Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/997,839

AM APPARATUS AND AM METHOD

Final Rejection §103
Filed
Nov 03, 2022
Examiner
JANSSEN, REBECCA
Art Unit
1733
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Ebara Corporation
OA Round
2 (Final)
61%
Grant Probability
Moderate
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 61% of resolved cases
61%
Career Allow Rate
212 granted / 349 resolved
-4.3% vs TC avg
Strong +30% interview lift
Without
With
+29.7%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
51 currently pending
Career history
400
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.8%
-39.2% vs TC avg
§103
44.0%
+4.0% vs TC avg
§102
24.4%
-15.6% vs TC avg
§112
23.5%
-16.5% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 349 resolved cases

Office Action

§103
DETAILED ACTION Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 11/13/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-3 and 5-21 remain pending in the application. Claim(s) 5-21 have been withdrawn. Claim(s) 4 has been canceled. Applicant's amendments to the claims have overcome the claim objections previously set forth in the Non-Final Rejection mailed 8/13/2025. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. Language from the reference(s) is shown in quotations. Limitations from the claims are shown in quotations within parenthesis. Examiner explanations are shown in italics. Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riemann (US 20190047089 A1), in view of Shimoda et al. (US 20210023788 A1). Regarding claims 1 and 3, Riemann teaches “systems and methods for actively cooling an additive manufacturing process, such as a laser metal deposition process, in order to improve structural characteristics of the piece built by the additive manufacturing process” (which reads upon “an AM apparatus for manufacturing a fabricated object”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0002]). Riemann teaches that “commercially available additive manufacturing methods include extrusion-based methods (e.g., Fused Deposition Modeling (FDM)), fusing or binding from a powder bed based methods (e.g., Selective Laser Sintering (SLS), Selective laser melting (SLM), and Electron beam melting (EBM)), lamination methods, photopolymerization methods (e.g., stereo lithography), powder- or wire-fed directed energy deposition methods (e.g., direct metal deposition (DMD), laser additive manufacturing (LAM), laser metal deposition (LIVID)), and others” (which reads upon “direct energy deposition (DED)”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0003]). Riemann teaches that “additive manufacturing system 100 also includes a control system 104, and that in this example, control system 104 is in data communication with user interface 102 as well as directed energy source 106, material feed 108, gas feed 110, process motion system 112, temperature sensor 114, camera 116, build surface motion system 124, and cooling system 132” (which reads upon “the AM apparatus comprising”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0025]). Riemann teaches that “auxiliary gas nozzle 320” (which reads upon “a direct energy deposition (DED) nozzle”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0058] and FIG. 3B). Riemann teaches that “the depicted portion of the nozzle assembly includes an inner nozzle 306 mounted coaxially with outer nozzle 304, thereby forming a conical powder channel 308” (which reads upon “wherein the DED nozzle includes, a DED nozzle main body, a powder port disposed at the distal end of the DED nozzle main body and a powder passage configured to communicate with the powder port, the powder port being for emitting a powder material, the powder passage being for allowing the powder material to pass through the DED nozzle main body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0059]). Riemann teaches that “powder flowing through the conical powder channel 308 exits through an annular gap and forms a powder cone 310 which converges at a powder focal point in melt pool 312” (paragraph [0059]). Riemann teaches that “laser beam 302 similarly converges at a focal point in melt pool 312” (which reads upon “a laser port disposed at a distal end of the DED nozzle main body and a laser passage configured to communicate with the laser port, the laser port being for emitting a laser beam, the laser passage being for allowing the laser beam to pass through the DED nozzle main body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0059] and FIG. 3B). Riemann teaches that “in FIG. 3B, an additional auxiliary gas flow 324, such as shield gas or cooling gas, is directed around melt pool 312” (paragraph [0060]). Riemann teaches that “the auxiliary gas channel 322 is formed between outer nozzle 304 and a coaxially mounted auxiliary gas nozzle 320.” (which reads upon “the AM apparatus further comprises a cover configured to surround a peripheral area of the laser port and the powder port of the DED nozzle”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0060]). Riemann teaches that “the auxiliary gas flow 324 is narrowly “focused” to direct the auxiliary gas 324 around a periphery of melt pool 312; for example, the auxiliary gas 324 may strike the part being manufactured in a concentric circular pattern around, but not within melt pool 312” (which reads upon “the cover is configured to have an opened downstream side in an emission direction of the laser beam, and the cover includes a gas supply passage for supplying a gas inside the cover, and the gas supply passage is configured to be oriented so as to guide the gas toward the DED nozzle main body”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0060]; auxiliary gas channel 322 guides the gas along main body 304). Riemann is silent regarding wherein the discharge passage of the cover is configured to be oriented so as to guide a gas upward inside a side wall of the cover or a second gas supply passage configured to be oriented so as to guide a gas toward a focal point of a laser from a direction perpendicular to the emission direction of the laser. Shimoda is similarly concerned with a 3dimensional object-forming apparatus (paragraph [0008]). Shimoda teaches “a 3dimensional object-forming apparatus including: a laser irradiation unit that has an optical system; a shroud that has an inside space which extends from one end opening to another end opening; and a protection member that is arranged in the one end opening of the shroud, configured to transmit laser light emitted from the laser irradiation unit through the inside space of the shroud and to pass the laser light through the other end opening to an external space of the shroud, and configured to isolate the laser irradiation unit from the inside space of the shroud, in which a 3dimensional object is formed by repeating a process in which a powder layer formed in an object-forming area is irradiated with the laser light emitted from the laser irradiation unit through the inside space of the shroud while an irradiation position is changed by a driving mechanism, and powder which configures the powder layer is sintered or melt-solidified” (paragraph [0008]). Shimoda teaches that “the shroud includes: an inside partition wall portion which demarcates the inside space and in which an air supply port for supplying air to the inside space is provided in a position closer to the one end opening of the shroud than the other end opening of the shroud; and an outside partition wall portion that opens in the other end opening of the shroud on an outside of the inside space, demarcates, together with the inside partition wall portion, an outside space which closes in a position closer to the one end opening than the other end opening of the shroud, and is provided with an exhaust port for exhausting air from the outside space, and a ventilation area of the inside space in the other end opening is larger than the ventilation area of the inside space in an upstream portion closer to the one end opening than the other end opening” (paragraph [0009]). Shimoda teaches that “this prevents pollution, with fumes, of the protection member that isolates the laser irradiation unit from the inside space of the shroud, lowering of transmittance of the laser light in the protection member, and further lowering of irradiation intensity of the laser light” (paragraph [0011]). Shimoda teaches that “the air supply port provided to the inside partition wall portion be configured to introduce inactive gas into the inside space and toward a route of the laser light” (which reads upon “a second gas supply passage configured to be oriented so as to guide a gas toward a focal point of a laser from a direction perpendicular to the emission direction of the laser”, as recited in the instant claim; paragraph [0019] and FIG. 1; gas comes from a direction perpendicular to the emission direction of the laser initially, see supply source 421 of inactive gas such as N2 gas is connected with the air supply port 210 in FIG. 1; gas is then guided toward (getting closer to) a focal point of the laser). Shimoda FIG. 1 shows wherein the discharge passage of the cover is configured to be oriented so as to guide a gas upward inside a side wall of the cover. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the nozzle of Riemann to add a shroud, as taught by Shimoda to prevent pollution, with fumes, of the protection member that isolates the laser irradiation unit from the inside space of the shroud, lowering of transmittance of the laser light in the protection member, and further lowering of irradiation intensity of the laser light. Regarding claim 2, Riemann teaches the apparatus of claim 1 as stated above. Riemann teaches that “the auxiliary gas flow 324 is narrowly “focused” to direct the auxiliary gas 324 around a periphery of melt pool 312” (paragraph [0060]). Response to Arguments Applicant's arguments filed 11/13/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the gas supply ports of Shimoda are oriented to guide a gas towards a route of the laser above, or prior to, the focal point (remarks, page 11). Applicant argues that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand Shimoda, at best, disclosing that the gas supply port is oriented so as to guide a gas from a non-perpendicular direction to the emission direction of the laser (remarks, pages 11-12). Applicant further argues that Shimoda does not disclose an AM apparatus wherein the cover includes a second gas supply passage configured to be oriented so as to guide a gas toward a focal point of a laser AND from a direction perpendicular to the emission direction of the laser (remarks, page 12). This is not found convincing because FIG. 1 of Shimoda shows that gas comes from a direction perpendicular to the emission direction of the laser initially, see supply source 421 of inactive gas such as N2 gas is connected with the air supply port 210 in FIG. 1. FIG. 1 of Shimoda shows that gas is then guided toward (getting closer to) a focal point of the laser. The Examiner notes that there are differences in the details of the flow of the gas between Applicant’s FIG. 7 and FIG. 1 of Shimoda, as discussed in Applicant’s remarks. However, using the broadest reasonable interpretation standard for interpreting the current claim language, the art reads on the claims. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to REBECCA JANSSEN whose telephone number is (571)272-5434. The examiner can normally be reached on Mon-Thurs 10-7 and alternating Fri 10-6. 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. The Examiner requests that interviews not be scheduled during the last week of each fiscal quarter or the last half of September, which is the end of the fiscal year. Q2: 3/30-4/3/26; Q3: 6/22-6/26/26; Q4: 9/21-9/30/26. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Hendricks can be reached on (571)272-1401. 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. /REBECCA JANSSEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Nov 03, 2022
Application Filed
Aug 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Nov 13, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 12, 2026
Final Rejection — §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599961
NOBLE METAL FINE PARTICLE AND USE THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12583031
METHOD FOR DENSIFICATION OF POWDERED MATERIAL USING THERMAL CYCLING AND MAGNETIC CYCLING
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583059
SOLDER PASTE ON DEMAND APPARATUS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12583795
SLURRY MIXTURES FOR 3-D SLURRY EXTRUSION OF ARTIFACTS
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12576448
TOOL MAIN BODY AND METHOD FOR PRODUCING TOOL MAIN BODY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 17, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
61%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+29.7%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
Moderate
PTA Risk
Based on 349 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month