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 .
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 5, 6, 10, 19, and 24 are 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 5 recites the limitation "the conveying line". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 6 depends from claim 5 and is also rejected.
Claim 9 recites “the passivating agent reservoir” in the second and third lines of the claim. Claim 8, however, only optionally requires the passivating agent reservoir. Therefore, it is not clear if this limitation is required in claim 9 or not.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the filter chamber". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Claim 19 depends from claim 10 and is also rejected.
Claim 24 recites the limitation "the nozzle" in the tenth and eleventh lines of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 11 – 13, 15, 21, 25, and 26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by DE 102017207415 to Schutze (hereinafter referred to as Schutze).
In regard to claim 1, Schutze discloses a passivating device (6) capable of passivating a filter residue occurring in a filter device (2). The passivating device (6) includes an outlet region (4) which can be coupled or is coupled directly or indirectly to the filter device (2) and is configured to receive filter residue from the filter device. As discussed in paragraphs [0021] – [0022], the device includes a fluid supply for supplying a fluid flow of a fluid, such as oxygen, which can comprise a passivating agent, into the outlet region. As further discussed in paragraph [0028], Schutze recites “There is a second opening on the treatment chamber 8, from which treated products that are no longer or only slightly reactive, which have been formed with or from the metallic particles in the treatment chamber 8, can be removed”. This opening can be considered a fluid discharge capable of discharging the fluid flow and the filter residue from the outlet region. As discussed in claim 5, the heating device can be considered an energy supply device capable of applying energy to the fluid flow and/or the filter residue.
In regard to claim 3, the heating device is capable of supplying energy to at least one element selected from the group consisting of the fluid supply, the outlet region, and the fluid discharge in order to apply energy to the fluid flow.
In regard to claim 7, the fluid supply, as discussed above, can further be considered to form a passivating agent supply capable of supplying a passivating agent. This passivating agent supply is configured and arranged to supply passivating agent to at least one element selected from the group consisting of fluid supply, outlet region, and fluid discharge.
In regard to claim 11, as shown in figure 1, Schutze further discloses a filter system (1) having at least one filter device with a filter chamber and at least one filter element (2) arranged in the filter chamber. The space between the valves (3, 10) can be considered to form a collecting chamber coupled to the filter chamber, which can be separated from the filter chamber in a fluid-tight manner by a shut-off device formed by the upper valve (3). The passivation device, as discussed above, can be considered to be directly or indirectly coupled to the at least one filter device.
In regard to claim 12, as shown in figure 1, Schutze includes a tapered region (not numbered) below the filter elements (2) that forms a collecting region. The tapered region is shown to have a downwardly tapering wall that leads to a filter chamber outlet connected to the passivation device or the collecting chamber.
In regard to claim 13, as shown in figure 1, the collecting region is configured such that the passivation device and a collecting chamber comprised by the filter device can be arranged at last partially below the filter chamber in the operating position. A catchment is formed by the bottom of the chamber (8) and is arranged below the filter chamber.
In regard to claim 15, as shown in figure 1, the filter system comprises exactly one filter device. The passivation device is directly or indirectly coupled to the filter chamber or to the collecting chamber.
In regard to claim 21, in use, Schutze inherently performs a method of passivating a filter residue occurring in at least one filter device. The method comprises the steps of: supplying filter residue that exits the at least one filter device into an outlet region, supplying a fluid flow into the outlet region, discharging the fluid flow loaded with the filter residue from the outlet region, applying energy to the fluid flow, wherein the application of energy to the fluid flow takes place before supplying and/or during supplying the fluid flow into the outlet region and/or in the outlet region and/or during discharging and/or after discharging the fluid flow from the outlet region, wherein a fluid flow of a fluid comprising a passivating agent is used as the fluid flow and/or a passivating agent is added to the fluid flow, wherein the filter residue is at least partially passivated in the entrained flow by a chemical reaction with the passivating agent.
