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 § 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.
Claims 8, 12-17, and 19 are 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.
Claims 8, 12, 13, and 19 recites the limitation "the trough". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purpose of examination examiner interprets the limitation as “a trough”.
Claims 14-17 are rejected due to being dependent upon a rejected claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 12-16, 18-19, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamren (US 2,254,219), and Arnold (US 3,672,292).
Regarding Claim 1, Hamren teaches a blast machine (Fig. 1) for blasting plastic components that are obtained by a 3D printing method, the blast machine comprising:
a housing (Ref. 2, Fig. 1),
a process chamber (Ref. 4, Fig. 1&2, [Pg. 3, left column Lines 15-16] internal chamber of the housing),
an extraction system (Ref. 18, Fig. 1, [Pg. 3, right column, Lines 43-48]), which is configured to extract substances from the process chamber using a suction capacity and a volume flow ([Pg. 3, Lines 45-48]), and
a tumble belt (Ref. 5, Fig. 2) which is arranged in the process chamber (Fig. 2).
Harmen fails to explicitly teach at least one first fan which is configured to extract substances from the process chamber using a first suction capacity and a first volume flow, at least one second fan, which is configured to extract substances from the process chamber using a second suction capacity and a second volume flow, wherein the first suction capacity is greater than the second suction capacity, and wherein the first volume flow is less than the second volume flow. Arnold teaches an abrasive blasting machine with a housing and dust extraction system and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Arnold further teaches a housing (Ref. 10, Fig. 1), a process chamber (Ref. 20, Fig. 1, internal chamber of the housing), and at least one first fan (Ref. 44, Fig. 6, [Col. 2, Lines 55-70] describe fans), which is configured to extract substances from the process chamber using a first suction capacity and a first volume flow ([Col. 2, Lines 55-70] describes having a flow to extract dust and debris from the chamber), at least one second fan (Ref. 26&28, Fig. 6, [Col. 2, Lines 48-53] describe fans), which is configured to extract substances from the process chamber using a second suction capacity and a second volume flow ([Col. 2, Lines 48-53] describes having a flow to extract dust and debris at some suction capacity and flow volume), and each fan generating an airflow to suck air and debris ([Col. 2, Line 35-43]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to substitute the extraction system, as taught by Harmen, with a first and second fan with a first and second suction flow, as taught by Arnold, to produce the predictable result of removing dust and debris from a chamber and for effective dust removal with a cross draft means ([Col. 1, Line 69-73]).
Pursuant of MPEP 2144.05.II.A-B (In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)), it has been found that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, the discovery of optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation is not inventive. In the case, Arnold teaches the first fan system to provide an airflow to move air and dust to the separator ([Col. 2-3, Lines 75-1]) with the second fan cross-ventilating the air ([Col. 3, Lines 1-2] and each fan system having its own power and suction velocity ([Col. 2, Lines 48-75]). Optimizing the airflow volumes and suction capacities in the first and second fans would result in moving dust and air to the separator and creating a cross ventilation. It appears that one of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation of success in modifying the first suction capacity is greater than the second suction capacity and wherein the first volume flow is less than the second volume flow, as it involves only adjusting the power and suction velocity of each fan and given the placement of each fan (Fig. 1). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction capacity and flow, as taught by Harmen as modified, wherein the first suction capacity is greater than the second suction capacity and wherein the first volume flow is less than the second volume flow, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
Regarding Claim 2, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the extraction system of Arnold, Arnold further teaches wherein the at least one first fan is designed as a side channel compressor (Fig. 1 shows the first fan is a side channel compressor (44&48)) and wherein the at least one second fan is designed as a radial fan (Fig. 6).
Regarding Claim 3, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the extraction system of Arnold, Arnold further teaches wherein the at least one first fan is configured to extract blasting material and residues of powder cake from the 3D printing method ([Col. 2, Lines 55-70] describes having a flow to extract dust and debris from the chamber),
wherein the at least one second fan is configured to extract gas and dust ([Col. 2, Lines 55-70] describes having a flow to extract dust and debris from the chamber).
Regarding Claim 4, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the extraction system of Arnold, Arnold further teaches wherein the at least one first fan is configured to extract blasting material during the blasting of the plastic components into an outflow of the process chamber (Fig. 6, [Col. 2, Lines 55-70] describes having a flow to extract dust and debris) and along a blasting material circuit to a blasting material container (([Col. 2, Lines 65-75] describes having blasting material circuit and blast material container to recycle usable materials),
wherein the at least one first fan is furthermore configured to extract powder cake residues from the 3D printing method into the outflow of the process chamber during the blasting of the plastic components (([Col. 2, Lines 65-75]), the blast machine furthermore comprising:
a separating device (Ref. 42, Fig. 1) which is configured to separate the blasting material from the residues of the powder cake ([Col. 2, Lines 68-75]).
Regarding Claim 6, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Hamren further teaches a lifting door (Ref. 7, Fig. 1-2) which is arranged in front of the process chamber (Fig. 1) and which can be moved along a longitudinal direction between a closed position (Fig. 8) and an open position (Fig. 1-2), wherein a lower edge of the lifting door (Ref. 384, Fig. 8) in the closed position rests on a sealing edge of the housing (Ref. 386, Fig. 8, [Pg. 9, Col. 2, Lines 58-60]), so that the process chamber is closed to form a seal (Fig. 8, [Pg. 9, Col. 2 Lines 55-60]), and
a sealing plate (Ref. 372, Fig. 2&8, lower curved portion of the door [Pg. 9, Col. 2, Lines 58-60]) having an upper edge (Ref. 373, Fig. 2 upper face) and a lower edge (Ref. 384, Fig. 8, lower face), wherein the sealing plate can be detachably arranged ([Pg. 9, Lines 52-58] describe being detachable and limiting pivoting movement) such that the lower edge of the sealing plate rests on the sealing edge of the housing (382, Fig. 2&8) and the lower edge of the lifting door (384) rests on the upper edge of the sealing plate (Fig. 8) when the lifting door is located in an intermediate position between the closed position and the open position such that the process chamber is closed to form a seal (Fig. 8), wherein one or more hand ports (Ref. 406, Fig. 2) are arranged in the sealing plate (Fig. 8)
Regarding Claim 7, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and Hamren further teaches a guide rail (Ref. 20, Fig. 3-4) arranged in the housing (Fig. 3-4) and extending transversely to the longitudinal direction of movement of the lifting door (Fig. 3-4), wherein the sealing plate (372) is movably arranged in the guide rail (Fig. 2&8).
Regarding Claim 8, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 6, as described above, and Hamren further teaches wherein the sealing edge of the housing (386) is formed on a flap of the housing which can be folded out when the lifting door is not in the closed position (Fig. 2), wherein the flap is arranged in relation to the tumble belt in such a way that process components can slide out of the trough via the flap (Fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 9, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Hamren further teaches a frame assembly (Ref. 21 &30, Fig. 4) for the tumble belt (Fig. 2&8, [Pg. 3, Col. 2, Line 69-75]), which has an upper deflection roller (Ref. 32, Fig. 8) and a lower deflection roller (Ref. 44, Fig. 8) and which is configured to guide a movement of the tumble belt (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 12, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, and Hamren further teaches wherein the frame assembly furthermore has guide channels (Ref. 20, Fig. 3-4) which extend along a direction of movement of the tumble belt (Fig. 2-3 &8) in an area facing toward the trough (Fig. 3 shows a trough made to hold components) formed by the tumble belt (Fig. 2&3) and which are configured to guide the tumble belt when moving (Fig. 8).
Regarding Claim 13, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, Herman further teaches a mount (Ref. 8, Fig. 8) to which one or more blasting nozzles are fastened (Fig. 8, [Pg. 8, Col. 1, Lines 14-16] describes blasting nozzles), wherein the mount is arranged to be movable relative to the trough (Fig. 3 shows a trough made to hold components, [Pg. 8, Col 1, Lines 14-19] describe mounting the nozzles above the trough-like chamber and projecting abrasive against work).
Regarding Claim 14, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, Herman further teaches an actuator (Ref. 250, [Pg. 8, Col. 1, Lines 30-35]) for the mount and
a control logic (Ref. 14&15, [Pg. 8, Col. 1, Lines 34-35 & Col. 2, Lines 38-41]) which is configured to activate the actuator in order to move the mount ([Pg. 8, Col. 1, Lines 34-35]).
Regarding Claim 15, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 14, as described above, Herman further teaches wherein the control logic is configured to activate the actuator so that it moves the mount transversely to a direction of movement of the tumble belt ([Col. 2, Lines 38-41] describes controlling the movement of the tumble belt).
Regarding Claim 16, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 13, as described above, Herman further teaches wherein the control logic is configured to activate the actuator so that it moves the mount toward the trough or away from the trough ([Col. 2, Lines 38-41] describes controlling the movement of the tumble belt)
Regarding Claim 18, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Hamren further teaches a partition wall (Ref. 58, Fig. 4) extending along the direction of movement of the tumble belt (Fig. 8) and arranged to divide the process chamber into two areas (Fig. 4).
Regarding Claim 19, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Hamren further teaches wherein the tumble belt (5) comprises a plurality of tumble belt segments (Ref. 22-25, fig. 2&8) which are connected to one another (Ref. 39-43, Fig. 8) and which have contact features (Fig. 2&8 surfaces of the segments) which are configured to engage corresponding contact features of webs (Ref. 57-58, Fig. 2&4) in order to form the tumble belt having webs oriented perpendicularly to the tumble belt surface in this way (Fig. 4, [Pg. 3-4, Col. 2-1, Lines 72-3]), optionally wherein the webs are arranged in such a way that they promote a movement of process components arranged in a trough (Fig. 3 shows a trough made to hold components) formed by the tumble belt perpendicular to a direction of movement of the tumble belt ([Pg. 3-4, Col. 2-1, Lines 72-3]).
Regarding Claim 21, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and Hamren as modified further teaches operating a blast machine according to claim 1 (See rejection of claim 1 above for the blast machine).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamren as modified as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Sander (US 5,231,805).
Regarding Claim 5, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 1, as described above, and given the teaching of the extraction system of Arnold, Arnold further teaches a fan module (Fig. 6), comprising:
the second fan (27&28),
an opening of the process chamber (Ref. 24, Fig. 6)leading to the second fan (Fig. 6, [Col. 2, Lines 48-50]), and
an exchangeable filter ([Col. 2, Lines 50] describes having a filter) which is configured to filter fine dust particles ([Col. 2, Lines 50]).
Hamren as modified fails to explicitly teach a lattice structure in an opening of the process chamber. Sander teaches a blasting apparatus and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Sander further teaches a lattice structure (Ref. 91, Fig. 3, [col. 9, Lines 24-32]), in an opening of the process chamber (Ref. 90, Fig. 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the outlet, as taught by Hamren, with a lattice structure, as taught by Sander, to ensure any larger chunks of abraded material do not pass through [col. 9, Line27-32]) and since such a modification would yield the predictable result of suctioning air and dust particles out of a chamber.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamren as modified as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Peik (1,567,077).
Regarding Claim 10, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 9, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach the frame assembly pivotable between an operating position and a maintenance position. Peik teaches an abrading system with a tumbling belt and frame assembly and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Peik further teaches a frame assembly (Ref. 13, Fig. 3) for the tumble belt (Ref. 83, [Pg. 3, Line 66-70] describes a skid for the conveyor), wherein the frame assembly is arranged to be pivotable between an operating position (Fig. 3) and a maintenance position (Fig 1) about a pivot axis (Ref. 57, Fig. 2-3) arranged in the area of the upper deflection roller (examiner interprets area as vicinity and near, Fig. 3 shows the pivot axis is in the area). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the frame and tumble belt, as taught by Hamren as modified, to pivot between an operating position and a maintenance position, as taught by Peik, to provide better safety to the user by making the chamber less accessible while in the operating position and to allow for easy inspection and repairs ([Pg. 1, Lines 21-37]).
Regarding Claim 11, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 10, as described above, Herman further teaches a motor (Ref. 68, Fig. 6), which is connected to the upper deflection roller via a drive shaft (Ref. 67, Fig. 6). Peik further teaches a locking mechanism (Ref. 58&57, Fig. 2) for the frame assembly which is configured to unlock an engagement between the housing and the frame assembly when the frame assembly is arranged in the maintenance position (Fig. 1&3, [Pg. 2, Lines 120-130]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the drive shaft, as taught by Hamren as modified, with a locking mechanism, as taught by Peik, to allow for easy inspection and repairs ([Pg. 1, Lines 21-37]).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hamren as modified as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Ohishi (2007/0037484).
Regarding Claim 17, Hamren as modified teaches the limitations of claim 16, as described above, but fails to explicitly teach a distance sensor. Ohishi teaches a blasting machine and can be considered analogous art because it is within the same field of endeavor. Ohishi further teaches a blasting nozzle (Ref. 23, Fig. 1) and a distance sensor ([0038] describes a distance sensor for a blasting nozzle) that determines a distance between the mount and process components in the trough (Fig. 3 shows a trough made to hold components, [0038]),
wherein the control logic is configured to form a control loop in order to regulate the distance to a setpoint value by moving the mount toward the trough or away from a surface ([0038] describes the blasting nozzle moving away and towards a surface by a manipulator). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the mount, as taught by Hamren as modified, with a distance sensor, as taught by Ohishi, to better polish a target by determining the position dimension and shape ([0038]).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s amendments to the claims are acknowledged. Examiner has withdrawn the claim objections and the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejections. However, new 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been applied to the amended claims.
Applicant's arguments filed 24 February, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, In response to applicant's argument that there is no motivation to modify the extraction system of Harmen with the fans of Arnold, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981).
Further, In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Arnold teaches a separator for separating and recycling used abrasive ([Col. 2, Lines 68-75]) and would accomplish the similar goal of Hamren to separate abrasive material and the dust and sand. Given that both Harmen and Arnold have extraction systems that are used to remove dust and debris while separating abrasive materials, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the extraction system of Harmen with first and second fan with a first and second suction flow, as taught by Arnold.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Examiner notes that the extractions systems of both Harmen and Arnold are used to remove dust and debris while separating abrasive materials. Examiner is merely modifying one extraction system with another that will yield the same predictable result of filtering dust and debris from the abrasive. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the extraction system of Harmen with first and second fan with a first and second suction flow, as taught by Arnold.
Applicant’s arguments in regards to it would not have been obvious to modify the suction volume flow of Arnold to have the first suction capacity is greater than the second suction capacity, wherein the first volume flow is less than the second volume flow have been fully considered and is not persuasive. In this case, given that Arnold teaches the first fan system to provide an airflow to move air and dust to the separator ([Col. 2-3, Lines 75-1]) with the second fan cross-ventilating the air ([Col. 3, Lines 1-2] and each fan system having its own power and suction velocity ([Col. 2, Lines 48-75 Given that the extraction system of Arnold is modifying the extraction system of Harmen, changing the airflow volumes and suction capacities in the first and second fans would result in moving dust and air to the separator and creating a cross ventilation. The test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the suction capacity and flow, as taught by Harmen as modified, wherein said first suction capacity is greater than said second suction capacity and wherein said first volume flow is less than said second volume flow, as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955).
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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA L POON whose telephone number is (571)272-6164. The examiner can normally be reached on General: 6:30AM-3:30PM.
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, David Posigian can be reached on (313) 446-6546. 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 https://ppairmy.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. 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.
/DANA LEE POON/Examiner, Art Unit 3723
/DAVID S POSIGIAN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723
Prosecution Insights