DETAILED ACTION
Claims 16-30 are pending and currently under review.
Claims 1-15 are cancelled.
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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/16/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 12/16/2025 has been entered. Claims 16-30 remain(s) pending in the application.
The indicated allowability of claims 26-27 is withdrawn in view applicant’s amendments that broaden the scope of claims 26-27.
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.
Claim 22 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 22 recites that the absorption device includes an absorption element defined by a portion of the irradiation unit housing wall. However, claim 22 is dependent upon claim 16, which already recites that the absorption device is defined by a portion of the process chamber wall. It is unclear to the examiner as to how the absorption device can be defined by both the process chamber wall and irradiation unit wall, which are different structures.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 16-22, 28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 2021/0291450) in view of Maggiore (US 2016/0068793).
Regarding claim 16, Barnes discloses a 3D printing system (ie. apparatus for producing three-dimensional workpieces) for building objects in a layer-by-layer manner using a laser or electron beam [abstract, 0001]; wherein said apparatus includes a process chamber (100) having a build platform (102) (ie. carrier) and a powder spreader device) (ie. powder application device), a fusing module (114) which one of ordinary skill would recognize to naturally scan a powder pattern according to a desired geometry based on the basic principles of additive manufacturing, as well as a number of absorbing structures (124) and reflecting structures (122) [0008, fig.1a]. Barnes further teaches that the fusing module includes IR heating lamps among other sources, which meets the limitation of electromagnetic radiation.
Barnes does not expressly teach absorption devices defined by a portion of a process chamber wall as claimed. Maggiore discloses that it is known to include absorptive material in the chamber walls to block or reduce laser intensities escaping from the chamber (ie. adapted to absorb radiation occurring inside the chamber [0080]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Barnes by including an absorptive material in the chamber wall for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Maggiore.
Regarding claim 17, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). As stated above, the absorptive element of Maggiore has a function of absorbing radiation occurring inside the chamber, which meets the limitation of an absorption surface facing an interior of the chamber based on the plain definition of “faces” being “the surface of something having a particular function”. In this case, the function of absorbing radiation is oriented within the chamber to absorb radiation within the chamber (ie. faces interior of chamber).
Regarding claims 18-19, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). As stated above, Barnes further teaches a number of absorbing and reflecting structures, wherein said reflecting structures (122) are located in the fusing module (and also in the chamber as the fusing module is located within the chamber) which serve to shield the apparatus from unwanted heating [0008, fig.1a]. The reflecting structures are also expressly depicted to be facing into the chamber [fig.1a]. Barnes further teaches that the fusing module includes IR heating lamps among other sources, which meets the limitation of electromagnetic radiation.
Regarding claim 20, Barnes discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). Barnes further teaches that the absorber material can be aluminum, which one of ordinary skill would recognize to have a thermal conductivity meeting the claimed range [0026].
Regarding claims 21-22, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). Barnes further teaches multiple reflector structures (122) and also teaches side wall reflector structures (125) [fig.1a].
Regarding claim 28, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). The examiner notes that thermal expansion of the absorptive element of Maggiore would not affect a location of the irradiation unit as these would be separate and not in physical contact.
Regarding claim 30, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). Barnes further teaches that the reflecting structures are moveably associated with the fusing module (ie. functional tool within the chamber) [fig.1a].
Claim(s) 23, 26-27, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 2021/0291450) and Maggiore (US 2016/0068793) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Meiners et al. (US 2020/0061922).
Regarding claim 23, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a transmission element as claimed. Meiners et al. discloses an additive manufacturing apparatus [abstract], wherein said apparatus further teaches a laser window (1025) which allows transmission of the laser energy (ie. transmission element) [fig.11]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Barnes et al. to have a laser window to allow for transmission of laser energy between a build chamber and laser unit as taught by Meiners et al. Said laser window is included in an upper wall portion of the chamber, wherein said upper wall portion also includes another shielding element (1070), and so the window of Meiners et al. is accommodated in a portion of the upper wall which also defines a reflection element.
Regarding claims 26-27, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach that the absorption devices have cooling fins as claimed. Meiners et al. discloses providing a powder bed fusion apparatus with cooling vanes (ie. fins) opposite the internal shielding surface or cooling channels opposite the internal shielding surface in order to desirably dissipate heat from the shielding device of the sleeve structure [0113, 0122, fig.2, fig.7]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Barnes by including vanes or channels for the benefit of dissipating heat as taught by Meiners et al. The examiner notes that cooling fins which protrude from the absorptive elements as suggested by the prior art combination would naturally be extending “from” the absorption device as claimed.
Regarding claim 29, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). Meiners et al. further discloses a gap between the chamber build sleeve (ie. housing wall) and shielding wall sleeve (ie. process chamber wall facing irradiation unit) for thermal isolation [0059, fig.11]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Barnes to have an air gap for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Meiners et al. The examiner notes that the distance depicted in the figures of Meiners et al. would naturally be greater than 0.1 mm as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art of additive manufacturing. Alternatively, the examiner submits that selection of a specific dimension of an air gap is an obvious, engineering design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill because mere selection of particular dimensions is not patentably distinct absent evidence that the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Claim(s) 24-25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 2021/0291450) and Maggiore (US 2016/0068793) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Van Hassel (US 2016/0207147).
Regarding claims 24-25, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a first gas inlet for providing cooled or heated gas as claimed. Van Hassel discloses that it is known to provide gas flow for an additive manufacturing apparatus to provide cooled, clean cover gas [abstract, 0020]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of the aforementioned prior art by including the gas circulation of Van Hassel to provide a cooled, clean cover gas as explained above. Van Hassel further expressly depicts a gas inlet and gas source [fig.1,7]. The examiner notes that cooled gas flowing into the process chamber would naturally serve to cool and transfer heat from within the chamber, which includes the absorbing and reflecting components within the chamber of Barnes. Van Hassel does not expressly teach a second gas inlet and gas source as claimed. However, the examiner notes that the limitations of claim 25 merely duplicate the limitations of claim 24, wherein the mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. See MPEP 2144.04(VI)(B).
Claim(s) 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnes (US 2021/0291450) and Maggiore (US 2016/0068793) as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Huebinger et al. (US 2020/0276640).
Regarding claim 29, the aforementioned prior art discloses the apparatus of claim 16 (see previous). The aforementioned prior art does not expressly teach a gap as claimed. Huebinger et al. discloses that it is known to provide an air gap between a housing support and chamber side wall such that thermal decoupling of the structures is achieved [0018, fig.1]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill to modify the apparatus of Barnes to have an air gap for the aforementioned benefit disclosed by Huebinger et al. The examiner notes that the distance depicted in the figures of Huebinger et al. would naturally be greater than 0.1 mm as would have been recognized by one of ordinary skill in the art of additive manufacturing. Alternatively, the examiner submits that selection of a specific dimension of an air gap is an obvious, engineering design choice that would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill because mere selection of particular dimensions is not patentably distinct absent evidence that the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device. See MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 12/16/2025, with respect to the previous rejection(s) have been fully considered and are persuasive in view of the amendments filed 12/16/2025. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Maggiore as explained above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS A WANG whose telephone number is (408)918-7576. The examiner can normally be reached usually M-Th: 7-5.
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, Jonathan Johnson can be reached at 5712721177. 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.
/NICHOLAS A WANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1734