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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This Office action is in response to the communication filed on 6/10/2026. Currently claims 1-20 are pending in the application; with claims 1-9 withdrawn from consideration.
Election / Restriction
Applicant's election of Group I, claims 10-20, without traverse, drawn to a system, in the reply filed on 6/10/2026 is acknowledged.
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 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.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.102 as being anticipated over Lebed (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0212411 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Lebed”.
Regarding claim 10, Lebed teaches in the Figure, a powder fusion system (element 2), comprising:
a powder fusion platform (element 10);
a powder bed that includes a top surface (element 8) which moves vertically with respect to a top surface of the powder fusion platform (a piston (not shown) moves the building platform vertically relative to the surface (para. [0026]);
a first powder (powder contained in container element 16);
a second powder (powder contained in container element 18);
a roller (element 20) to apply the first powder and the second powder to the powder bed (para. [0028]); and
an energy source to fuse the first powder and the second powder on the powder bed into a three-dimensional object, energy source configured to selectively direct energy to the materials disposed on the manufacturing surface (element 8) (para. [0030]).
Regarding claim 11, Lebed teaches a powder fusion system, wherein the first powder includes a first material and wherein the second powder includes a second material distinct from the first material; by teaching that the material supply containers 16, and 18 contain different types of powder (para. [0027]).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 103 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made 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 non-obviousness.
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 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious Lebed (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0212411 A1), in view of TenHouten et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2021/0252780 A1), hereafter, referred to as “TenHouten”.
Regarding claim 12, Lebed teaches in the Figure, a powder fusion system (element 2). Lebed also teaches in the Figure that the containers 16, and 18, contain different powders that are distributed over the coating surface by powder scraper or roller (element 20). But Lebed fails to explicitly teach the use of powder cartridge to dispense the powder. However, TenHouten teaches in Fig. 3, plurality of containers, such as cartridges that contain the powders (in form of slurry) to be dispensed to the coating surface in a multi-material powder bed fusion 3D printer system. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of TenHouten and use a powder cartridge that dispenses the first powder, wherein the second powder is positioned on a surface of the powder fusion platform between the powder cartridge and the powder bed; because that would allow precision control of the ingredient powders according to the design to form the 3D object accurately (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with powder bed fusion systems, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious Lebed (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0212411 A1), in view of Buller et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0367415 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Buller”.
Regarding claims 13-15, Lebed teaches in the Figure, a powder fusion system (element 2). Lebed also teaches the use of rollers for depositing powders on the coating platform. But Lebed fails to explicitly teach that the rollers have depression or protrusions on the surface, counter-rotates, and causes the blending of the powders. However, Buller teaches the use of rollers having protrusions or depressions in the process of powder dispensing. In some examples, the roller has a rolling surface that is rough. In some examples, the roller comprises depressions. In some examples, the roller comprises protrusions (e.g., 12F at 1227). The roller can be in front of or behind a combing mechanism (e.g., comprising a rake, brush, spatula or knife). The combing mechanism may comprise a vertical cross section (e.g., side cross section) of a circle, triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon, octagon, any other polygon, or an irregular shape (para. [0323]). Buller also teaches that the roller may comprise an active rotation mechanism configured to force rotation of the roller in a clockwise direction. The roller may comprise an active rotation mechanism configured to force rotation of the roller in a counter-clockwise direction (para. [0146]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Buller and use a roller in the dispenses system, wherein the roller includes a depression or protrusion on its surface, having the capability of counterrotation, when applying the first powder and the second powder, causing the first powder to blend with the second powder; because that would allow proper mixing of the ingredient powders according to the design to form the 3D object accurately (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with powder bed fusion systems, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious Lebed (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0212411 A1), in view of Slager et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0119363 A1), hereafter, referred to as “Slager”.
Regarding claim 16, Lebed teaches in the Figure, a powder fusion system (element 2), comprising:
a powder fusion platform (element 10);
a powder bed that includes a top surface (element 8) which moves vertically with respect to a top surface of the powder fusion platform (a piston (not shown) moves the building platform vertically relative to the surface (para. [0026]);
a first dispenser holding a first powder (powder contained in container element 16);
a second dispenser holding a second powder (powder contained in the container element 18);
a roller (element 20) to apply the first powder and the second powder to the powder bed (para. [0028]); and
an energy source to fuse the first powder and the second powder on the powder bed into a three-dimensional object, energy source configured to selectively direct energy to the materials disposed on the manufacturing surface (element 8) (para. [0030]).
Lebed teaches a control unit (element 26) to control the operation of the fusion bed system. But Lebed fails to explicitly teach the use of a processor set, one or more computer-readable storage media, and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor to perform operations. However, Slager teaches a powder bed fusion system comprising a build area with a movable build plate. Two powder overflow and extraction (POE) chambers flank the build area on opposite sides. Two dispensing chambers flank the POE chambers, opposite the build area. Two reservoir chambers flank the dispensing chambers, opposite the POE chambers. Slager also teaches that the recoater device is configured to move build material from the dispensing chambers or reservoir chambers to the build area. An energy source is configured to generate an energy beam. An energy beam positioning device is configured to selectively direct the energy beam within the build area. A controller is programmed to control, according to a 3D model of a part, the energy source, energy beam positioning device, recoater device, build plate, and vertically movable plates within the POE chambers, dispensing chambers, and reservoir chambers (abstract). Slager also teaches in Fig. 1, a controller (160) comprising of processor unit, print parameters, program code and user interface, in addition to 3D model. Slager further teaches in Fig. 16, the use of computer readable storage media, and the program instructions stored in the form of codes to perform the operations. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Slager and use a processor set; and one or more computer-readable storage media; and program instructions stored on the one or more computer readable storage media to cause the processor to perform operations, because that would allow to operate the multi-material powder bed system to print 3D objects based on the design specification. Since both the references deal with powder bed fusion system, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination. It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan that the process would comprise of : determining a powder pattern based on a design for the three-dimensional structure that determines placement of the first powder and the second powder the powder fusion platform; dispensing the first powder and the second powder in accordance with the powder pattern; and triggering application of the first powder and the second powder to the powder bed using the roller; and triggering fusion of the first powder and the second powder using the energy source.
Regarding claim 17, Lebed teaches a powder fusion system, wherein the first powder includes a first material and wherein the second powder includes a second material distinct from the first material. by teaching that the material supply containers 16, and 18 contain different types of powder (para. [0027]).
Regarding claim 20, Lebed and Slager together teach a powder fusion system. Slager teaches that the operations further include: triggering a lowering of a level of the powder bed relative to the powder fusion platform; by teaching in Fig. 9A, to lower the build plate t desired layer height (step 920) so that the next layer could be deposited. It would also have been obvious to any ordinary artisan to repeating deposition of the first powder, deposition of the second powder, applying the first powder and the second powder to the powder bed, and fusing the first powder and second powder after lowering the level of the powder bed, wherein the second powder is deposited at a different position of the powder fusion platform to form a 3D object of desired design specification.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C.103 as being obvious Lebed (US Patent Application Publication Number 2022/0212411 A1), in view of Slager et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2023/0119363 A1), in view of Buller et al. (US Patent Application Publication Number 2015/0367415 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19, Lebed and Slager together teach, a powder fusion system. Lebed also teaches the use of rollers for depositing powders on the coating platform. But Lebed and Slager fails to explicitly teach that the rollers have depression or protrusions on the surface, and counter-rotates. However, Buller teaches the use of rollers having protrusions or depressions in the process of powder dispensing. In some examples, the roller has a rolling surface that is rough. In some examples, the roller comprises depressions. In some examples, the roller comprises protrusions (e.g., 12F at 1227). The roller can be in front of or behind a combing mechanism (e.g., comprising a rake, brush, spatula or knife). The combing mechanism may comprise a vertical cross section (e.g., side cross section) of a circle, triangle, square, pentagon, hexagon, octagon, any other polygon, or an irregular shape. (para. [0323]). Buller also teaches that the roller may comprise an active rotation mechanism configured to force rotation of the roller in a clockwise direction. The roller may comprise an active rotation mechanism configured to force rotation of the roller in a counter-clockwise direction (para. [0146]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the claimed invention, to incorporate the teaching of Buller and use a roller in the dispenses system, wherein the roller includes a depression or protrusion on its surface, having the capability of counterrotation, when applying the first powder and the second powder, causing the first powder to mix with the second powder; because that would allow proper mixing of the ingredient powders according to the design to form the 3D object accurately (KSR Rationale C, MPEP 2143). Since both the references deal with powder bed fusion systems, one would have reasonable expectation of success from the combination.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMMAD M AMEEN whose telephone number is (469) 295 9214. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F from 9.00 am to 6.00 pm (Eastern Time).
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.
/MOHAMMAD M AMEEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights