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
Claims 1 and 3-9 are examined in this office action as claim 10 is withdrawn as directed to a nonelected invention, claim 2 is canceled, and claims 1, 5, 7, and 9 were amended in the reply dated 6/12/26.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 1 has been amended to recite the limitation “in a case that the metal 3D printing device is printing, the gas blowing port is adjustable on the first powder spreading arm to avoid nearby components, and the gas suction port is adjustable on the second powder spreading arm to avoid nearby components”. Applicant points to paragraphs [0032], [0038], [0041] and [0042] as well as FIG 1, and FIGs 3-5 as support for this amendment. While paragraph [0041] notes that the gas blowing port 31 and the gas suction port 32 may be adjusted flexibly or avoid nearby components when printing, this passage also notes that this is accomplished by connecting these ports to the spreading arms using “a lifting mechanism or a tilting mechanism”. Thus, applicant does not heave support for where the ports are adjustable on the first and second powder spreading arms, but only where these ports are adjustable by a lifting or tilting mechanism connected to the powder spreading arms. Therefore, the specification does not describe the claimed subject matter of “the gas blowing port is adjustable on the first powder spreading arm to avoid nearby components, and the gas suction port is adjustable on the second powder spreading arm to avoid nearby components” in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Claims 3-9 are also rejected as they depend from claim 1 and do not solve the above issue.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0070779 A1 (cited on IDS dated 6/18/25) of Chen in view of US 2019/0184463 A1 of McMurtry hereinafter ‘US463.
As to claim 1, Chen discloses a 3D printing device for recycling powders (Chen, claim 1), reading upon a metal 3D printing device for forming a three-dimensional product from successive powder layers. Chen discloses a processing plate (3) reading upon a building platform supporting the powder and the product formed by the powder (Chen, paragraph [0024] and Fig. 3). Chen discloses a first and second powder spreading arms (51) where the two arms are arranged above the building platform and where the second powder spreading arm is spaced apart from the first powder spreading arm and where these arms are configured for moving in a direction parallel to the building platform (direction E1) to thereby be capable of spreading powder on the building platform (Chen, paragraph [0030] and Fig 3). Chen discloses where there is a gas flowing field flows from the left gas channel opening 54 to the right gas channel opening 54 along a direction C1 (Chen paragraph [0030] and Fig 3), reading upon a gas stream unit comprising a gas blowing port and a gas suction port, wherein, the gas blowing port is provided in the first powder spreading arm and the gas blowing port is configured to blow gas to the building platform, and the gas suction port is provided in the second powder spreading arm and the gas suction port is configured to suction gas. Chen discloses lasers 41 above the build platform between the two spreading arms as well as flow between the two gas channel openings 54 is controlled with a certain flow rate so that the unwanted powders 102 generated by using the lasers 103 to melt the powders 101 can be recycled (Chen, paragraph [0030] and Fig 3) reading upon a scanning module positioned above the building platform for emitting a laser to the powder between the first powder spreading arm and the second powder spreading arm, the laser solidifying the powder to form the product; wherein, the scanning module emits the laser while the first powder spreading arm spreads the powder, and the second powder spreading and moves with.
As there is a gas flow between the two spreading arms in Chen, they are capable of carrying out where the first powder spreading arm and the gas stream unit suctions smoke and dust formed by solidifying the powder. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), see MPEP § 2114.
Chen discloses where the processing plate can be lifted and lowered as well as where both arms have powder channels that can dispense powder as well as where the apparatus can operate in both directions (Chen, paragraph [0009] and FIG. 3-4), this meets the limitation of when a powder layer is spread by the first powder spreading arm, the building platform is lowered by a distance of a layer thickness of the powder and the second powder spreading arm is reversed to move to spread another powder layer followed by the scanning module emitting laser to solidify the other powder layer, and the first powder spreading arm follows the second powder spreading arm to move thereby carrying the gas stream unit to suction smoke and dust.
Chen discloses a first and second powder spreading arms (51) where the two arms are arranged above the building platform and where the second powder spreading arm is spaced apart from the first powder spreading arm and where these arms are configured for moving in a direction parallel to the building platform (direction E1) to thereby be capable of spreading powder on the building platform (Chen, paragraph [0030] and Fig 3), and as the arms are configured for movement, there is an a powder spreading actuator. However, Chen does not explicitly disclose where the powder spreading actuator is connected to the first powder spreading arm and the second powder spreading arm, respectively, for driving the first powder spreading arm. and the second powder spreading arm to move back and forth in a direction of powder spreading, the powder spreading actuator is configured for adjusting a distance between the first powder spreading arm and the second powder spreading arm to adjust a printing span of the laser according to the shape of the product. Chen also does not disclose where the gas blowing port is adjustable on the first powder spreading arm and the gas suction port is adjustable on the second powder spreading arm to avoid nearby components.
‘US463 relates to the same field of endeavor of an additive manufacturing apparatus where the apparatus includes a build chamber containing a working area, a high energy beam for consolidating material deposited in the working area in layers and a flow device for generating a gas flow across at least a part of the working area from a gas inlet to a gas outlet wherein the gas inlet and gas outlet are arranged to be movable within the build chamber (‘US463, abstract). ‘US463 teaches where the nozzle 112 and exhaust 110 are mounted in a frame 170 for independent movement in a linear direction (‘US463, paragraph [0083] and Fig. 9), meeting the limitation of a powder spreading actuator connected to the first and second spreading arms, driving the first and second powder spreading arms to move back and forth in a direction of powder spreading, and where the powder spreading actuator is capable of adjusting a printing span of the laser according to the shape of the product. ‘US463 also discloses where rotary joints are used to attach the gas nozzle and gas exhaust (‘US463, paragraph [0074] and Figs 5a and 5b). ‘US463 teaches where this adjustable actuator allows for carrying out a boarder scan without requiring movement of the nozzle and exhaust (‘US463, paragraph [0070]) and this also allows for the gas inlet and gas outlet can be located closer together than for nozzles fixed either side of the build platform such that a more uniform gas flow may be achieved and debris ejected from the area being consolidated are more likely to be captured by the gas flow and carried to the gas outlet (‘US463, paragraph [0012]). ‘US463 teaches where the use of rotary joints to connect the nozzle and exhaust allow the nozzle 110 and exhaust 112 to move relative to each other whilst ensuring that the length of the recirculation loop 111 remains constant to avoid pumping effects that could occur with a bellows or telescopic tubing arrangement (‘US463, paragraph [0076]). Further, as these gas channel openings are capable of adjustment, they are capable of being adjusted to avoid nearby components, "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987), see MPEP § 2114.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add mounted the powder spreading arms in a frame for independent movement in a linear direction including rotary joints as taught by ‘US463 into the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed by Chen, thereby allowing for carrying out a boarder scan without requiring movement of the nozzle and exhaust (‘US463, paragraph [0070]), allowing for the gas inlet and gas outlet can be located closer together than for nozzles fixed either side of the build platform such that a more uniform gas flow may be achieved and debris ejected from the area being consolidated are more likely to be captured by the gas flow and carried to the gas outlet (‘US463, paragraph [0012]), and whilst ensuring that the length of the recirculation loop 111 remains constant to avoid pumping effects that could occur with a bellows or telescopic tubing arrangement (‘US463, paragraph [0076]).
As to claim 5, Chen discloses where the powder conveying module includes two powder channels, two powder channel openings, two gas channels, and two gas channel openings where the two powder channels are disposed above the processing plate and the two powder channel openings are separately formed on a first end of the powder channels, located at two sides of the lasers, respectively, and configured to dispense the powders to the processing plate (Chen, paragraph [0006]) and Chen discloses a powder feeding step of feeding an amount of powders to at least one powder channel through at least one powder tank so that the powders are dispensed to a processing plate through a powder channel opening (Chen, paragraph [0013] and FIG. 3), meeting the limitations of the metal 3D printing device further comprises a powder supplying unit, the first powder spreading arm is provided with a powder discharging unit and the second powder spreading arm is provided with another powder discharging unit, the powder supplying unit is configured for supplying the powder to the powder discharging units of the first powder spreading arm and the second powder spreading arm, the powder discharging units of the first powder spreading arm and the second powder spreading arm are configured for controlling the powder to discharge or not and controlling an amount of the powder.
While Chen does not explicitly disclose a forming chamber nor a powder supplying unit, these are conventional in the art. For example, McMurtry discloses a build chamber containing the working area (McMurtry, claim 1 and Fig. 1) as well as a powder dispensing apparatus (McMurtry, paragraph [0065] and Fig. 2). The build chamber protects the operator from the effects of the additive manufacturing process and allows the atmosphere of the chamber to be controlled while the powder supplying unit is necessary to provide powder to build the part layer by layer. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a build chamber and powder dispensing apparatus as disclosed in McMurtry to the apparatus disclosed in Chen thereby allowing for control of the atmosphere of the chamber and providing the needed powder to carry out the construction of a part in a layer by layer manner. This is also merely combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results as both build chambers and powder supplying units are known in the art, one of ordinary skill could have combined these elements by known methods and in the combination each element merely performs the same function as it does separately and one of ordinary skill would have recognized the results would be predictable, see MPEP § 2143(I)(A). Also while McMurtry does not disclose where there are two powder supplying units with one on the left side and one on the right side of the forming chamber, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to duplicate the powder supplying units and place one on either side of the build chamber, thereby allowing the powder spreading arm to not have to return to one side of the build chamber to receive more powder. Also, the duplication of parts (for a multiplied effect) has been shown to be obvious unless a synergistic effect can be shown, see MPEP § 2144.04.
As to claim 6, Chen discloses a powder feeding step of feeding an amount of powders to at least one powder channel through at least one powder tank so that the powders are dispensed to a processing plate through a powder channel opening; a powder flattening step of moving the powder channel opening to drive at least one scraper disposed on the powder channel opening to flatten the powders on the processing plate and where the scrapers are on each of the powder channel openings (Chen, paragraph [0013] and FIG. 3), meeting the claim limitations wherein the first powder spreading arm is provided with a blade, the second powder spreading arm is provided with another blade, the blades of the first powder spreading arm and the second powder spreading arm are both extended along a direction perpendicular to the direction of powder spreading and the blades are towards the building platform, the blades are configured for scraping the powder on the building platform to form the powder layer of desired thickness and flatness.
As to claim 9, Chen discloses the 3D printing device including a first and second powder spreading arm, a gas stream unit and scanning module forming a printing set and a building platform, see claim 1 rejection above. However, Chen does not disclose where there is a plurality of printing sets.
‘US463 discloses where multiple pairs of nozzles 112 and exhausts 110, each nozzle 112 and exhaust 110 mounted for motion along two perpendicular axes along with two or more laser beams and where the pairs of nozzles and exhausts are distributed at intervals in the direction of powder spreading (‘US463, paragraph [0080] and Fig. 8b), meeting the limitation of a plurality of printing sets and . ‘US463 teaches that this allows for the object to be formed by consolidation of powder simultaneously with two or more laser beams (‘US463, paragraph [0080]), thereby increasing the speed at which the part can be built.
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a second pair of nozzles and exhausts as taught by ‘US463 into the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed by Chen, thereby allows for the object to be formed by consolidation of powder simultaneously with two or more laser beams (‘US463, paragraph [0080]), thereby increasing the speed at which the part can be built.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0070779 A1 (cited on IDS dated 6/18/25) of Chen and US 2019/0184463 A1 of McMurtry hereinafter ‘US463 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2016/0136730 A1 of McMurtry hereinafter ‘US730.
As to claim 3, Chen in combination with ‘US463 discloses where one or more lasers can be controlled so that the lasers emitted by the laser sources melt the powders on the processing plate (Chen, paragraph [0030]), meeting the claim limitation of a plurality of scanning mirror units and where each of the plurality of scanning mirror units is configured to emit the laser for solidifying the powder below thereof. However, Chen does not disclose a scanning driver and the plurality of scanning mirror units are arranged in a direction perpendicularly to the direction of powder spreading, the scanning driver is configured to drive the plurality of scanning mirror units to move in the direction of powder spreading.
‘US730 relates to the same field of endeavor of an additive manufacturing apparatus with a gas flow device for generating a gas flow across the working area (‘US730, paragraphs [0006] and [0018]). ‘US730 teaches where optical assemblies are arranged on a flow device so as to move therewith and are arranged perpendicularly to the direction of powder spreading (‘US730, paragraph [0051] and Fig. 8), meeting the claim limitation a scanning driver and the plurality of scanning mirror units are arranged in a direction perpendicularly to the direction of powder spreading, the scanning driver is configured to drive the plurality of scanning mirror units to move in the direction of powder spreading. ‘US730 teaches that multiple lasers allow for smaller width of scanning zones that enable faster scanning (‘US730, paragraph [0054]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute optical assemblies are arranged on a flow device so as to move therewith and are arranged perpendicularly to the direction of powder spreading as taught by ‘US730 into the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed by Chen, thereby creating smaller width of scanning zones that enable faster scanning (‘US730, paragraph [0054]).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0070779 A1 (cited on IDS dated 6/18/25) of Chen, US 2019/0184463 A1 of McMurtry hereinafter ‘US463, and US 2016/0136730 A1 of McMurtry hereinafter ‘US730 as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of US 2023/0241687 A1 of Hao.
As to claim 4, Chen discloses where one or more lasers can be controlled so that the lasers emitted by the laser sources melt the powders on the processing plate (Chen, paragraph [0030]) and ‘US730 teaches where the lasers and their associated scanning mirrors are received inside a forming chamber (‘US730, Figs. 3 and 8). However, neither Chen nor ‘US730 explicitly disclose the scanning module further comprises a protective mirror and a blowing member, the protective mirror is configured for sealing the plurality of scanning mirror units , the blowing member is configured for blowing gas to form a gas curtain around the protective mirror to improve the cleanliness of the plurality of scanning mirror units in the forming chamber.
Hao relates to the same field of endeavor of selective laser melting apparatus (Hao, abstract). Hao teaches where the galvanometer and lenses are protected by an optical protection lens 20 (Hao, paragraph [0036] and FIG. 1), reading upon a protective mirror which seals the plurality of scanning mirror units. Hao teaches where there is an associated air blow port 24 adjacent to the optical protection lens 20 (Hao, paragraph [0036] and FIG. 1), reading upon a blowing member is configured for blowing gas to form a gas curtain around the protective mirror to improve the cleanliness of the plurality of scanning mirror units in the forming chamber. Hao teaches where the optical protection lens protects the galvanometer and lenses from damage and the air blow port blows away smoke and dust on the surface of the optical protection lens (Hao, paragraph [0036]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add an optical protection lens and blow port as taught by Hao to the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed by the combination of Chen and ‘US730, thereby protecting the galvanometer and lenses from damage blowing away smoke and dust on the surface of the optical protection lens (Hao, paragraph [0036]).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0070779 A1 (cited on IDS dated 6/18/25) of Chen and US 2019/0184463 A1 of McMurtry hereinafter ‘US463 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2018/0128803 A1 of Foret.
As to claim 7, Chen discloses a coaxial sensor component which includes sensing components such as a thermometer (Chen, paragraph [0026]) meeting the limitation of a thermostatic unit which is capable of increasing a temperature constancy of each device inside the forming chamber.
However, while Chen discloses where the gas flowing between the two gas channel openings is filtered by an air filter (Chen, paragraph [0037]), Chen does not disclose where there is an auxiliary purification unit located on both sides of the forming chamber, and where said unit is configured to draw gas flowing into the chamber out of the chamber.
Foret relates to the same field of endeavor of controlling process gases in the processing chamber of an additive manufacturing apparatus (Foret, abstract). Foret teaches where a circulating line for the process gas is provided to extract the process gas through a chamber (Foret, paragraph [0068] and FIG. 1), meeting the claim limitation of an auxiliary purification unit located on both sides of the forming chamber, and where said unit is configured to draw gas flowing into the chamber out of the chamber. Foret teaches that the recirculation line includes both an oxygen sensor and lambda probe which (Foret, paragraph [0070] and Fig. 1) which allows for better, and particularly reproducible adjustment and control of the process gas atmosphere in the processing chamber (Foret, paragraph [0023]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a recirculating line as taught by Foret to the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed in Chen, thereby allows for better, and particularly reproducible adjustment and control of the process gas atmosphere in the processing chamber (Foret, paragraph [0023]).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2019/0070779 A1 (cited on IDS dated 6/18/25) of Chen and US 2019/0184463 A1 of McMurtry hereinafter ‘US463 as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 2021/0046519 A1 of Go.
As to claim 8, Chen discloses the metal 3D printing device of claim 1, see claim 1 rejection above. While Chen is concerned with recycling powder (Chen, paragraph [0005]), Chen does not explicitly disclose a powder suction unit comprising a powder suction driver and a powder suction tube, the powder suction driver is configured to drive the powder suction tube to move, the powder suction tube is configured to clean up the powder unsolidified on the building platform after the product is formed.
Go relates to the same field of endeavor of additive fabrication (Go, abstract). Go teaches a depowdering system comprising a nozzle configured to direct a stream of gas onto a powder and two proximate sources of vacuum (Go, paragraph [0073] and Fig 4A), reading upon a powder suction tube that is configured to clean up powder unsolidified on the building platform after the product is formed. Go teaches where an automated gantry or robotic arm is attached to these structures to move the nozzle and vacuums over the surface of the powder bed (Go, paragraph [0073]), reading upon a powder suction driver that causes the powder suction tube to move. Go teaches that this process removes powder from around the part and allows for extraction of one or more additively fabricated parts from a powder bed (Go, paragraph [0004]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the depowdering system comprising a nozzle configured to direct a stream of gas onto a powder and two proximate sources of vacuum along with an associated robotic arm as taught by Go to the additive manufacturing apparatus disclosed in Chen, thereby removing powder from around the part and allowing for extraction of one or more additively fabricated parts from a powder bed (Go, paragraph [0004]).
Response to Arguments
With respect to the rejections over Chen, ‘US463, ‘US730, Hao, and Go, applicant argues that as claim 1 has been amended to recite where the gas blowing port and gas suction ports are adjustable relative to powder spreading arms to avoid nearby components when printing, and as the gas channels in Chen are fixed into the supporting structure as shown in FIG. 2, the gas ports are not adjustable with respect to the arms (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 9, last three paragraphs and pg. 10, first paragraph).
However, applicant does not have support for this amendment, see 112(a) rejection above. Also, while Chen does not explicitly disclose where the ports are adjustable, this is cured by ‘US463.
Applicant argues that with respect to ‘US463, the dispensing apparatus is provided at a side of the platform which is separated with the gas nozzle and exhaust and the gas nozzle and exhaust only operate after powder spreading has been completed by the dispensing apparatus (Applicant’s remarks, pg. 10 last paragraph – pg. 11 1st paragraph).
In response to applicant's argument that the gas flow device in ‘US463 is distinct from the claims, the test for obviousness is not whether the features of a secondary reference may be bodily incorporated into the structure of the primary reference; nor is it that the claimed invention must be expressly suggested in any one or all of the references. Rather, the test is what the combined teachings of the references would have suggested to those of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981). In the instant case, Chen discloses a powder dispensing and gas controlling apparatus. ‘US463 also teaches a method of adjusting these sorts of gas nozzles across a build chamber using rotary joints. As these references both relate to the same field of endeavor of gas control in additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine the control mechanisms from ‘US463 into Chen allowing for the gas inlet and gas outlet can be located closer together than for nozzles fixed either side of the build platform such that a more uniform gas flow may be achieved and debris ejected from the area being consolidated are more likely to be captured by the gas flow and carried to the gas outlet (‘US463, paragraph [0012]), and whilst ensuring that the length of the recirculation loop 111 remains constant to avoid pumping effects that could occur with a bellows or telescopic tubing arrangement (‘US463, paragraph [0076]). Thus applicant’s arguments are not persuasive and the rejection is maintained.
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 Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Keith Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights