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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I claims 1-17 in the reply filed on December 10, 2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election made without traverse in the reply filed on December 10, 2025.
Claim Objections
Claims 7 and 8 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 7 please replace “during moving the amount of shot brush de-powdering media, increasing a humidity of the de-powdering area.” with “increasing a humidity of the de- powdering area, during moving the amount of shot brush de-powdering media.”
In claim 8, please replace “during moving the amount of shot brush de-powdering media, decreasing a humidity of the de-powdering area.” with “decreasing a humidity of the de- powdering area, during moving the amount of shot brush de-powdering media.”
These changes clarify that the “the step of” in the “further comprising the step of” is the respective increasing/decreasing.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 4 is 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 4 claims “subjecting the additively manufactured green part to a gas powdered [emphasis added] flow of the shot brush de-powdering media”. The specification as filed does not appear to describe steps of powdering (forming powder) of the media. Claim 4 appears intended to be directed to the embodiment shown in Fig. 3 and described in paragraph [0029] of the specification which combines media with compressed gas to eject media against green part, but this embodiment does not appear to perform an act of gas powdering such as gas jet pulverization or atomization. Further, even if applicant intended to claim that gas performed a step of powdering, it is not clear what a powdered flow encompasses. It could be possible that applicant intended to claim a gas powered flow, but this intent cannot be determined from claim 4 or the specification as 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.
Claim(s) 1-2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shirai (US20210129191).
Regarding claim 1, Shirai discloses a method of de-powdering (method for removing adhered material [0006-07], adhering matter may be dust and stains as well as uncured powder [0005], [0024]). Shirai discloses disposing in a de-powdering area (fluidized bed [0007], [0021], [0027], [0038]) an additively manufactured article with the structure of a green part (molded object including a powder and a binding agent [0010], [0024], [0026]) having at least one surface contaminated with an amount of build material powder (removing adhering matter on a surface) [0007], [0010-11], [0024], [0026]. Shirai discloses moving an amount of shot brush de-powdering media (solid particles) [0028-29] relative to and against the at least one surface of the additively manufactured article with the structure of a green part [0022], to dislodge the build material powder [0022-24]. Shirai discloses that the solid de-powdering medium comes into gentle contact with the article surface to remove surface-adhered material, for which even a fragile article is not broken [0023], [0027], [0039]. A process which moves solid particles to gently remove adhered material from a surface is a shot brushing.
Regarding claim 2, Shirai discloses that the movement of the amount of shot brush de-powdering media includes submerging the additively manufactured article with the structure of a green part in the shot brush de-powdering media (solid particles) ([0007], [0021-22], [0027], Figs. 2, 4) and agitating the shot brush de-powdering media [0028], [0031].
Regarding claim 4, Shirai discloses that the movement of the amount of shot brush de-powdering media (solid particles) is produced by flowing gas [0028-29], thereby disclosing that the movement of some amount of media (solid particles) includes subjecting the additively manufactured green part to a gas powered flow of the shot brush de-powdering media.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 5, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Barron (US20230330814). Barron is a publication of an application for patent in the United States which claims priority to a provisional application filed earlier than the earliest effective filing date of the present application. See MPEP 2154.01(b) with reference to 35 USC 102(d), particularly 35 USC 102(d)(2) for why Barron is prior art to the presently claimed invention under 35 USC 102(a)(2).
Regarding claim 1, Barron discloses a method of de-powdering (cleaning of surface debris which performs depowdering abstract, [0002], [0012], [0014]). Barron discloses disposing in a de-powdering area (the path of the falling shot) an additively manufactured (3D inkjet printed) article with the structure of a green part (formed product with gritty surface) having at least one surface contaminated with an amount of build material powder (gritty surface) [0012], [0014]; [0021], [0034], [0039]. Barron discloses moving (causing to fall) an amount of shot brush de-powdering media relative to and against the at least one surface of the additively manufactured green part to dislodge the build material powder (eliminate surface granular material) [0014], [0017], [0034], [0038].
Regarding claim 3, Barron discloses that the movement of the amount of shot brush de-powdering media includes subjecting the additively manufactured green part to a gravity fed flow of the shot brush de-powdering media [0013-14], [0020], [0038].
Regarding claim 5, Barron discloses that the material removed is lightweight relative to the shot [0018], [0042], thereby disclosing that the shot brush de-powdering media has a material density greater than a material density of the green part.
Regarding claim 9, Barron discloses that an average dimension of the shot brush de-powdering media is 0.635 mm (0.025 inches) [0014], which is at least 0.5 mm.
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.
Claim(s) 6 and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US20210129191) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Neukam (EP3912760A1). References to Neukam are directed to the examiner supplied English language translation.
Regarding claim 6, Shirai discloses that the material of the article having the structure of a green part (article) is not particularly limited [0024]. Shirai offers sand as an example of the de-powdering media (solid particles) [0028], and Shirai discloses that the particle size and the rate at which the particles move may be adjusted [0029], but Shirai is silent on the density of the media relative to the density of the green part.
Neukam teaches a method of de-powdering (cleaning contaminant particles) [0001-02], [0023]. Neukam shows and teaches disposing a component, having a surface contaminated with material, in a de-powdering area ([0042], Figs. 1-2). Neukam teaches moving an amount of shot brush de-powdering media (lightweight granular particles, which gently impact surface) relative to and against the at least one surface of the component (to dislodge the build material powder ([0010-11], [0023], [0045], Figs. 1-2). Neukam teaches that de-powdering media comprises lightweight granules which are sufficiently light and have a correspondingly low bulk density, which in turn allows significantly lower velocities of the lightweight granule particles [0008]. Neukam teaches that the reduced density contributes to the gentles of the cleaning [0009], and that lightweight particles require less energy to transport [0010]. Neukam teaches that the particles have a bulk density of less than or equal to 500 g/l [0017]. Neukam teaches that the decreased density can reduce damage to the treated surface [0046].
Both Shirai and Neukam teach methods of removing powdered contaminant from a surface of an article by gently impacting with particles. Neukam [0020-21] and Shirai [0021], [0028] teach flowing particles across an article surface with a gas.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to supply lightweight particles for the de-powdering medium in the process disclosed by Shirai, applied above, because Neukam teaches that lightweight particles contributes to the gentleness of the cleaning process, reduces damage to the component, and has a lower energy burden for transport [0009-10], [0046]. Such combination would thereby predictably result in de-powdering media which decreases risk of damaging the article surface, thereby promoting the gentle particle removing set forth as a goal by Shirai [0023], [0027], [0039]. Considering Neukam teaches a density of less than or equal to 500 g/l [0017], and Shirai discloses metal as article material [0024], in view of Neukam’s teachings of the results of cleaning media comprising lightweight particles [0008-10], [0046], supplying particles which are lightweight as taught by Shirai in view of Neukam, one of ordinary skill in the art would provide de-powdering media particles having a lower density than density of the treated article. Note that lithium, the lightest metal has a density of 530 g/l (0.534 g/cc), which is a greater density than the upper limit of the broadest particle density range taught by Neukam [0017].
Regarding claim 9, Shirai discloses a dimension (particle size) of the de-powdering media may be adjusted [0029]. Shirai does not specify a particle size for the media. Neukam teaches that the lightweight granular particles allow a range of diameters smaller than 2 mm [0013], and that an optimal size can be found for any application [0019]. Neukam teaches a preferred size of less than or equal to 0.6 mm (600 µm) [0019]. In supplying lightweight media particles as taught by Neukam, applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to supply de-powdering media particles with a size of less than or equal to 2 mm, or more preferably less than or equal to 0.6 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have known to select particle sizes in view of the teachings of both Shirai [0029] and Neukam [0019]. A range of at least 0.5 mm overlaps both a range of less than or equal to 2 mm and a range of less than or equal to 0.6 mm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US20210129191) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kaplan (WO2021160338A1).
Regarding claim 8, Shirai is silent on the moisture/humidity/atmosphere conditions during the step of moving the de-powdering media.
Kaplan teaches a method of de-powdering (page 1 lines 5-7, page 5 lines 19-22). Kaplan teaches disposing in a de-powdering area an additively manufactured part having at least one surface contaminated with an amount of build material powder (powder is formed on an outer surface of the component) (page 5 lines 19-29; page 11 lines 26-31; page 12 lines 5-10; claim 1; Figures 2-3). Kaplan teaches moving an amount of de-powdering media relative to and against the at least one surface of the additively manufactured part to dislodge the build material powder (page 5 lines 19-29; claim 1; Figures 2-3). Kaplan teaches that humidity is known to cause surface oxidation and/or formation of hydroxides, which may affect the additive manufacturing process adversely, and Kaplan teaches preventing unintentional surface oxidation originating from moisture (page 6 lines 13-19). Kaplan teaches preventing such moisture effects by supplying dry, inert gas to move particles of the de-powdering media (page 6 lines 13-19). Kaplan teaches nitrogen and argon as examples of inert gas (page 7 lines 32-33). Kaplan teaches purging the atmosphere from the de-powdering area prior to introduction of inert gas in processes wherein inert gas is supplied in the de-powdering process (page 13 lines 11-16), thereby removing moisture that was present, necessarily decreasing the humidity during the de-powdering step.
Both Shirai and Kaplan teach methods of de-powdering additively manufactured components comprising steps of moving media across a surface. Shirai discloses that the movement of the media is controlled by introducing a gas [0028], and Shirai discloses nitrogen as a suitable gas [0028].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing to purge the de-powdering area disclosed by Shirai and introduce nitrogen gas to remove moisture because Kaplan teaches that moisture in a de-powdering step can cause surface oxidation, and that purging the atmosphere and introducing inert gas can prevent the negative effects of moisture (page 6 lines 13-19; page 13 lines 11-16). Purging an atmosphere and introducing inert gas to prevent effects of moisture necessarily decreases humidity in the area from which the atmosphere was purged.
Claim(s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US20210129191) in view of Go (US20210060651).
Regarding claim 10, Shirai discloses a method of de-powdering (method for removing adhered material [0006-07], adhering matter may be dust and stains as well as uncured powder [0005], [0024]). Shirai discloses manufacturing an article which has the structure of a green part (molded object including a powder and a binding agent [0010], [0024]) via binder jetting additive manufacturing [0026]. Shirai discloses conducting a de-powdering operation on the article which has a structure of a green part [0007], [0010-11], [0024], [0026]. Shirai discloses wherein the de-powdering operation disclosed by Shirai includes the steps of: disposing the article within a bed of shot brush de-powdering media (fluidized bed of solid particles [0007], [0021], [0027-28], [0038]). Shirai discloses agitating the bed of shot brush de-powdering media [0028], [0031] and thereby removing from at least one surface of the article an amount of build material powder [0022-24], [0031]. Shirai discloses that the solid de-powdering medium comes into gentle contact with the article surface to remove surface-adhered material, for which even a fragile article is not broken [0023], [0027], [0039]. A process which moves solid particles to gently remove adhered material from a surface is a shot brushing.
Shirai shows disposing the article in the de-powdering area (Figs. 2, 4), which necessitates moving the article from some apparatus that performs the binder jetting disclosed by Shirai [0026]. Shirai does not disclose performing bulk de-powdering operation on the article in addition to the disclosed de-powdering operation.
Go teaches a method of de-powdering (Title, [0004]). Go teaches manufacturing a green part via binder jetting additive manufacturing [0022], [0027], [0037], [0041]. Go teaches conducting a bulk de-powdering operation on the green part [0028], [0070]. Go teaches that bulk de-powdering is a step of excavating the component from build material [0028], Go teaches conducting a fine de-powdering operation on the green part subsequent to the bulk de-powdering [0028], [0070]. Go teaches that the fine de-powdering operation includes disposing the part in a de-powdering area, agitating de-powdering media and thereby removing from at least one surface of the green part an amount of build material powder [0032-33].
Both Shirai and Kaplan teach methods of de-powdering an article produced by binder jetting wherein movement of de-powdering media across a component surface dislodges powder.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to conduct a bulk de-powdering operation on the article having the structure of a green part disclosed by Shirai [0026] because Go teaches that a bulk de-powdering excavates the formed part from the volume of powder material [0028] for a subsequent de-powdering step by agitating in de-powdering media [0028], [0032-33], [0070], thereby predictably providing the article in a suitable state for the de-powdering process disclosed by Shirai, applied above. Both Shiai [0026] and Go [0022], [0027], [0037] form a component by binder jetting, and the article shown by Shirai (Figs. 2, 4) is necessarily to some extent separated from the bulk build material in the binder jetting process disclosed by Shirai [0026], and as taught by Go [0028], [0070] a bulk de-powdering is effective at enacting such separation (excavation) for de-powdering purposes.
Regarding claim 11, Go teaches separating removed build material from de-powdering media [0033], which Go teaches allow recycling of the build material for reuse in subsequent additive manufacturing processes [0033]. In order to reuse the removed build material, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Go [0033], to separate the build material from the de-powdering media in the process disclosed by Shirai in view of Go.
Regarding claim 12, Shirai discloses that disposing the article within the bed of shot brush de-powdering media includes traversing the green part via a conveyance system comprising a lifter, a mounting table and a retainer [0035-38]. Shirai does not disclose that conveyance is continuous; however, Go teaches that operating de-powdering systems continuously can maximize throughput ([0029], claim 23). Considering the advantage of maximum throughput which Go teaches for continuous de-powdering operations [0029], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to perform the de-powdering and conveyance taught by Shirai continuously. See MPEP 2144.04(V)(E) for a further discussion on the obviousness of a continuous process over a batch process.
Regarding claim 13, Shirai discloses that the step of manufacturing article which has the structure of a green part via binder jetting additive manufacturing includes jetting a binder (binding agent) on build material powder [0026], and Shirai discloses that the formed article may be metal [0024]. Jetting binder on build material powder to form a metal article is a step of jetting binder on metal build material powder.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US20210129191) in view of Go (US20210060651) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Weickert (US20210205956).
Regarding claims 13 and 14, Go teaches separating removed build material from de-powdering media [0033], which Go teaches allow recycling of the build material for reuse in subsequent additive manufacturing processes [0033]. In order to reuse the removed build material, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, in view of Go [0033], to separate the build material from the de-powdering media in the process disclosed by Shirai in view of Go.
Shirai discloses that the material of the article having the structure of a green part (article) is not particularly limited, “and may be plastic, metal, or the like” [0024]. “plastic, metal, or the like” encompasses both magnetic and non-magnetic article material. Shirai is silent on relative magnetic properties of de-powdering media and build material which forms the article.
Weickert teaches a surface treatment method which may be applied to an additively manufactured component [0001-02]. Weickert teaches the surface treatment includes disposing the part to be treated within a treatment media comprising particles [0007-09], [0014]. Weickert teaches moving an amount of treatment media comprising particles up to and against the component surface [0009], [0014] and removing from the surface of the treated component an amount of material (material eroded) [0013], [0021], [0055]. Weickert teaches that in order to separate the treatment media from the material removed, it is advantageous that particles of the treatment media have different properties from the material removed [0055]. Weickert teaches that in the case of a nonmagnetic material of the component, magnetic particles treatment media particles may be used so that the treatment media particles can be separated with the aid of a magnet from the material separated from the component [0055]. Weickert further teaches that in the case of a magnetic material of the component, the material separated from the component may be straightforwardly removed from the treatment media with a magnet if the treatment media particles are nonmagnetic [0055].
Both Weickert and Shirai in view of Go teach methods of removing material from an additively manufacturing article comprising a step of moving treatment media comprising particles against a surface of the article from which material is removed.
In order to facilitate the separating and recycling disclosed by Shirai in view of Go applied above, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to provide nonmagnetic de-powdering media particles when the removed powder is magnetic, thereby meeting the additional limitations of claim 14, and provide magnetic de-powdering media particles when the removed powder is nonmagnetic, thereby meeting the additional limitations of claim 15, because Weickert teaches such combinations for separating material removed and treatment media particles. The article material, and therefore the removed build material powder, disclosed by Shirai encompasses magnetic and nonmagnetic materials [0024].
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shirai (US20210129191) in view of Go (US20210060651) as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Neukam (EP3912760A1).
Regarding claims 16 and 17, Shirai discloses a dimension (particle size) of the de-powdering media may be adjusted [0029]. Shirai does not specify a dimension for the media.
Neukam teaches a method of de-powdering (cleaning contaminant particles) [0001-02], [0023]. Neukam shows and teaches disposing a component, having a surface contaminated with material, in a de-powdering area ([0042], Figs. 1-2). Neukam teaches moving an amount of shot brush de-powdering media (lightweight granular particles, which gently impact surface) relative to and against the at least one surface of the component (to dislodge the build material powder ([0010-11], [0023], [0045], Figs. 1-2). Neukam teaches that the lightweight granular particles allow a range of diameters smaller than 2 mm [0013], and that an optimal size can be found for any application [0019]. Neukam teaches a preferred size of less than or equal to 0.6 mm (600 µm) [0019]. Neukam teaches selecting particle size depending on the sensitivity of the surface to be cleaned [0048], thereby teaching selecting a dimension according to the resulting surface resolution of the treated part.
Both Shirai and Neukam teach methods of removing powdered contaminant from a surface of an article by gently impacting with particles. Neukam [0020-21] and Shirai [0021], [0028] teach flowing particles across a component surface with a gas.
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to select particle size of the process disclosed by Shirai in view of Go applied above according to an intended resolution of the treated part because Shirai discloses selecting particle size [0029]; Shirai discloses an intent to prevent chipping, breakage and excessive grinding of the treated surface [0023], and Neukam teaches adjusting surface size for surface sensitivities [0048], thereby meeting the additional limitations recited in claim 16. In adjusting particle size for surface sensitivity as taught by Neukam [0048], it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of filing, to supply de-powdering media particles with a size of less than or equal to 2 mm, or more preferably less than or equal to 0.6 mm. One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing would have known to adjust particle sizes in view of the teachings of both Shirai [0029] and Neukam [0019]. A range of at least 0.5 mm overlaps both a range of less than or equal to 2 mm and a range of less than or equal to 0.6 mm. When claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists, and generally differences in concentration or temperature will not support the patentability of subject matter encompassed by the prior art unless there is evidence indicating such concentration or temperature is critical. See MPEP 2144.05(I-II).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 7 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, and if rewritten to correct to minor informalities.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter.
Independent claim 1 claims a method of de-powdering. Claim 1 claims disposing in a de-powdering area, an additively manufactured green part having at least one surface contaminated with an amount of build material powder. Claim 1 claims moving an amount of shot brush de-powdering media relative to and against the at least one surface of the additively manufactured green part to dislodge the build material powder. Claim 7 depends on claim 1. Claim 7 claims that during moving the amount of shot brush de-powdering media, increasing a humidity of the de-powdering area.
The present office action rejects independent claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) over Shirai (US20210129191). At the moment, Shirai is the closest prior art reference of record to the disclosure as a whole. In the de-powdering step, Shirai introduces a gas which may either be air or nitrogen [0028]. As air likely would likely leave the humidity unchanged, dry air would likely decrease humidity, and nitrogen likely would decrease humidity, claim 7 defines over Shirai alone at least in claiming a method which manipulates a step of increasing a humidity of the de-powdering area.
Present office action separately rejects claim 1 under 35 USC 102(a)(2) over Barron (US20230330814). Barron does not disclose atmosphere conditions in the de-powdering process. Further, Barron discloses a vacuum at a bottom portion of the de-powdering apparatus [0016] which though unlikely to affect the atmosphere much, if the vacuum does have an effect that effect would remove moisture. Claim 7 defines over Barron alone at least in claiming a method which manipulates a step of increasing a humidity of the de-powdering area.
The present office action relies on the combination of Shirai in view of Kaplan (WO2021160338A1) to render obvious claim 8. Kaplan’s consistent teachings of avoiding moisture would teach away from manipulating the additional limitations recited in claim 7.
Present office action rejects independent claim 10 over Shirai in view of Go (US20210060651). Go teaches water as a liquid de-powdering media; however, the rejection relies on Shirai to meet limitations directed to the de-powdering medium, and Shirai clearly discloses that de-powdering media is solid particles fluidized by gas [0028]. Claim 7 would define over a combination of Shirai in view of Go at least in claiming a step of increasing moisture during moving the amount of shot brush de-powdering media.
Neukam (EP3912760A1) removes material from a surface with compressed air to cause impact of media particles [0001]. Claim 7 defines over references in view of Neukam at least for the reasons given above with respect to Shirai.
Note that claim 7 and claim 8 appear to be mutually exclusive.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEAN P O'KEEFE whose telephone number is (571)272-7647. The examiner can normally be reached MR 8:00-6:30.
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, Sally Merkling can be reached at (571) 272-6297. 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.
/SEAN P. O'KEEFE/ Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/ SPE, Art Unit 1738