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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicants amendment to the claims have been entered.
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) 1, 8-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hutchinson et al. (US 20190202126), hereinafter referred to as Hutchinson, in view of Merenda (US Pat No. 4,622,039), hereinafter referred to as Merenda, in view of Wittendorfer (US 20130192646), hereinafter referred to as Wittendorfer.
Re claim 1, Hutchinson teaches an exhaust system for an apparatus that removes support material from an additively manufactured part, wherein the apparatus comprises:
a chamber (e.g. 16); and
a spray header (e.g. 42) in the chamber and oriented to spray a fluid at the additively manufactured part (e.g. 10),
wherein the exhaust system comprises: an exhaust channel (e.g. 78) having an inlet end communicating with the chamber and an outlet end
Hutchinson does not teach the limitation of an air supply channel having an inlet for receiving air and an outlet; and wherein the exhaust channel is located in proximity to said air supply channel so that air drawn from the chamber through the exhaust channel imparts heat to the air supply channel to cause condensation of vapor in the air drawn from the chamber to occur.
However, Merenda teaches a system for removing harmful vapor from a process chamber (16) comprising an exhaust channel and an air supply channel (see Fig 1 “Air”) having an inlet for receiving air and an outlet (Fig 1), wherein the exhaust channel is located in proximity to said air supply channel (see Fig 1) so that air drawn from the chamber through the exhaust channel imparts heat to the air supply channel to cause condensation of vapor in the air drawn from the chamber to occur (see e.g. C3-lns 34-45).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hutchinson and integrated an air supply channel having an inlet for receiving air and an outlet; and wherein the exhaust channel is located in proximity to said air supply channel so that air drawn from the chamber through the exhaust channel imparts heat to the air supply channel to cause condensation of vapor in the air drawn from the chamber to occur, as taught by Merenda, in order to provide an efficient means of removing and capturing potential harmful vapors from a process exhaust stream.
Hutchinson does not teach the limitation of the air received in the inlet being ambient air.
However, Wittendorfer teaches a system for removing harmful vapor from a process chamber (16) comprising an exhaust channel (18) and an air supply channel (see Fig 1 “22”) having an inlet for receiving ambient air (air received in 22) and an outlet (Fig 1).
Therefore, at the time the invention was filed it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Hutchinson and integrated the air received in the inlet being ambient air, as taught by Wittendorfer, in order to reduce the loss of resources, in particular of cleaning agents and heat (see Wittendorfer ¶ 10).
Re claim 8, Hutchinson, as modified, teaches the exhaust system of claim 1. Hutchinson further teaches the limitation of a baffle (78) located in the exhaust channel
Re claim 9, Hutchinson, as modified, teaches the exhaust system of claim 1. Merenda further teaches the limitation of at least one sensor located in at least one of the air supply channel and the exhaust channel, wherein the at least one sensor senses at least one of temperature, pressure, and flow (e.g. C3-lns 40-45).
Re claim 10, Hutchinson, as modified, teaches the exhaust system of claim 1. Hutchinson further teaches the limitation of a fan (e.g. 60) located to cause air to flow into the air supply channel.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-7, 11-13 are allowed.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. (see PTO-892).
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 NELSON NIEVES whose telephone number is (571)270-0392. The examiner can normally be reached Monday to Friday 9am to 5pm.
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, Frantz Jules can be reached at 571-272-6681. 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.
/NELSON J NIEVES/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3763 3/7/2026