Detailed Office Action
Notice of Pre-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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Restriction/Election
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, Claims 1 – 5 and 11 – 16 in the reply filed on 06/15/26 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that Groups I – IV shared a common technical feature oxidizing and passivating welding fumes. This is not found persuasive because the apparatuses of Group III and Group IV do not require welding fumes/residue because this is directed to the material being worked upon.
Limitations directed to the material or article worked upon by an apparatus do not limit the apparatus claims. "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935)(MPEP 2115)
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
The examiner notes that claim 9 is dependent upon claim 1 and as such, the restriction requirement placing it in Group II has been reconsidered and it has been placed in Group I and examined in the current action.
Claims 7 – 8, 18 and 20 – 23, and 24 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Groups II, III, and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/15/26.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claim 14, the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea (specifically a mental process) without significantly more. The claim recites determining the time constant based on oxidizing agent concentration detected at two points in time and determining the passivation time period therefrom, which is a mental process that can be performed/calculated in the human mind. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the steps of determining the time constant and then determining the passivation time period from said time constant are not practically integrated into the method, such as by controlling/manipulating the method itself.
Lastly, the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Per MPEP 2106.07, “even if an independent claim is determined to be eligible, a dependent claim may be ineligible because it adds a judicial exception without also adding limitations that integrate the judicial exception or provide significantly more.”
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. § 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.
Claims 1 – 5, 9, and 11 – 16 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.
Regarding claim 1, the phrase “at least one sensor at two points in time having a predetermined distance from one another” is indefinite. Specifically, the phrase does not make clear whether “distance” is actually a physical distance or a time distance. The claim only requires one sensor and as such, it is not clear how a physical “distance from one another” could exist with one sensor. On the other hand, the phrase could be interpreted as referring to a distance in time between two points in time. Therefore, it is not clear whether claim requires two sensors distanced apart or whether the phrase is referring to distances in time of one sensor. For purposes of examination, the latter interpretation is taken.
Claims 2 – 5, 9 and 11 – 16 are rejected by virtue of dependency.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §102
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 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 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)(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 – 5, 9 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated Schutze (WO2021151680, using US20230330581 as translation, cited in the IDS of 01/26/24)
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Herding teaches a method for the filtration and cleaning of waste gas originating from an additive manufacturing process [Abstract]. Herding teaches that metal-containing particles in a waste gas from laser sintering is oxidized and that the oxidation rate is controlled by control of supply and discharge of an oxidant [0005, 0007].
Herding states that the processing environment for the additive manufacturing process should be inert and that the cleaned waste gas is recirculated back into the process (i.e. circulatory) [0095], wherein the waste gas can be an inert gas and foreign object mixture, and the foreign objects are metal particulates [0039]. This implies the presence of an additive manufacturing machine/apparatus for a metal-based building material with a process chamber/area for manufacturing an object and a circulation system with a gas circuit of protective gas to pass through the chamber and be cleaned, meeting the claimed limitation of claim 1 and the claimed “pipe system” of claim 9.
Additionally, Herding teaches that the waste gas mixture is introduced to an apparatus for cleaning which contains an oxidant inlet [Fig 2, 0093] before being circulated back, meeting the claimed limitation of welding fumes (i.e., waste gas mixture) are exposed to a gas atmosphere containing an oxidizing agent in a chamber (claim 1)/gas pipe system (claim 9) for a passivation time period.
Lastly, Herding teaches that a sensor for oxidant concentration is included and when the oxidation begins [0124] a first shut-off member seals off the reaction region and passivation/reaction begins [0028]. While oxidizing/reacting, the concentration of oxidant is maintained within a predetermined threshold [0124, 0126] and when it drops below a particular threshold the shut-off member is opened again [0028, 0029], meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of the passivation time period being ended based on differences in oxidizing agent concentrations at two different points in time from at least one sensor.
Regarding claim 2, Herding teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Herding teaches that a filter element is present [Fig 2, 0053] which filters out the foreign objects (i.e., welding fume residue) and an oxidant supply means is provided to oxidize foreign objects cleaned off from the filter [0053], meeting the claimed limitation of oxidizing residues which have been filtered out of the protective gas by a filter.
Regarding claim 3, Herding teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Herding teaches that a filter element is provided downstream of the oxidizing area [Fig 5, 6, “122”] in which oxidization still occurs [0119, 0120] and in which particulates which are freed from said filter are captured in a collecting container [0120, 0121], meeting the broadest reasonable interpretation of a filter and fumes being exposed to a gas atmosphere containing oxidizing agent.
Regarding claim 4, Herding teaches the invention as applied in claim 2. Herding teaches that a filter element is cleaned by applying a pressurized gas to filter which causes various material and foreign objections to remove [0098] and an oxidant supply means is provided to oxidize foreign objects cleaned off from the filter [0053], meeting the claimed limitation of oxidizing residues which have been filtered out of the protective gas by a filter.
Regarding claim 5, Herding teaches the invention as applied in claim 4. Herding teaches that the foreign objects are collected in a collecting container [Fig 2, “64”] and a volume between the collecting container [“64”, Fig 2] and the filter element [Fig 2, “12”] is where foreign objects are subjected to the oxidant [Fig 2, “32”; 0092].
Regarding claim 16, Herding teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Herding teaches that the cleaning device has a first shut-off member that closes during the oxidation cycle [0099] and a second shut-off member to separate the oxidation cycle/area from the downstream discharge line and collecting container [0104, 0105; Fig 2], meeting the claimed limitation of exposing the residues to an oxidizing atmosphere in a temporarily gas-tight close chamber.
Claims 1 – 3, 9 and 11 – 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated Brown (WO2021/247640)
Regarding claims 1 and 9, Brown teaches a method for the passivation of debris generated from three-dimensional printing [Abstract]. Herding teaches that debris in a passivation gas mixture containing metal from laser sintering [0005, 0006] is oxidized and that the oxidation rate is controlled by control of supply and discharge of an oxidant [0008, 0010].
Brown states that the processing environment for the additive manufacturing process can be inert [0183] and that the cleaned gas is recirculated back into the process (i.e. circulatory) [Fig 5, 0116], wherein the passivation gas mixture would include an inert gas from the process [0118] and debris [0008], and the debris is metal build material [0011]. This implies the presence of an additive manufacturing machine/apparatus for a metal-based building material [Fig 1 and Fig 5] with a process chamber/area for manufacturing an object and a circulation system with a gas circuit of protective gas to pass through the chamber [Fig 5], meeting the claimed limitation.
Additionally, Brown teaches that the passivation gas mixture is introduced to a passivation system with a filter device which contains an oxygen inlet [0092, 0093], meeting the claimed limitation of welding fumes (i.e., passivation gas mixture) are exposed to a gas atmosphere containing an oxidizing agent in a chamber for a passivation time.
Wherein the passivation system and filter are present in a circulatory system of recycling gas [Fig 5] and the passivation mixture is oxidized [0093, 0094], meeting the claimed limitation of the “welding residue” (i.e., debris) is exposed to the a gas atmosphere with an oxidizer in a gas pipe system.
Regarding claims 2 – 3, Brown teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Brown teaches that a filter is disposed within the passivation chamber [0010, 0093], implying that the debris captured on the filter is passivated and that the filter is also exposed to the passivation atmosphere. Brown explicitly acknowledges this in [0112] stating “data acquisition system may deduce (from the sensor measurements) that the passivation has completed, that it is safe for a user to extract the filter from the passivation system, and/or that the filter (e.g., material accumulated thereon) has been passivated”, meeting the claimed limitations of claims 2 and 3.
Regarding claims 11 – 12, Brown teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Brown teaches that the passivation system can comprise a plurality of sensors for determining oxidizing/passivating agent concentration [0094, 0099]. Brown teaches that sensors measure oxidizer levels at different points including upstream of an insertion point and downstream of said point [0100] (such as at the entrance and exit [0118]). Brown states a variance of the oxidizer level can be determined and that once no variance is detected, the passivation via gas oxidizer is ended [0118], meeting the limitations of claim 11 of the passivation time period is ended when a difference in oxidizing agent concentration between two points of predetermined distance in time are below a threshold value. This also meets the limitation of claim 12 of ending the passivation time period when the difference in values of oxidizing agent concentration registered by the sensor within a reference time fall within a fluctuation interval.
Regarding claim 13, Brown teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Brown teaches that the oxidizer continues to be introduced into the passivation chamber so long as sensors measure a variance between levels oxidizer that is above a certain threshold and once said variance drops below the threshold, the oxidizer is discontinued (i.e., the passivation time period has ended) [0118], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 13 of the passivation time period is ended when a difference in concentration between two points in time is smaller by a predetermined percentage than a difference in concentration between an initial two points in time (i.e., the variance/difference drops below a variance level threshold and thus the passivation is ended).
Regarding claim 15, Brown teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Brown teaches that the sensor measures the mixture constituent (i.e. oxidant concentration) after it has been introduced into the passivation chamber [0094], meeting claim 15.
Claim Rejections – U.S.C. §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.
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.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutze (WO2021151680, using US20230330581 as translation, cited in the IDS of 01/26/24), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Purdue (“Determining Reaction Rates”, NPL)
Regarding claim 14, Schutze teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Schutze teaches that the oxidation reaction can continue until the concentration of oxidizing agent has sufficiently fallen [0029]. Schutze teaches that the reaction time necessary can be predetermined if the reaction rate is known [0029].
As taught by Purdue (“Calculating Reaction Rates”, NPL), the reaction rate can be determined by mapping the concentration of the reactant over time [Page 1], meeting the claimed limitation of determining the rate by measuring the oxidizing agent concentration at different points in time.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined the reaction rate of the oxidation step of Schutze as described by Purdue with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve predictable results. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the reaction rate would allow for prediction of the necessary reaction time.
Furthermore, it is noted that the reaction rate value/constant is referred to as “k” and the “time constant” is the inverse of reaction rate “k” (i.e. 1/k). Therefore, by determining the reaction rate of the oxidation step of Schutze, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know the time constant “τ” (k-1).
Claims 11 – 13 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schutze (WO2021151680, using US20230330581 as translation, cited in the IDS of 01/26/24), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Brown (WO2021/247640)
Regarding claims 11 – 13 and 15, Schutze teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Schutze teaches that an oxidant sensor can be provided for controlling the oxidation step but does not expressly teach the limitations of claims 11 – 13 and 15.
Brown is directed to a method of additive manufacturing [Title] and passivating debris generated from the three-dimensional printing process by treating a gas-debris mixture and filtering [0008]. Brown teaches that the oxidizing/passivating is controlled using sensor data (such as in Schutze) to determine passivation level [0009]. In particular, Brown teaches that the passivation system can comprise a plurality of sensors for determining oxidizing/passivating agent concentration [0094, 0099]. Brown teaches that sensors measure oxidizer levels at different points including upstream of an insertion point and downstream of said point [0100] (such as at the entrance and exit [0118]). Brown states that the variance of oxidizer level can be determined and that once no variance is detected, the passivation via gas oxidizer is ended [0118], meeting the limitations of claim 11 of the passivation time period is ended when a difference in oxidizing agent concentration between two points of predetermined distance in time are below a threshold value. This also meets the limitation of claim 12 of ending the passivation time period when the difference in values of oxidizing agent concentration registered by the sensor within a reference time fall within a fluctuation interval.
Additionally, Brown teaches that the oxidizer continues to be introduced into the passivation chamber so long as sensors measure a variance between levels oxidizer that is above a certain threshold and once said variance drops below the threshold, the oxidizer is discontinued (i.e., the passivation time period has ended) [0118], meeting the claimed limitation of claim 13 of the passivation time period is ended when a difference in concentration between two points in time is smaller by a predetermined percentage than a difference in concentration between an initial two points in time (i.e., the variance/difference drops below a variance level threshold and thus the passivation is ended).
Lastly, Brown teaches that the sensor measures the mixture constituent (i.e. oxidant concentration) after it has been introduced into the passivation chamber [0094], meeting claim 15.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brown (WO2021/247640), as applied to claim 1, in further view of in further view of Purdue (“Determining Reaction Rates”, NPL)
Regarding claim 14, Brown teaches the invention as applied in claim 1. Brown teaches that the data acquisition system of the passivation system can perform various operations to analyze the sensor data (which includes measurements of the oxidizer concentration) [0110, 0118]. Brown teaches that this includes determining the end of the oxidation reaction [0111].
Brown does not explicitly teach calculating the reaction rate.
As taught by Purdue (“Calculating Reaction Rates”, NPL), the reaction rate can be determined by mapping the concentration of the reactant over time and as shown in the graph, used to determine the reaction conclusion [Page 1], meeting the claimed limitation of determining the rate by measuring the oxidizing agent concentration at different points in time.
As such, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have determined the reaction rate of the oxidation reaction of Brown using the method as described by Purdue with a reasonable expectation of success to achieve predictable results. An ordinarily skilled artisan would have been motivated to do so because the reaction rate would allow for prediction of the necessary reaction time.
Furthermore, it is noted that the reaction rate value/constant is referred to as “k” and the “time constant” is the inverse of reaction rate “k” (i.e. 1/k). Therefore, by determining the reaction rate of the oxidation reaction of Brown, an ordinarily skilled artisan would know the time constant “τ” (k-1).
Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US2019/0022940 – Removal, filtration, and passivation of non-consolidated particulate build material, smoke and/or residues of an AM process
US2018/0065081 – Removal of particulate construction material from gas flow of AM process
WO2020120623 – Aftertreatment of particles carried in gas flow from AM process involving passivation/oxidation and filtration
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to AUSTIN POLLOCK whose telephone number is (571)272-5602. The examiner can normally be reached M - F (8 - 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, Sally Merkling can be reached on (571) 272-6297. 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.
/AUSTIN POLLOCK/Examiner, Art Unit 1738
/SALLY A MERKLING/SPE, Art Unit 1738
Prosecution Insights