In regard to claim 25, in the method, the fluid is discharged from the outlet region into a catchment (8) by the fluid discharge. The chemical reaction takes place in the outlet region and/or during the discharge.
In regard to claim 26, Schutze further discloses a method for filtering a process gas of a device for the additive manufacturing of three-dimensional objects. The start of the filtering can be considered to include a step of coating at least one filter element (2) with a filter auxiliary agent in powder form. The method further includes: passing the process gas through the at least one filter element (2) to filter out particles from the process gas, cleaning the filter element or cleaning at least a part of two or more than two filter elements from the filter residue formed from filtered-out particles and the filter auxiliary agent, collecting the filter residue, and passivating the filter residue according to a method according to claim 21 of the present application, as discussed above.
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.
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.
Claims 2, 8, 14, 22, and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutze.
Schutze is discussed above in section 9. In regard to claim 2, the fluid discharge can be considered to be designed as a conveying line, as broadly recited in the claim. Schutze does not disclose the inner diameter of the line forming the fluid discharge. The line predictably can be sized to allow for the desired flow therethrough. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to choose or optimize the inner diameter of the fluid discharge line to be at least 20 mm and/or at most 40 mm given a line of this size allows for the desired flow therethrough.
In regard to claim 8, as discussed above, Schutze can provide oxygen as a passivating gas. Schutze does not specifically disclose the source of the oxygen gas. It is well known in the art to store oxygen in a compressed state in a tank having a fluid reservoir. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Schutze to provide the oxygen gas form a source formed by a fluid reservoir containing compressed oxygen as this is a well known oxygen gas source. In this case, the fluid supply inherently provides a fluid connection between the fluid reservoir and the outlet region. The fluid contained in the fluid reservoir at least partially comprises oxygen, which is the passivating agent.
In regard to claim 14, Schutze does not specifically disclose a filling level sensor capable of measuring a quantity of filter residue in the collection region (8). Level sensors are well known in the art. Predictably, a level sensor would allow a user to remotely determine when the collection region is filling up. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Schutze to provide a level sensor to measure the level of the filter residue in the collection chamber in order to allow for remote monitoring of the fill level in the collection chamber.
In regard to claim 22, as discussed in paragraph [0022], Schutze operates to only allow partial oxidization of filter residue. Predictably, if only partial oxidization occurs, the fluid flow loaded with the filter residue falls below the lower explosion limit. Schutze does not specifically disclose only allowing the fluid flow to reach at most 0.8 times the lower explosion limit. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Schutze to only allow the fluid flow with the filter residue to reach at most 0.8 times the lower explosion limit given this allows for safe operation of the system.
In regard to claim 27, as discussed in paragraph [0026], Schutze can use at least two filter elements (2) that can be used sequentially. When used sequentially, the cleaning inherently takes place at different times. Schutze does not specifically disclose arranging the two filter elements in different filter chambers. Predictably, if the filter elements are cleaned at different times, separating the filter elements into different chambers would minimize the amount of filter residue transferred between the filter elements during cleaning. Thus, would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Schutze to separate the filter elements into different chambers to prevent transfer of the filter residue from the filter element being cleaned to the filter element in use. Schutze, further does not specifically disclose a sequence with a wait time between two successive cleanings. There is no evidence the sequence of cleanings is critical. Predictably, the filter elements should be in use for a longer time than they are cleaned. Thus, a wait time predictably would take place between times a cleaning is needed. Thus, it would further have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of claimed invention to modify Schutze to include a wait time between two successive cleanings in order to allow the filter elements to operate up to a time cleaning is required. The passivation step is carried out after a cleaning and thus is inherently performed at least partially during the waiting time.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 16 – 18, 20, and 23 are 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Other references listed on the PTO-892 (Notice of References Cited) are considered to be of interest disclosing similar filter devices.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Robert Clemente whose telephone number is (571)272-1476. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5.
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, Benjamin Lebron can be reached at 571-272-0475. 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.
/ROBERT CLEMENTE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights