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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 July 17, 2026 has been entered.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-8, 14, 16 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fulcher (“Effects of Laser Window Degradation on Laser Power and Distribution in Laser Sintering” 2013 International Solid Freeform Fabrication Symposium, Austin, Texas, August 12-14, 2013, pp. 150-161).
Claim 1: Fulcher discloses a system for printing a three-dimensional object (abstract). The system includes an energy source configured to generate an energy beam for transforming a pretransformed material to a transformed material (abstract; p. 150); a platform configured to support the three-dimensional object during the printing (fig. 1); an enclosure configured to enclose at least a portion of the platform (pp. 150-151, 155-156), the enclosure including a first wall (fig. 6; outer planar annular face or flange of window housing); at least two windows configured to allow the energy beam to pass therethrough (coaxial windows; figs. 6, 9); and a first recessed portion relative to the first wall (fig. 6; laser-side or upper window set axially inward from the housing’s outer annular face), and a second recessed portion relative to the first wall (figs. 6, 9), wherein the first recessed portion includes a first window of the at least two windows and a second wall that at least partially separates the first recessed portion from the first wall (p. 151, figs. 6, 9; upper window is the first window; intermediate annular housing member spatially intervenes between the inter-window recess and the outer planar housing face), wherein the first window and second wall define a first volume corresponding to the first recessed portion (fig. 6, pp. 155-156, 158; the upper window and intermediate cylindrical wall bound the air pocket between the two windows), and wherein the second recessed portion includes a second window of the at least two windows and another second wall that at least partially separates the second recessed portion from the first wall (fig. 6), wherein the second window and the another second wall define a second volume corresponding to the second recessed portion (figs. 6, 9).
Claim 2: Fulcher discloses the windows are disposed at a position to facilitate a path of the energy beam to travel therethrough, which path of the energy beam is directed toward the platform (figs. 1, 6, 9).
Claims 3-5: Fulcher discloses the second wall is configured to facilitate at least partial shielding of an interior surface of the window from a gas-borne material in the enclosure during printing, wherein the gas-borne material is produced during the printing (figs. 6, 9). Moreover, apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115
Claims 6-7: Fulcher discloses annular retaining and housing portions supporting and sandwiching the upper first window (fig. 6).
Claim 8: Fulcher discloses the first recessed portion including a plurality of window holder portions (fig. 6).
Claim 14: Fulcher discloses the second wall includes sides that at least partially enclose a volume of the first recessed portion (fig. 6).
Claim 16: Fulcher discloses the volume of the first recessed portion being between the first window and the platform (figs. 6, 9).
Claim 21: Fulcher discloses a sensor configured to detect temperature (p. 155, figs. 8-9).
Claims 1-16 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Brown (US 2018/0326485).
Claim 1: Brown discloses a system for printing a three-dimensional object (abstract). The system includes an energy source (105) configured to generate an energy beam for transforming a pre-transformed material to a transformed material (¶ 48; see annotated Fig. 1 below); a platform (102) configured to support the three-dimensional object during the printing (¶ 48; see annotated Fig. 1 below); and an enclosure (101) configured to enclose at least a portion of the platform (¶ 48; see annotated Fig. 1 below), the enclosure including a first wall (¶ 48; see annotated Fig. 1 below); at least two windows (107; fig. 11; ¶ 75) configured to allow the energy beam to pass therethrough (¶ 48; see annotated Fig. 1 below); and a first recessed portion relative to the first wall and a second recessed portion relative to the first wall including the first window of the at least two windows and a second wall that at least partially separates the first recessed portion from the first wall, which the first window and second wall define a volume of the first recessed portion (¶ 48; see annotated Fig. 1 below) and wherein the second recessed portion includes a second window of the at least two windows and a third wall that at least partially separates the second recessed portion from the first wall, which the second window and the third wall define a volume of the second recessed portion (¶ 48; see annotated Fig. 1 below; Fig. 11; ¶ 75).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 2: Brown discloses the at least one window is disposed at a position to facilitate a path of the energy beam to travel therethrough, which path of the energy beam is directed toward the platform (¶ 48; see annotated Fig. 1 below).
Claims 3-5: Brown discloses the second wall is configured to facilitate at least partial shielding of an interior surface of the window from a gas-borne material in the enclosure during printing, wherein the gas-borne material is produced during the printing (fig. 1). Moreover, apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Furthermore, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon as per MPEP §2115.
Claims 6-7: Brown discloses the recessed portion includes a window holder portion that is configured to support the window in a recessed volume (fig. 1).
Claim 8: Brown discloses the recessed portion including a plurality of window holder portions (fig. 10a).
Claim 9: Brown discloses each of the window holder portions supports a plurality of windows (fig. 10a).
Claim 10: Brown discloses a purging system configured to direct a flow of gas away from the window (¶ 49; fig. 1).
Claim 11: Brown discloses the purging system includes a channel, wherein the second wall includes the channel (fig. 1).
Claim 12: Brown discloses a plurality of windows that include the window, wherein the plurality of windows are arranged in a non-parallel alignment with a direction of a flow of gas above the platform (figs. 1, 10a).
Claim 13: Brown discloses the window holder portion includes a purging system configured to direct a flow of gas within the further recessed volume (¶ 49; fig. 1).
Claim 14: Brown discloses the second wall includes sides that at least partially enclose a volume of the recessed portion (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 15: Brown discloses a plurality of energy sources (fig. 10a).
Claim 16: Brown discloses the volume is between the window and the platform (see annotated fig. 1 above).
Claim 24: Brown discloses the enclosure is configured to maintain an internal atmosphere at a positive pressure (¶¶ 48-49).
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 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulcher, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jaiswal (US 2016/0085003).
Claims 17-18 and 20: Fulcher is silent as to the thermal conductivity of the window material. However, Jaiswal discloses window materials for 3d printing that includes transparent, high thermal conductivity optics (¶ 11, 39, 137). As taught by Jaiswal, the high thermal conductivity of these materials makes them advantageous for applications where transparency is desired (¶ 137). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the transparent, high thermal conductivity material of Jaiswal in the window material of Fulcher for the advantages taught by Jaiswal.
Claim 19: Fulcher is silent as to the window including calcium fluoride. However, Jaiswal discloses optical materials for 3d printing that includes transparent optics including calcium fluoride (¶¶ 39, 113). As taught by Jaiswal, using calcium fluoride optics provides desirable transmission efficiency (¶ 7; claim 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have included calcium fluoride in the window material of Fulcher in order to increase transmission efficiency of the window.
Claims 22-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fulcher, as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Myerberg (US 2017/0297103).
Fulcher is silent as to sensors to detect a gasborne material. However, Myerberg discloses a system for printing a three-dimensional object, including an energy source, platform and enclosure, and one or more sensors configured to detect one or more input parameters within the enclosure during the printing (abstract; fig. 1, ¶ 115). As taught by Myerberg, including one or more sensors configured to detect one or more input parameters including a gasborne material within the enclosure during the printing allows data characterizing progress of fabrication of the object to be collected (¶ 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have included the sensors of Myerberg in the enclosure of Fulcher in order to allow for the collection of data characterizing progress of fabrication of the object.
Claims 17- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2018/0326485), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Jaiswal (US 2016/0085003).
Claims 17-18 and 20: Brown is silent as to the thermal conductivity of the window material. However, Jaiswal discloses window materials for 3d printing that includes transparent, high thermal conductivity optics (¶ 11, 39, 137). As taught by Jaiswal, the high thermal conductivity of these materials makes them advantageous for applications where transparency is desired (¶ 137). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have utilized the transparent, high thermal conductivity material of Jaiswal in the window material of Brown for the advantages taught by Jaiswal.
Claim 19: Brown is silent as to the window including calcium fluoride. However, Jaiswal discloses optical materials for 3d printing that includes transparent optics including calcium fluoride (¶¶ 39, 113). As taught by Jaiswal, using calcium fluoride optics provides desirable transmission efficiency (¶ 7; claim 21). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have included calcium fluoride in the window material of Brown in order to increase transmission efficiency of the window.
Claims 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (US 2018/0326485), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Myerberg (US 2017/0297103).
Brown is silent as to sensors. However, Myerberg discloses a system for printing a three-dimensional object, including an energy source, platform and enclosure, and one or more sensors configured to detect one or more input parameters within the enclosure during the printing (abstract; fig. 1, ¶ 115). As taught by Myerberg, including one or more sensors configured to detect one or more input parameters within the enclosure during the printing allows data characterizing progress of fabrication of the object to be collected (¶ 115). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to have included the sensors of Myerberg in the enclosure of Brown in order to allow for the collection of data characterizing progress of fabrication of the object.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
With regard to the anticipation rejections, Applicant argues “The structure identified in the Office Action as the ‘second wall’ in the annotated Fig. 1 in fact appears to be part of the optical module 105 that sits above the build chamber, not part of the enclosure itself.” (Emphasis in Applicant’s response.) This argument has been considered but is not persuasive. Annotated Figure 1 from the Final Office action is reproduced below. As can clearly be seen in the figure, the wall identified as “second wall” is the same wall identified by Brown as 101. Brown explains in paragraph 48 that 101 is a wall of the build chamber, not a part of the optical module.
Applicant further argues “However, even if Brown disclosed first and second walls, it is clear from the figures and the disclosure of Brown, and specifically looking at FIG. 1 and para. [0048] that the reference does not disclose anywhere two separate windows and/or two separate recessed portions.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive because it is not commensurate in scope with the claims. There is no requirement in the claims that the windows or recessed portions be separated by anything. The instant claims merely require first and second recessed portions. These portions could be separated or they could be contiguous, and still meet the language of the claims.
PNG
media_image1.png
582
618
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Applicant also argues that “In fact, Brown even states that ‘[t]he module is configured to deliver laser beams . . . through a single window in a build chamber. . .’” This argument has been considered but is also not persuasive. As cited in the Final Office action, figure 11 shows multiple windows 107 in build chamber 101. Paragraph 75 teaches “The figure [11] shows windows 107 located within a build chamber 101 . . .”
Applicant reproduces figure 1 of Brown and figure 27B of the instant application, and states, “As can be seen, these are two different configurations, more particularly, the present application claims (and as illustrated) two separate recessed portions that are recessed from the first [w]all, and two separate mirrors, with one corresponding to each of the two recessed portions.” This argument has been considered but is also not commensurate in scope with the claims. The instant claims do not require separate recessed portions, nor two separate mirrors, with one corresponding to each of the two recessed portions. Features not recited in the claim cannot distinguish over the prior art. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Applicant notes that the Advisory Action of July 28, 2026 points out that there is no requirement that the windows or recessed portions be separated by anything, and that Applicant has amended the claims to recite first and second volumes, so that they “. . . are indeed distinct and separate and cannot be considered contiguous.” This argument has been considered but is not persuasive for the reasons stated above. There is no requirement in the claims that the volumes be separated by anything, and Applicant’s explicit refusal to amend the claims to recite any separation, and instead rely on attorney argument, supports the interpretation that there is no separation requirement. Furthermore, nothing in the claims precludes the “first volume” and “second volume” from being contiguous volumes. A volume is a continuous property that can be subdivided into two parts, just as a number can be divided by two.
Applicant repeats the argument that Brown only discloses a single window, adding, “Brown even teaches against splitting the window. As the window 107 extends into the irradiation volume overlap, splitting of the window into two or more separate windows is undesirable as the irradiation volumes would intersect the divider between any such separated windows.” (Emphasis in Applicant’s response.) This argument has been considered, and as explained above and as cited in the Final Office action, figure 11 shows multiple windows 107 in build chamber 101. Paragraph 75 teaches “The figure [11] shows windows 107 located within a build chamber 101 . . .” For a reference to teach away, or teach against, the reference must suggest that the claimed combination should be avoided as undesirable or ineffective. See In re Haruna, 249 F.3d 1327, 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2001); In re Gurley, 27 F.3d 551, 553 (Fed. Cir. 1994). Brown makes no such suggestion. Furthermore, “the prior art’s mere disclosure of more than one alternative does not constitute a teaching away from any of these alternatives because such disclosure does not criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the solution claimed….” In re Fulton, 391 F.3d 1195, 1201, 73 USPQ2d 1141, 1146 (Fed. Cir. 2004). See also UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs, UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 692, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“a reference does not teach away if it merely expresses a general preference for an alternative invention but does not criticize, discredit or otherwise discourage investigation into the invention claimed.”) (internal quotations omitted) (quoting DePuy Spine, Inc. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc., 567 F.3d 1314, 1327 (Fed. Cir. 2009)); and Schwendimann v. Neenah, Inc., 82 F.4th 1371, 1381, 2023 USPQ2d 1173 (Fed. Cir. 2023) (“Although Oez [the prior art] used a white pigment with a cross-linking polymer, it does not discourage a skilled artisan from using the white pigment without a cross-linking polymer or lead the skilled artisan in a direction divergent from the path taken in the Appealed Patents. Thus, Oez's disclosure is substantial evidence that supports the Board's finding that Oez does not teach away from the proposed combination.”). As explained above, Brown explicitly discloses the use of multiple windows 107 in build chamber 101. A reference cannot simultaneously endorse a use and teach against it.
Applicant, again, argues that Brown does not describe multiple windows or multiple recessed portions, adding “There is no disclosure of any recessed portion, cavity, or volume defined by walls that separate a recessed region from the main enclosure wall . . .” (Emphasis, again, in Applicant’s response. This argument has been considered but is not responsive because it is also not commensurate in scope with the claims. There is no requirement in the instant claims that anything be separated from a ”main enclosure wall.” As explained above, features not recited in the claim cannot distinguish over the prior art. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability).
Applicant finally argues “In the present case, Brown’s build chamber 101 has flat windows 107 in its upper wall. There are no recessed portions; no walls extending from the enclosure ceiling to define volumes around the windows, let alone a plurality of such recessed portions with individual walls defining individual volumes as required by the claims. This argument has been considered but is not responsive because it is also not commensurate in scope with the claims. There is no requirement in the instant claims for walls extending from the enclosure ceiling to define volumes around the windows. As explained above, features not recited in the claim cannot distinguish over the prior art. See In re Self, 671 F.2d 1344 (CCPA 1982) (limitations not appearing in the claims cannot be relied upon for patentability). Applicant has failed to distinguish the language of the claims over the cited prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LARRY THROWER whose telephone number is (571)270-5517. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-5pm MT M-F.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at 571-270-1487. 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.
/LARRY W THROWER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights