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 .
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 7, and 9-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy et al. (US 2022/0088685 A1) in view of Daniels et al. (US 2020/0307095 A1) and in further view of Rogren (US 2021/0154925 A1).
Regarding claim 1, 7, and 9-10, Kenworthy et al. teaches:
a three-dimensional ("3D") printing system for printing on a substrate (that is capable of supporting a substrate), the printing system comprising:
a powder distribution device dispensing powder onto the build platform that is capable of holding a substrate (see Figs. 1-2 hopper powder source item 202; additionally see Figs 3-5);
a blade, the blade configured underneath the powder distribution device and disposed at a height above the substrate (see Fig. 1 item 119-leveler as the blade; Fig. 2 item 204 as the leveler). Ken also teaches further including one or more sensors to determine parameter of a thickness of the dispensed powder at one or more locations and to adjust the powder distribution device ([0029],[0032],[0034],[0046],[0049]).
Ken fails to teach one or more a plurality of powder uniformization devices located at a distance from the powder distribution device along a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the substrate and configured to press on and spread the dispensed powder; the one or more sensors disposed upstream from the powder distribution device between at least one of the one or more powder uniformization devices and the powder distribution device and configured to determine one or more parameters of a thickness of the dispensed powder at one or more locations; a carrier device comprising the substrate and configured to transport the powder dispensed onto the substrate from the powder distribution device to a compaction device at a distal end of the carrier device.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing systems, Daniels et al. teach powder uniformization device located at a distance from the powder distribution device along a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the substrate (Fig 1 item 128-powder application, 108-powder uniformization device; [0041]-[0046]).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the Applicant’s invention was effectively filed to further include powder uniformization roller as taught by Daniels et al. for the benefit of fusing layers thereby creating a compact 3D structure.
Though Ken and Daniels et al. fail to explicitly teach wherein the one or more sensors is disposed between the blade-shaped end and the powder uniformization device… and blade being adjacent to the powder uniformization device as claimed, however, since Ken teaches sensing powder layer thickness ( [0029][0032][0034][0046][0049]), it would have been obvious to rearrange the sensor to a desired location, for efficiently monitoring thickness and repairing, since shifting the position of the known elements (sensor in relation to powder uniformization and dispensing) would not have modified the operation of the device, see In re Japiske, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
The above Ken and Daniels et al. fail to teach a carrier device comprising the continuous substrate configured to transport the powder dispensed onto the continuous substrate from the powder distribution device to a compaction device at a distal end of the carrier device from the powder distribution device…as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Rogren teach carrier device that can be used to move from station to station to form 3D printed object (Fig. 5 shows printing device 40, where carrier substrate 200 is moved by printing drive motor by transfer drive motor 260; [0088]-[0093]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious modify the apparatus as taught above with further including carrier device, as taught by ROGREN., for the benefit of efficiently forming 3D object at a faster rate. It is noted that such modification would result in rearrangement of parts including the powder distribution device, and powder uniformation device as taught above, for efficiently depositing and smoothing of materials, and such would be obvious design choice, see In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Claim limitation pertaining to wherein the blade extends towards the substrate such that the thickness of the dispensed powder transported downstream by the carrier device away from the blade is less than the thickness of the dispensed powder pertains to intended use of the apparatus, and since the combination provided above discloses the blade and carrier device similar to the applicant’s instant invention, thus, is fully capable of performing the claimed function.
Claim limitation pertaining to wherein the height at which the blade is disposed above the substrate is adjusted such that substantially no further powder from the powder distribution device approaches the one or more plurality of powder uniformization devices is obvious rearrangement of parts and claim limitation pertaining to a second sensor of the one or more sensors is disposed between the blade and another one of the one or more powder uniformization devices, are mere duplication of parts, for providing similar functional benefit of detecting powder layer thickness as discussed above, and would have been obvious since the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960) (Claims at issue were directed to a water-tight masonry structure wherein a water seal of flexible material fills the joints which form between adjacent pours of concrete. The claimed water seal has a "web" which lies in the joint, and a plurality of "ribs" projecting outwardly from each side of the web into one of the adjacent concrete slabs. The prior art disclosed a flexible water stop for preventing passage of water between masses of concrete in the shape of a plus sign (+). Although the reference did not disclose a plurality of ribs, the court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.).
Claim(s) 2 – 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy et al. (US 2022/0088685 A1) in view of Daniels et al. (US 2020/0307095 A1) and in further view of Rogren (US 2021/0154925 A1) in further view of Bedal et al. (US 8,119,053 B1).
As for claims 2-3, Kenworthy, Daniels, and Rogren et al. teach all the limitations to the claimed inventions as discussed above, however, fails to teach comprising a cleaning device configured to remove residual powder from at least one of the one or more powder uniformization devices or cleaning device configured to apply an electric charge to the one or more powder uniformization devices.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing, Bedal et al. teach the material removal mechanism for cleaning the work surface includes a vacuum, a conductor for drawing powder off the work surface using electrostatic attraction, a non-retractable brush, a blower for providing high velocity air, or a combination thereof. A non-retractable brush connected to the drum 310 may have a brush head, for example, adapted to maintain an interference with the work surface in order to sweep the work surface immediately after the image is transferred (see col 10. Lines 25-50).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to further combine with having a cleaning device capable of removing residual powder from at least one of the one or more powder uniformization devices, as suggested by Bedal et al., for the benefit of efficiently transferring the material (see col 10 lines 25-45).
Claim(s) 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy et al. (US 2022/0088685 A1) in view of Daniels et al. (US 2020/0307095 A1) and in further view of Rogren (US 2021/0154925 A1) in further view of Gaylo (US 5,934,343).
Regarding claims 4-6, Kenworthy, Daniels, and Rogren, et al. teach all the limitations to the claimed inventions as discussed above, however, fails to teach further comprising a vibrating device configured to vibrate at least one of the one or more powder uniformization devices, or a vibrating device, the vibrating device configured to vibrate the substrate.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing apparatus, Gaylo teaches the distribution is by means of a spreader 26 where the spreader could be a doctor blade or could be a roller as shown in FIG. 4. The selection of a straight or curved doctor blade, or a roller for distribution of the powder would be made according to the preferences of one skilled in the art of SFF and 3DP. In a preferred embodiment of the invention, a roller is used to distribute a powder from a platen across the build bed. The distribution or spreading of this powder across the build bed provides a new layer of powder for the solid free form fabrication or three dimensional printing process. If a roller is selected for use in distributing a powder, one skilled in the art will readily be able to determine a type of roller to use. The direction of rotation of the roller used could be in the direction of motion of the roller, or counter to the direction of motion. The roller could be vibrated while distributing the powder to compress the powder in the build bed. Optionally, a second roller in addition to the one used for distributing the powder across the build bed could be used to compress the powder in the build bed. wherein said roller vibrates while compacting the powder (col 4 lines 10-40; see claims 9, 19, 33). Gaylo further teach or shows a binder printer, the binder printer positioned downstream from the powder distribution device (see Fig. 4; col 1 lines 40-50).
It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the application to further combine with having and binder deposition device and a vibration device for the powder uniformization (roller) as taught by Gaylo, for the benefit of efficiently compacting the material thereby forming compressed powder layer thereby achieving desired density in the layers and parts produced. Alternatively, the vibration device as taught by Gaylo could be used to vibrate the build platform carrying the substrate, for similar purpose, thereby achieving the density.
Claim(s) 19 -20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenworthy et al. (US 2022/0088685 A1) in view of Daniels et al. (US 2020/0307095 A1) and in further view of Rogren (US 2021/0154925 A1) in further view of Prakash et al. (US 2020/0101663 A1).
Regarding claims 19-20, Kenworthy, Daniels, and Rogren, et al. teach all the limitations to the claimed inventions as discussed above, however, fails to teach wherein a bottom surface of the blade shaped end is parallel to a bottom surface of the powder distribution device; wherein a first end of the blade is positioned at a greater distance from the substrate than a second end of the blade, the first end being opposite to the second end.
In the same field of endeavor, pertaining to 3D printing apparatus, Prakash et al. teach wherein a bottom surface of the blade shaped end is parallel to a bottom surface of the powder distribution device (see Fig. 11 item 298, and 132A-132D); wherein a first end of the blade is positioned at a greater distance from the substrate than a second end of the blade, the first end being opposite to the second end (Fig. 11). It would have been obvious to one ordinary skilled in the art at the time of the effective filing of the instant application to have modified above with further including bottom surface of the blade shaped end being parallel to a bottom surface of the powder distribution device, as taught by Prakash et al., for the benefit of efficiently dispensing and spreading material.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 12,246,485 B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant claims are anticipatory over the reference claims, which includes a 3D printing system with all the subcomponents including a powder distribution device, a blade, a carrier device, one or more powder uniformization devices, one or more sensors.
Regarding claim 1, the claims reference U.S. Patent No. 12,246,485 B2 teaches a three-dimensional ("3D") printing system for printing on a substrate, the printing system comprising:
a powder distribution device dispensing powder onto the substrate; a blade, the blade configured to be adjacent to a wall of the powder distribution device and disposed at a height above the substrate;
a carrier device comprising the substrate and configured to transport the powder dispensed onto the substrate from the powder distribution device to a compaction device at a distal end of the carrier device;
wherein the blade extends towards the substrate such that the thickness of the dispensed powder transported downstream by the carrier device away from the blade is less than the thickness of the dispensed powder;
one or more a plurality of powder uniformization devices located at a distance from the powder distribution device along a direction substantially parallel to a longitudinal axis of the substrate and configured to press on and spread the dispensed powder; one or more sensors disposed upstream from the powder distribution device between at least one of the one or more powder uniformization devices and the powder distribution device and configured to determine one or more parameters of a thickness of the dispensed powder at one or more locations (see reference claim 1).
As for claims 2-20, see similarly claims 2-20 of the reference application and/or in view of the above prior arts as provided above.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,325,180 – pertains to additive manufacturing system, including and first and second printer modules including carrier device for substrate.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NAHIDA SULTANA whose telephone number is (571)270-1925. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday (8:30 AM -5:00 PM).
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at 571-270-5516. 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.
NAHIDA SULTANA
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/NAHIDA SULTANA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights