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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 March 10, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s amendment to the claims filed March 10, 2026 has been entered. Claims 27, 29, 31-34, 41 and 42 are currently amended. Claims 1-26 have been canceled. Claims 27-58 are pending and under examination.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
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.
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 27-30, 33-38, 40 and 41 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Ohno et al. (US 2016/0325378).
Regarding claim 27, Ohno et al. teach a method for additive manufacturing/layered object manufacturing (Abstract) comprising: directing laser energy from one or more laser energy sources through an optics assembly and toward a build surface, wherein the laser energy moves in a scan direction across the build surface (paragraphs [0015], [0019], [0021], [0023], [0028], [0034] and [0045]; Figures 1-4) wherein the optics assembly is movable in the scan direction relative to the build surface (Figure 1 (14) (33) (336) (41) (42) (210); Figures 1-4; paragraphs [0016], [0018] and [0020]-[0029]; Figure 1 and paragraph [0023] make clear that the lens (336) can be arranged in the nozzle and paragraph [0021] makes clear the nozzle with the included lens moves in the X-direction); exposing a layer of material on the build surface to the laser energy (Figure 1 (42) (200); Figures 4-6; paragraphs [0016], [0018] and [0020]-[0029]); melting at least a portion of the layer of material due to exposure of the portion to the laser energy to form a melt pool (Figure 1 (110c); paragraphs [0002], [0016], [0019]); generating a non-uniform local flow of gas that flows through a partially enclosed volume disposed between a gas flow head and the build surface in a direction that is at least partially the scan direction (paragraph [0021] – the scan direction is or can be the X-direction; paragraphs [0026]-[0029] and Figure 3 – the gas is flowing in the negative x-direction, which is opposite the scan direction in the positive x-direction as described in paragraph [0021] and further illustrated with the arrow in Figure 4) wherein a volumetric flow rate of the gas through the partially enclosed volume is greater behind the melt pool than ahead of the melt pool relative to the direction of motion (Figures 2, 3, 6 and 7 (334a) (335a) paragraphs [0028], [0029]); and entraining particles ejected from the melted portion of the layer of material in the non- uniform local flow of gas in order to remove the ejected particles from the partially enclosed volume (paragraphs [0004], [0025] and [0027]).
As such, Ohno is understood to anticipate the claimed invention. Alternatively, Ohno does not explicitly recite or illustrate the nozzle is moving in the positive X-direction in Figures 1-3 (paragraph [0021] states the X-direction but does not explicitly recite the direction is the positive x-direction/moving right on the page direction and the only graphical representation of this direction is shown in Figure 4, which is not exactly the same embodiment as the first embodiment shown in Figures 1-3 (paragraph [0034] – Figure 4 shows “a modification…similar to that in the first embodiment…a configuration and a method…similar to those in the above embodiment)). However, the clear suggestion/implication in paragraph [0021] is that the positive x-direction is in view and the further suggestion is that each of the X, Y and Z directions are in view and that these can be used individually and/or together to produce the desired article. The nozzle arrangement moves the gas in the negative x-direction. When the nozzle is moving in the positive x-direction, the limitations of the claim are met. Even in embodiments where other directions are considered, this does not change the suggestion to move in the positive x-direction. Further, while Figure 4 discusses a configuration identified as being similar to the first embodiment that allows for movement in the Y-direction, this is not understood to suggest no movement in the X-direction is in view even in the related configuration. As such, relying on just the first embodiment as set forth in Figures 1-3 moving in the positive X-direction is at a minimum, strongly implied and renders movement in that direction prima facie obvious. Further, even in the related embodiment shown in Figure 4, one having ordinary skill in the art would have found it prima facie obvious to move also in the positive X-direction in order to produce the article. As such, in this alternative reading of the reference, the claim is rendered prima facie obvious either over the first embodiment shown in Figures 1-3 alone or it is rendered prima facie obvious with Figure 4 further in view.
As to claims 28-30 and 35, Ohno et al. teach the supply port and the exhaust port are in the form of slits and that the volumetric flow rate is higher in the exhaust than in the supply (paragraphs [0024]-[0029], [0032], [0035]; Figures 2, 3, 6 and 7). In context, this is understood to disclose the velocity as claimed. Alternatively, Ohno et al. in these citations teaches and suggests controlling the flow rate/velocities in order to achieve the desired production quality and exhausting results. As such, Ohno et al. suggest optimizing the flow/velocity as a routine expedient and result effective variable. Optimizing such a variable is prima facie obvious. The slit of the opening reads upon the claimed air knife.
As to claims 33 and 34, Ohno et al. teach and suggest opening and closing the flows as claimed and this opening and closing is understood to performed with shutters and vents as claimed and disclosed under a reasonable interpretation (Figures 1, 3 and 6 paragraph [0028], first half of the paragraph).
As to claims 36-38, Ohno et al. teach the volumetric flow rates are through first and second duct openings as claimed (Figures 2, 3, 6 and 7 (334a) (335a); paragraphs [0028] and [0029]).
As to claims 40 and 41, Ohno et al. teach the gas flow head and optics assembly are positioned as claimed (Figures 1, 2, 3, 6 and 7 (42) (200) (334a) (335a)).
Claims 31 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno et al. (US 2016/0325378), as applied to claims 27-30, 33-38, 40 and 41 above, and further in view of either one of Tucker et al. (US 2020/0108559) or Herzog et al. (US 2018/0333919).
As to claims 31 and 32, Ohno et al. teach the method set forth above. Ohno et al. do not teach moving first and second ducts between retracted and extended configurations as claimed. However, each of Tucker et al. (paragraphs [0030], [0058], [0061]) and Herzog et al. (paragraphs [0023] and [0067]-[0073]) teach analogous methods wherein corresponding ducts are retracted and extended as required to achieve a desired gap height and degree of quality control.
Therefore it would have been prima facie obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have combined the teaching of Ohno et al. and either one of the secondary references and to have moved the corresponding ducts of Ohno et al. as claimed, as suggested by either one of the secondary references, for the purpose, as suggested by the references, of controlling the gap height and the quality of the produced product and the effective removal of exhaust/fumes/particulates from the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 39 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 42-58 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed regarding the rejection of claim 27 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues that Ohno only describes scanning the laser in a direction perpendicular to the gas flow, as described in paragraph [0034] of Ohno. This argument is not persuasive.
As an initial matter to provide context for the discussion, it is noted that Figure 3 makes it explicitly clear that the gas is flowing in the negative X-direction. Further, Ohno makes it explicitly clear that the flow of gas on the exhaust side is greater than the flow of gas on the inlet side (paragraphs [0028] and [0029]). From this starting point, the remaining question to be resolved is: does Ohno teach moving the laser energy in the positive X-direction? In other words, if the laser energy includes a scan direction in the positive X-direction, the limitations of the claims are met. The examiner submits Ohno does teach this direction (section 102 rejection) or, in any reasonable reading of the reference, strongly suggests/implies this direction (section 103 rejection).
Applicant’s argument relies on the teaching of paragraph [0034] in Ohno. Paragraph [0034] in Ohno refers to “a first modification” (paragraph [0009]) that is “similar to…the first embodiment” (paragraph [0034]). It is noted here at the beginning, to the extent it matters, that this is not even considered a different embodiment by Ohno. It is just a modification to the first embodiment. The first embodiment is shown in Figures 1-3 (paragraphs [0006]-[0008]). As shown in Figure 1, the laser beam (200) is emitted to a condensing lens (336) which is located in the nozzle (33) of nozzle device (14). As such, the laser is directed through an optics assembly located in the nozzle toward a build surface (paragraphs [0015], [0019]-[0023]; Figures 1 and 2). This configuration applies throughout the first embodiment (e.g. Figure 2 may look like the optics are outside the nozzle, but this is not necessarily the case – paragraph [0023] – “the laser beam converged through a lens 336, arranged in the nozzle 33” is in view for all of embodiment 1). As set forth in paragraph [0021], it is suggested that the nozzle (33) can move “in the X-direction and the Y-direction”. The examiner suggests that it is quite appropriate, in context, to understand this to be a teaching/disclosure that the nozzle moves in the positive X-direction and the laser, which always flows through the middle of the nozzle to the build surface, is moving/scanning in this same direction with the nozzle. At a minimum, movement of the unit in the positive X-direction is at least strongly implied at this point. When the nozzle containing the optics assembly as disclosed in Ohno moves in the positive X-direction, the limitations of the claim are met because the negative X-direction is opposite the positive X-direction and the required flow rates are at the required location relative to the melt pool. As such, even before considering the further teaching of a modification in Figure 4, the scope of the claim is understood to be met by the first embodiment of Ohno.
Further, while the modification (i.e. the modification of the first embodiment) shown in Figure 4 does disclose a nozzle “longer in the Y-direction than the nozzle 33 according to the first embodiment” (paragraph [0034]) and there is scanning//movement “in the Y-direction” described in the paragraph (i.e. this is where the “perpendicular to the gas flow” direction argument arises because the Y-direction of scanning mentioned in paragraph [0034] is perpendicular to the negative X-direction the gas is flowing), it does not follow that the Figure 4 embodiment is exclusive of positive X-direction movement of the nozzle including the optic assembly through which the laser is directed and moves. The “processing region is widened” in the Figure 4 modification, but this is not be understood to mean or suggest that X-direction movement is now no longer in view. The context of the disclosure does not support that conclusion. While paragraph [0021] of Ohno is within the discussion regarding the first embodiment, it is still understood to be applicable to the modification shown in Figure 4 where the movement is “in the X-direction and the Y-direction”. Further, even if that is not the case explicitly, Ohno makes clear the different embodiments may be combined (paragraph [0045]). As such, to the extent it is arguably considered necessary, it would have at least been prima facie obvious to have moved the laser energy in the positive X-direction in the Figure 4 modification. The examiner submits that the arrow pointing to the right of the page in the positive X-direction, at a minimum, suggests as much. The arrow is not explicitly discussed in the disclosure. We are left to understand its meaning in light of the specification. However, it is suggesting movement of something in that direction. In the context of the disclosure, the most reasonable suggestion appears to be the arrow is suggesting to movement of the nozzle, and as previously discussed, the nozzle movement includes movement of the laser in the same direction. As such, the suggestion of the arrow is also reasonably applicable to the claimed invention. If the nozzle that includes the optics assembly and through which the laser always flows is moved in the positive X-direction as shown in Figure 4, it follows that this also provides applicable teaching to the invention as claimed. Accordingly, for each of the reasons set forth above, the Figure 4 modification is also understood to be applicable to the claimed invention.
Whether the teachings of the first embodiment of Ohno are considered alone or whether the modification suggested in Figure 4 is considered separately or in combination with the first embodiment, Ohno is understood to remain applicable to the claimed invention. The mentioning of scanning/movement in the Y-direction in paragraph [0034] of Ohno is not understood to overcome the fair teaching and suggestion of the reference as described above. It is submitted that claim 27 would need to be further amended to overcome the section 102/103 rejection of the claim.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. The cited prior art references disclose analogous systems for providing gas to a surface in laser processing applications.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Jeff Wollschlager whose telephone number is (571)272-8937. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00-3:30.
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 at 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 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.
/JEFFREY M WOLLSCHLAGER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights