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 .
Status of Claims and Application
This final action on the merits is in response to the remarks and amendments received by the office 04 December 2025. Claims 1-13, 15-20 are pending. Claims 18 – 20 are withdrawn as nonelected. Claims 1 and 9 are amended. Claim 14 is newly cancelled. No claims are added.
Response to Amendment
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0304945 to Christopher John Sutcliffe (‘945 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0358901 to Anthony S. Dugan (‘901 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0110911 to Michael Snyder (‘911 hereafter).
Regarding claim 1, ‘945 teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (Fig 1 item 101); a condenser system fluidly coupled to the process chamber to receive a gas stream with a first vapor content from the process chamber and provide the gas stream with a second vapor content to the process chamber, wherein the second vapor content is less than the first vapor content (Fig 1 item 150); and a blower fluidly coupled to the process chamber and the condenser system to flow the gas stream through a closed loop comprising the blower, the process chamber, and the condenser system (Fig 1 item 153). ‘945 does not teach a printhead and recoat head arranged as claimed or a humidity sensor as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘901 teaches a print head, a recoat head, and a linear motion stage to which the print head and the recoat head are coupled, wherein the print head and recoat head operate within the process chamber to build a three-dimensional object by depositing a build material and a binder material (Fig 1 items 16 and 18) for the benefit of manufacturing an object of powder bound by a binder. One possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ‘945 with those of ‘901 for the benefit of controlling the solvent evaporation of the binder material. ‘945 in view of ‘901 does not teach a humidity sensor as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacture, ‘911 teaches a first plurality of sensors positioned within the process chamber, wherein the first plurality of sensors comprises a humidity sensor (paragraph 0053) for the benefit of detecting and controlling build volume humidity. ‘911 does not teach a purge valve because it is directed to a hermetically sealed additive manufacturing apparatus for use in confined/dangerous environments. ‘911 uses a humidifier/dehumidifier (paragraph 0080) to change humidity based on sensor readings. ‘945, teaches a purge valve and pump and a valve operable to bypass the condenser system when a humidity of the gas stream detected by the humidity sensor of the first plurality of sensors exceeds a threshold value (Fig 1 item 161) for the benefit of drawing vacuum in the build chamber. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filings to combine the sensors of ‘911 with the purge valve of ‘945 for the benefit of controlling the humidity of the build environment in a simplified manner. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘945 with those of ’901 and ‘911 for the benefit of controlling the humidity in a build volume in a simplified manner.
Regarding claim 2, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a concentrator fluidly coupled to the condenser system and the process chamber (Fig 1 item 155).
Regarding claim 3, ‘945 in view of ‘901 does not teach a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘911 teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a volatile organic compound (VOC) sensor along a flow path of the gas stream through the closed loop (paragraphs 0052, 0053 and 0056) for the benefit of monitoring pollutant material concentration and alerting operators of their presence. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘945 in view of ‘901 with those of ‘911 for the benefit of increasing operator efficiency and safety.
Regarding claim 4, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a lower explosive limit (LEL) sensor along a flow path of the gas stream through the closed loop (Fig 1 item 167).
Regarding claim 5, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a particle separation system positioned within the closed loop to receive the gas stream from the process chamber and provide the gas stream to the blower, wherein the particle separation system is configured to remove particles from the gas stream (Fig item 154).
Regarding claim 8, ‘945 does not teach the claimed pressure drop. However, it would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to attempt to minimize the pressure drop due to the filtration system for the benefit of reducing size, and therefore capital and operating expense of the other components of the recirculation system. The identification of optimal or workable ranges has been held to involve only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 6 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘911 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0116907 to Gammack et al (‘907 hereafter).
Regarding claim 6, ‘945 in view of ‘901 does not teach the claimed arrangement of cyclonic arrays. In the related art of solid/gas separation, ‘907 teaches an apparatus wherein the particle separation system comprises a plurality of cyclonic separators arranged in a plurality of arrays (paragraph 0046) for the benefit of de-entraining particles from a flowing gas stream with maximum energy efficiency a minimum pressure drop across the separator. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘911 with those of ‘907 for the benefit of separating pollutant particles from an additive manufacturing recirculating gas stream.
Regarding claim 7, ‘945 in view of ‘901 and further in view of ‘907 does not teach the number of separators claimed. However, ‘901 teaches that it is obvious to modify either the upstream or downstream array of cyclonic separators in order to achieve desired pressure drop. It would have, therefore, been obvious to the ordinary artisan to select the claimed range of number of cyclones since it has been held that selecting optimum or workable values of art-recognized result effective variables involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 9, 10, 12, 13, 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0304945 to Christopher John Sutcliffe (‘945 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2019/0358901 to Anthony S. Dugan (‘901 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0110911 to Michael Snyder (‘911 hereafter) further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/0116907 to Gammack et al (‘907 hereafter).
Regarding claim 9, ‘945 teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: a process chamber (Fig 1 item 101); a particle separation system fluidly coupled to the process chamber to receive a particle- laden stream from the process chamber, wherein the particle separation system separates at least some particles out from the particle-laden stream to produce a reduced-particle stream (Fig 1 item 154); a blower receiving the clean gas stream (Fig 1 item 153); a condenser system (Fig 1 item 155); wherein the process chamber, the particle separation system, the filter, the blower, the condenser system, and the temperature control unit form a closed loop (Fig 1 item 150). ‘945 further teaches a second plurality of sensors positioned external to the process chamber and after the particle separation system, the filter, the blower, the temperature control unit, and the condenser system and before the process chamber along a fluid recirculation path, wherein the second plurality of sensors comprises at least a temperature sensor, and one or more of a lower explosive limit (LEL) sensor, a humidity sensor, and a vapor sensor (paragraph 0028 – specifically a temperature sensor, the hydrogen sensor is regarded as a LEL sensor and a humidity sensor). ‘945 does not teach a pressure sensor in the second plurality of sensors, the recoat and print head as claimed, the claimed first plurality of sensors, the cooling temperature controller or the claimed second stage of particle filtration.
In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘901 teaches a print head, a recoat head, and a linear motion stage to which the print head and the recoat head are coupled, wherein the print head and recoat head operate within the process chamber to build a three-dimensional object by depositing a build material and a binder material (Fig 1 items 16 and 18) for the benefit of manufacturing an object of powder bound by a binder. One possessed of ordinary skill at the time of effective filing would have been motivated to combine the teachings of ‘945 with those of ‘901 for the benefit of controlling the solvent evaporation of the binder material. ‘945 in view of ‘901 does not teach the second stage of filtration, the pressure sensor in the second plurality of sensors, or the first plurality of sensors as claimed.
In the related art of solid/gas separation, ‘907 teaches an apparatus wherein the particle separation system comprises a plurality of cyclonic separators arranged in a plurality of arrays -including in serially arranged first and second stages - (paragraph 0046) for the benefit of de-entraining particles from a flowing gas stream with maximum energy efficiency a minimum pressure drop across the separator. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘945 in view of ‘901 with those of ‘907 for the benefit of separating pollutant particles from an additive manufacturing recirculating gas stream. ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 does not teach the pressure sensor in the second plurality of sensors, the cooling temperature controller, or the first plurality of sensors as claimed.
In the same field of endeavor as the instant application and the ‘945 and ‘907 references, additive manufacturing, ‘911 teaches a first plurality of sensors positioned within the process chamber, wherein the first plurality of sensors comprises at least a temperature sensor and a pressure sensor and a humidity sensor (paragraphs 0052, 0053 and 0056-0058) ; a temperature control unit for cooling the clean gas stream (paragraph 0055); and a second plurality of sensors positioned external to the process chamber and after the particle separation system, the filter, the blower, the temperature control unit, and the condenser system and before the process chamber along a fluid recirculation path, wherein the second plurality of sensors comprises a pressure sensor (paragraphs 0052, 0053 and 0056-0058) for the benefit of controlling the recirculating stream composition. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 with those of ‘911 for the benefit of controlling the composition of the recirculating gas stream. ‘911 does not teach a purge valve because it is directed to a hermetically sealed additive manufacturing apparatus for use in confined/dangerous environments. ‘911 uses a humidifier/dehumidifier (paragraph 0080) to change humidity based on sensor readings. ‘945, teaches a purge valve and pump and a valve operable to bypass the condenser system when a humidity of the gas stream detected by the humidity sensor of the first plurality of sensors exceeds a threshold value (Fig 1 item 161) for the benefit of drawing vacuum in the build chamber. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filings to combine the sensors of ‘911 with the purge valve of ‘945 for the benefit of controlling the humidity of the build environment in a simplified manner. One possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘945 with those of ’901 and ‘911 for the benefit of controlling the humidity in a build volume in a simplified manner.
Regarding claim 10, ‘911 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the filter is a high efficiency particulate air (HEPA) filter (0049) for the benefit of filtering the recirculating gas. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 with the HEPA filter of ‘911 for the benefit of filtering particles from the recirculating gas stream.
Regarding claim 12, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the condenser system is positioned after the pump and before the process chamber along the fluid recirculation path (Fig 1 items 153 and 168).
Regarding claim 13, ‘911 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein temperature control unit comprises a heat exchanger, and the condenser system passes the clean gas stream to the heat exchanger (paragraph 0055) for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the recirculating gas. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to combine the teachings of ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 with the temperature control device of ‘911 for the benefit of controlling the temperature of the recirculating gas stream.
Regarding claim 15, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the clean gas stream comprises an inert gas (paragraph 0003).
Regarding claim 16, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein an environment within the process chamber is inert (paragraph 0003).
Examiner notes that the sole limitations of each of claims 15 and 16, despite being taught by the available prior art, are recitations of intended use of the claimed apparatus.
Regarding claim 17, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber comprises an inlet diffuser through which the clean gas stream enters the process chamber, wherein the inlet diffuser reduces a flow velocity of the clean gas stream (Fig 1 items 151 & “K”, and paragraph 0026).
Claim(s) 11 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 in view of ‘911 as applied to claim 10 or 9 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0244034 to Sutcliffe et al (‘034 hereafter).
Regarding claim 11, ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 in view of ‘911 does not teach the filter isolation structure as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘034 teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising isolation valves before and after a filter element (Fig 3 items V-4 through V-9) in order to isolate the filter for service/replacement without taking the additive manufacturing apparatus out of service. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 in view of ‘911 with those of ‘034 for the benefit of increasing apparatus service availability.
Regarding claim 14, ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 in view of ‘911 does not teach a bypass arrangement as claimed. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘034 teaches an arrangement of valves which enables the bypass of an element in the gas recirculation path (Fig 3) for the benefit of removing an element of the recirculation path for service without taking the entire additive manufacturing apparatus out of service. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘945 in view of ‘901 in view of ‘907 in view of ‘911 with those of ‘034 for the benefit of increasing apparatus service availability.
Response to Arguments
In support of the patentability of the claimed invention, applicant argues that the previously applied prior art rejection does not teach the claims as instantly amended. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The previously presented rejections have been modified above to better demonstrate the teachings in view of applicant’s amendments.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743