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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Election/Restriction
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 8-10, 19, and 84-97, drawn to a device and apparatus for 3D printing comprising a device.
II. Claims 17 and 22, drawn to a method of 3D printing.
The inventions are independent or distinct, each from the other because:
Inventions II and I are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another and materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another and materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In this case the apparatus can be used for inspecting build material or testing air flow, without actually printing.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
Inventions I-II require different fields of search, including different classification areas and different search queries. See MPEP 808.02(C).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention.
During a telephone conversation with Brian Baysinger on May 8, 2026 a provisional election was made without traverse to prosecute the invention of Group I, claims 8-10, 19, and 84-97. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 17 and 22 withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancelation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-10, 19, 84-94, and 97 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Halla (US 2022/0331875) in view of Murphee (US 2018/0126650).
Regarding claim 8, Halla discloses a device for transmitting radiation used in three-dimensional printing, the device comprising: an arrangement of optical windows disposed on a ceiling of an enclosure of a three-dimensional printing system (downflow manifold 210 with multiple optics plenum 235 and optics windows 234, [0124], Fig. 2A), the optical windows being arranged along a plane of the ceiling ([0088] [0124], Fig. 2A), the optical windows comprising three or more optical windows (one or more, [0088]). should be the foundation
Halla teaches a device substantially as claimed. Halla does not disclose the arrangement of optical windows comprising optical windows disposed along a circumference of an elongated two-dimensional geometric shape having two axes of different lengths.
However, in the same field of endeavor of optical windows for irradiation transmission for powder bed fusion with gas flow underneath ([0033]), Murphee teaches the arrangement of optical windows comprising optical windows disposed along a circumference of an elongated two-dimensional geometric shape having two axes of different lengths (“That is the optical window portions described herein can include any suitable number and arrangement of windows, window holders, recessed portions, etc., which can each have any suitable shape and size.", [0338]).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device of Halla such that the optics plenums 235 and associated optics windows 234 are disposed along a circumference of an elongated two-dimensional geometric shape having two axes of different lengths because [0338] of Murphee teaches that the number and arrangement of windows and window holders can have any suitable shape and size.
Regarding claim 9, Halla as modified teaches wherein the optical windows are configured to transmit the radiation utilized for the three-dimensional printing to print one or more three-dimensional objects (Halla [0087-88]).
Regarding claim 10, Halla as modified teaches wherein the three-dimensional printing system is utilized to generate at least one window holder of an optical window similar to at least one of the optical windows (the limitation is understood as an intended use and does not limit the device, [0087] of Halla teaches printing an object and having it take shape, this is not limited and is within the capabilities of the system as modified).
Regarding claim 19, Halla as modified teaches an apparatus for three-dimensional printing (Halla additive manufacturing system 1000, [0060], Fig. 2A, the apparatus comprising: at least one controller configured to (a) couple to an electrical power source and operatively couple the three-dimensional printing system comprising the device of claim 8 (control system 104, Halla [0060]; understood to be electrically powered given the nature of the disclosed computing involved, Halla [0208-09]), (b) direct the three-dimensional printing system to print one or more three-dimensional objects at least in part by using the device (Halla [0062]).
Regarding claim 84, Halla as modified teaches wherein the elongated two-dimensional shape comprises (a) an oval, (b) an oblong, (c) a rectangle, (d) a shape bound by two arches facing each other, or (e) a rhombus having diagonals of different lengths, the diagonals being the axes (as modified, [0338] of Murphee teaches that the number and arrangement of windows and window holders can have any suitable shape and size).
Regarding claim 85, Halla as modified teaches wherein the optical windows are symmetrically related using (i) one or more mirror symmetry planes other than the plane of the ceiling, (ii) one or more rotational axes, and/or (iii) an inversion symmetry point (as modified, [0338] of Murphee teaches that the number and arrangement of windows and window holders can have any suitable shape and size).
Regarding claim 86, Halla as modified teaches wherein an optical window of the optical windows is configured to be held by a window holder manufactured by three-dimensional printing effectuated by the three-dimensional printing system, the device comprising the window holder (this amounts to a product by process limitation, the optic plenum 235 of Halla [0088] could be manufactured by three-dimensional printing).
Regarding claim 87, Halla as modified teaches wherein the window holder comprises a nozzle configured to direct gas into the enclosure and away from the optical window (downflow manifolds 210, Halla [0111], Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 88, Halla as modified teaches wherein each of the optical windows is held by a respective window holder comprising a respective nozzle configured to direct gas into the enclosure and away from the optical window (downflow manifolds 210, Halla [0111], Fig. 4A).
Regarding claim 89, Halla as modified teaches wherein the window holder comprises a hollow interior (Halla Fig. 4A, [0111]).
Regarding claim 90, Halla as modified teaches wherein the hollow interior comprises a hollow prism (Halla Fig. 4A, [0111]).
Regarding claim 91, Halla as modified teaches wherein an optical window of the optical windows is configured to be held by a window holder comprising holes configured to facilitate flow of gas therethrough from an exterior of the window holder to an interior of the window holder (optic window 234 held by optic plenum 235 with apertures 422 in manifold wall 412 of downflow manifold 400, Halla [0088] [0118], Fig. 4B), the holes being arranged in rows disposed along a height of the window holder (Halla [0118], Fig. 4B), each of the rows including openings (apertures 422, Halla [0118], Fig. 4B), the holes comprising the openings (apertures 422, Halla [0118], Fig. 4B), the device comprising the window holder (optic plenum 235, Halla [0088], [0118], Figs. 2A, 4A-B).
Regarding claim 92, Halla as modified teaches wherein an optical window of the optical windows is configured to be held by a window holder comprising stationary vanes configured to guide flow of gas from an exterior of the window holder to an interior of the window holder to an opening of the window holder in a direction into the enclosure and away from the optical window (vanes in crossflow manifold pathway walls 508, Halla [0032] [0074] [0088] [0146], Fig. 6A), the device comprising the window holder (optic plenum 235, Halla [0088], [0118], Figs. 2A, 4A-B).
Regarding claim 93, Halla as modified teaches wherein at least a portion of the stationary vanes taper towards an interior of the enclosure (Halla Fig. 6A).
Regarding claim 93, Halla as modified teaches wherein an optical window of the optical windows is configured to be held by a window holder configured to direct gas away from the window holder and into the enclosure (optics plenum 235 and crossflow manifold 222, Halla [0075] [0088]), the window holder being configured to be held by a manifold configured to direct gas evenly to sides of the window holder (crossflow manifold 222 supplies gas to downflow manifold 210, Halla [0075] [0088]), the device comprising the window holder and the manifold (Halla [0075] [0088]).
Regarding claim 97, Halla as modified teaches (II) the ceiling comprises a recessed portion comprising the optical windows, the recessed portion being recessed away from an interior of the enclosure (optic plenums 235 shown as recessed relative to the remaining ceiling of the enclosure, Halla Fig. 2A).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 95-96 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.
Claim 95 recites, the “device of Claim 94, wherein the device comprises two manifolds disposed in the ceiling, or operatively coupled to the ceiling, the two manifolds comprising the manifold, wherein same number of the optical windows are disposed in each of the two manifolds, the two manifolds facing each other.”
While Halla teaches downflow manifold 210, each manifold supports an optics plenum. The device is not structured such that there would be two manifolds, with the manifolds facing each other and the optical windows split between them, with at least two optic windows 234 in each.
While the downflow manifolds 210 of Halla are at least fluidly coupled by the enclosure, claim 96 similarly recites allowable subject matter because it depends from claim 95.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. While not prior art due to Applicant’s provisional application, Fig. 1 of Ito (US 2023/0132492) teaches four optical windows arranged along a circumference of an oval or rectangle (also a circle or square). Buller (list includes other first authors) (US 2018/0126461; US 20180126650; US 2018/0126649; US 2018/0126462 US 2018/0126461 US 2018/0126460 US 2023/0150204 2024/0001617; US 10,661,341) teaches a tapering gas outlet, a filtering mechanism, a baffle, and a recessed optical window area, reflecting numerous limitations in claim 97. Halla (US 11,938,539) teaches subject matter similar to Halla (US 2022/0331875), cited above.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC whose telephone number is (571)272-6131. The examiner can normally be reached 8:30 AM - 6:00 PM.
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, Sam Xiao Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/NICHOLAS J CHIDIAC/Examiner, Art Unit 1744
/XIAO S ZHAO/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights