fused layer on a print bed (see paragraph 0020, lines 1-4 and paragraph 0026, lines 1-5).
Redding and Breuer are analogous art because they are form the same field of invention which is control of spreading/rolling of material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redding's invention with Breuer's in order to make recoater blade stiffness control based on geometry instead of hardness, since doing so would result in proper smoothing of parts of varying shapes.
As to claim 9
Redding and Breuer disclose the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the controller is further to analyze the geometry based on a digital model of a component associated with the fused layer (see Redding paragraph 0031, lines 1-5).
As to claim 10
Redding and Breuer disclose the apparatus of claim 8, wherein the controller is further to determine a recoating speed (actuator parameter; see Redding paragraph 0031) of the blade based on the geometry (see Breuer paragraph 0020, lines 1-4 and paragraph 0026, lines 1-5).
As to claim 17
Redding discloses the apparatus of claim 11, further including a controller (actuator controller; see paragraph 0016, line 7) to adjust the control element (see paragraph 0016, lines 6-8); however, Redding fails to specifically disclose the controller to adjust the control element based on a geometry of a fused layer on a print bed.
Breuer discloses adjusting stiffness (thickness; see paragraph 0026, line
2/stiffness; see paragraph 0007, line 8) of a blade (roller; see paragraph 0026, line 2)
based on a geometry (geometry; see paragraph 0020, line 1/shape; see paragraph
0020, line 3) of a fused layer on a print bed (see paragraph 0020, lines 1-4 and paragraph 0026, lines 1-5).
Redding and Breuer are analogous art because they are form the same field of invention which is control of spreading/rolling of material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Redding's invention with Breuer's in order to make recoater blade stiffness control based on geometry instead of hardness, since doing so would result in proper smoothing of parts of varying shapes.
As to claim 18
Redding and Breuer disclose the apparatus of claim 17, further including an imager to capture images of the bed and wherein the controller is further to analyze the geometry based on an output of the imager (see Redding paragraph 0031, lines 1-5).
As to claim 19
Redding and Breuer disclose the apparatus of claim 17, wherein the controller is further to determine a recoating speed (actuator parameter; see Redding paragraph 0031) of the blade based on the geometry (see Breuer paragraph 0020, lines 1-4 and paragraph 0026, lines 1-5).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5-7 and 14-16 are 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:
Redding and Breuer, individually or in combination, fail to specifically disclose the apparatus further including an electromagnet adjustable between a first polarity and a second polarity, the first polarity causing the control element to move to the first position, the second polarity causing the control element to move to the second position (in regards to dependent claims 5 and 14). Accordingly, dependent claims 5 and 14 include allowable subject matter.
Further; Redding and Breuer, individually or in combination, fail to specifically disclose the apparatus wherein the blade is a first blade and further including a second blade opposite the first blade (in regards to dependent claims 6 and 15); wherein the first blade is directly coupled to the second blade (in regards to dependent claims 7 and 16). Accordingly, dependent claims 6, 7, 15, and 16 include allowable subject matter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Michael J. Brown whose telephone number is (571)272-5932. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday from 5:30am-4:00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Kamini Shah can be reached at (571)272-2279. 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.
/Michael J Brown/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2115
Prosecution Insights