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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group II and Species A1, B1, C1, and D1 (i.e., claim(s) 9-11, 13-18, and 20-21, and 23) in the reply filed on 08/05/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not provide any statement/reasons indicating traversal of the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse. See MPEP § 818.01.
Applicant’s statement “Examiner has indicated that claims 1 and 9 are linking claims” is not accurate. Nowhere in the CTRS dated 06/25/2025 Examiner indicated that claims 1 and 9 are “linking claims” as Applicant alleges. In pg. 6 of the CTRS dated 06/25/2025, Examiner only indicated that claims 1 and 9 are generic claims. However, the meaning of generic claims is separate and different from linking claims. See MPEP §§ 806.04(d) and 809.
Applicant’s request that claims 1 and 9-24 should be examined based on Applicant’s election is denied because Applicant’s Election of Groups and Species does not read on claims 1 and 9-24 as Applicant alleges. Claim 1 is directed non-elected Group I while claims 12, 19, 22 and 24 are directed at least to non-elected species B2 and D2.
Accordingly, claim(s) 1-8, 12, 19, 22, and 24 is/are withdrawn as being drawn to nonelected Groups and Species, and claim(s) 9-11, 13-18, 20-21, and 23 is/are examined herein.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Germany on 11/09/202. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE 102020129413.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. It is noted that only an interim copy is in the record.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the claimed “two shaft-shaped storage containers” and “the two baffles are at a distance from one another that corresponds to the width of the beam inlet opening and the two baffles extend along the side edges of the beam inlet opening and the mutually opposite baffles aligned towards one another each extend to half of the length of the beam inlet opening” must be shown/label or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract is not a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent. In this case, the claims are directed to an apparatus. Thus, the abstract should include the organization, operation, and improvement of the apparatus. Furthermore, the abstract describes an apparatus already known in the art (See art rejection below). A correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01 (b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
In claim 9, “feeding a secondary gas flow ,” should be changed to --feeding a secondary gas flow,--.
In claim 14, “the feed device,,” should be changed to --the feed device,--.
In claim 20, “the secondary gas” should be changed to --the secondary gas flow--.
In claim 20, “the lateral streams is capable” should be changed to --the two lateral streams are capable--.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a centre module and at least one outer module, aligned with the centre module, for the purpose of generating a primary gas flow along the build platform, so that that a section over which primary gas flows is formed between the at least one outer module and the centre module” in claim 1 with corresponding structure disclosed at least in at least [0048-0049] of Applicant’s published application.
“a feed device above the build platform for feeding a secondary gas flow” with at least one feed channel as the corresponding structure disclosed at least in [0054] and claim 13 of Applicant’s published application.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Other claim Interpretations:
The term “X/Y plane” has been interpretated below as a horizontal or XY plane in cartesian coordinates.
The term “throughflow element” has been interpretated below in accordance with [0058] of Applicant’s published application.
The term “reverse-stream fin” has been interpretated below in accordance with [0057] and Figs. 3-4 of Applicant’s published application.
The term “reverse-stream fin” has been interpretated below in accordance with [0057] and Figs. 3-4 of Applicant’s published application.
The term “flow stabilizer” has been interpretated below in accordance with [0057] and Figs. 3-4 of Applicant’s published application.
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(s) 9-11, 13-18, 20-21, and 23 is/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 9 recites the limitation “a centre module and at least one outer module, aligned with the centre module, for the purpose of generating a primary gas flow along the build platform, so that that a section over which primary gas flows is formed between the at least one outer module and the centre module” which is indefinite because it is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. The limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the corresponding structure disclosed in the written description (e.g., [0048-0049] of Applicant’s published application) is incapable of performing the entire claimed function. According [0053] of Applicant’s published application, a primary gas source is also needed for the generation of a primary gas flow along the build platform. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the secondary gas flow is aligned onto the build platform by the feed device, and a section along which the secondary gas flow passes is formed between the feed device and the process assistance device” which is indefinite. It is unclear how the section along which the secondary gas flow passes is formed between the feed device and the process assistance device when the process assistance device comprises both the centre and outer modules and the secondary gas flow is aligned onto the build platform. The limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. See MPEP § 2173.03. Applicant’s Fig. 5 clearly shows that a section along which the secondary gas flow passes is formed between the feed device 55 and the centre module 33 (i.e., only a portion of the process assistance device); however, the secondary gas flow provided by the feed device 55 does not pass/reach the outer module 34/35, and therefore, no section of the secondary gas flow is formed between the feed device and the whole process assistance device as currently claimed. For purposes of compact prosecution, the limitation has been examined below in view of the secondary gas flow shown in Fig. 5.
PNG
media_image1.png
243
302
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim(s) 10-11, 13-18, 20-21, and 23 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 9 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “suction extracting device comprising at least one rotary tube” which is indefinite. The scope of the term “rotary tube” is indefinite. Applicant’s specification fails describe the meaning of a “rotary tube”. It is unclear from Applicant’s specification/figures how the tube is rotary and how shown tube is capable of extracting gas while being rotary. If the shown tube was rotary, then its inlet will change radial position and will not create the claimed gas flows. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --suction extracting device comprising at least one tube-- in view of the structure for the suction extracting device 41 shown in Fig. 1.
Claim 11 recites the limitation “the two suction extracting devices of the centre module” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the two suction extracting devices” in the claim(s). Applicant introduced a suction extracting device until claim 10. The limitation has been examined below as if it read --two suction extracting devices of the centre module--.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the feed opening of the feed device” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the feed opening of the feed device” in the claim(s). While claim 13 introduces a “feed opening”, claim 13 does not recite that the feed opening is an opening of the feed device or the process chamber.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “proceeding from a smallest distance between the flow surfaces in the process chamber, a widening of the wall portions as far as a horizontally aligned boundary surface is provided, wherein the horizontally aligned boundary surfaces extend in opposite directions and extend above the process assistance device, which is aligned with the process chamber floor, or the smallest distance between the flow surfaces is reached at ends of the flow surfaces that point towards the build platform, as far as a horizontally aligned boundary surface connected thereto” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the process chamber floor” in the claim(s). Additionally, the language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The relationship between the horizontally aligned boundary surfaces, flow surfaces, and wall portions is unclear. Are the horizontally aligned boundary surfaces part of the wall portions? If so, where does the flow surfaces end and the horizontally aligned boundary surfaces? The number of require aligned boundary surfaces is unclear due to the inconsistent use of plural and singular aligned boundary surface(s).
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected as being dependent from claim 14 and therefor including all the limitation thereof.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “wherein, as seen in a side view, by virtue of the flow surfaces of the wall portions the process chamber has a tulip-shaped or conical contour or a contour in the form of a parabolic inlet funnel” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the flow surfaces” or “the wall portions” in the claim(s). Applicant introduced a suction extracting device until claim 14. Additionally, the language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. What is seen in a side view? The apparatus, the chamber, or the flow surfaces? Furthermore, the limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. Based on the provided Figures, only the top portion (i.e., the portion defined by the flow surfaces of the wall portions) of the process chamber has the claimed shape. Claim 17 has been examined below as best understood.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “the two baffles are at a distance from one another that corresponds to the width of the beam inlet opening and the two baffles extend along the side edges of the beam inlet opening and the mutually opposite baffles aligned towards one another each extend to half of the length of the beam inlet opening” which is indefinite. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the width of the beam inlet opening”, “the side edges of the beam inlet opening”, “the mutually opposite baffles” or “the length of the beam inlet opening” in the claim(s). Additionally, the language makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. The dimensions of the beam inlet opening are variable/undefined, and therefore, the scope of the claimed subject matter is unclear. See MPEP 2173.05 (b) (II). Furthermore, the limitation is inconsistent with Applicant’s disclosure. Based on Applicant’s Figures 3-4, the two baffles 72 do not extend along the side edges of the beam inlet opening 30 because they are shown as being provided in an upper surface of the feed channel far away from the beam inlet opening 30. Claim 21 cannot be evaluated with respect to prior art at this time as the examiner cannot reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention and cannot make a proper comparison between the claims and the prior art due to the 112 (b) issues explained above.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “wherein an end face of the beam inlet opening has a reverse-stream fin assigned to it and/or in that it has a flow stabilizer assigned to it between an end face of the beam inlet opening and the flow surface on the wall portion, and a curvature of the flow stabilizer corresponds to the curvature of the flow surface of the wall portion” which is indefinite. The language “has … and/or in that it has” is vague and makes it difficult to ascertain the subject matter for which protection is sought. There is not sufficient antecedent basis for “the flow surface”, “the wall portion”, or “the curvature of the flow surface of the wall portion” in the claim(s).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 (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 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.
Claim(s) 9, 13, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawada (US 20180133796).
Regarding claim 9, Kawada discloses an apparatus for producing three-dimensional objects by selectively solidifying a build material (powder material), applied layer by layer, using a beam (laser beam L) acting on the build material (P0002-0003, Fig. 1), the apparatus comprising:
at least one process chamber (1) comprising at least one build platform (2), arranged in an X/Y plane and on which the three-dimensional object is created (P0034-0036, Fig. 1),
a radiation source (9/9A) for generating the beam (L), at least one beam guiding element (9B) for guiding and directing the beam onto the build material to be solidified (P0048, Fig. 5), wherein the beam is capable of being coupled into the process chamber through a beam inlet opening (8C: P0046, Fig. 1),
a process assistance device comprising a centre module (3 with gas collecting means V3 located centrally inside the process chamber: P0057, Fig. 1, Fig. 4) and at least one outer module (gas supply means F3 located in an outer wall of the process chamber: P0053, Fig. 1, Figs. 5-6), aligned with the centre module, for the purpose of generating a primary gas flow along the build platform, so that that a section over which primary gas flows is formed between the at least one outer module and the centre module (P0067-0068, Figs. 1 and 5-6), and
a feed device (8) above the build platform for feeding a secondary gas flow (P0045-0047, Fig. 1),
wherein the secondary gas flow (downward gas flow) is aligned onto the build platform by the feed device (P0045-0047, Fig. 1), and a section along which the secondary gas flow passes is formed between the feed device and a portion of the process assistance device (a section along which the downward gas flow passes is formed between 8 and V3 to enable removal of fumes: P0045-0047, 0068, Fig. 1) .
PNG
media_image2.png
602
571
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Kawada further discloses the beam inlet opening (8C) for the beam is provided in the process chamber, and a feed channel of the feed device (unlabeled feeding channel on 8) is aligned on either side of the beam inlet opening, and the secondary gas flow is capable of being fed to the process chamber through a feed opening adjoining the beam inlet opening or surrounding the beam inlet opening (feed openings on 8B surrounding 8C: P0046, Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 18, Kawada further discloses wherein a throughflow element (8C) is provided in the feed opening (P0046, Fig. 1; 8B reads on the claimed throughflow element described in [0058] of Applicant’s published application).
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) 10-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Geisen (DE 102017222645 with English machine translation - attached).
Regarding claim 10, Kawada further discloses wherein the centre module (3) has at least one suction extracting device (V3), the at least one suction extracting device comprising … an intake opening (port: P0057), which faces the at least one outer module (intake opening of V3 faces F1: Fig. 1), and the at least one suction extracting device extends at least over a width of the build platform (Fig. 4-5).
Kawada fails to disclose a tube as suction extracting device with an intake opening which extends at least over a width of the build platform.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for producing three-dimensional objects, Geisen discloses the technique of providing a centre module comprising at least one suction extracting device, the at least one suction extracting device comprising at least one tube (11 is shown/described as a beam-shaped tube) with an intake opening, which faces at least one outer module (10) and extends at least over a width of the build platform for the benefit(s) of providing laminar/uniform gas flow between 10 and 11 (pg. 7, Fig. 4-5).
One of ordinary skill in the would have been motivated to increase the surface area of the intake opening by extending it at least over a width of the build platform for the benefit(s) of improving/facilitating gas extraction.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kawada in view of Geisen by providing a tube with an intake opening, which faces at least one outer module and extends at least over a width of the build platform for the benefit(s) of providing laminar gas flow and/or improving/facilitating gas extraction.
Regarding claim 11, Kawada further discloses providing one shaft-shaped storage container (3A) for storing the build material and at least one coating device (3A/3B) arranged near the storage container and an extraction device V3 (P0041-0044, Figs. 3-4).
Kawada does not teach the claimed two shaft-shaped storage containers, two suction extracting devices, and the claimed arrangement. However, the difference amounts to a duplication of the container and the suction extraction device. Since Kawada also discloses the desire to perform dispensing and spreading functions in both forward and backward directions (P0044), Kawada motivates/suggests the duplication of the container and the suction extraction device and the claimed arrangement.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for producing three-dimensional objects, Geisen discloses the technique of providing to a centre module “powder containers 19” and at least one coating device (20) arranged between the powder containers, wherein the two storage containers and the coating device(s) is/are provided between two suction extracting devices (11) of the centre module for the benefit(s) of performing dispensing and spreading functions in both forward and backward directions and/or increasing efficiency (pg. 7-8, Fig. 7-10).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kawada in view of Geisen by providing two shaft-shaped storage containers, arranging at least one coating device between the two shaft-shaped storage powder containers, and providing the two storage containers and the coating device(s) between two suction extracting devices for the benefit(s) of performing dispensing and spreading functions in both forward and backward directions with one/multiple materials and/or increasing efficiency as suggested by Geisen and/or predicted by a person of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Herzog (US 20180236550) and Meiners (US 6583379).
Regarding claims 14 and 17, Kawada fails to disclose wherein a length of the process chamber that extends in a Y direction is delimited by mutually opposite wall portions that have flow surfaces, proceeding from the feed opening, a distance between the flow surfaces progressively reduces towards the build platform and the process chamber has a tulip-shaped or conical contour or a contour in the form of a parabolic inlet funnel by virtue of the flow surfaces of the wall portions.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for producing three-dimensional objects, Herzog discloses that the geometry of the process chamber is optimizable to optimize flow and teaches to provide wall elements to form funnel-shaped flow process chamber to optimize type/speed of flow (P0031, 0034). This teaching suggests/motivates providing to the process chamber wall portions that have flow surfaces that progressively reduce towards the build platform to optimize type/speed of flow.
As evidenced by prior art of record, curved wall portions in process chambers as flow surfaces are desirable in the art for the benefit(s) of preventing turbulence/non-laminar flow.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for producing three-dimensional objects, Meiners discloses that the design of the process chamber is of decisive importance for the production of the three-dimensional objects (C2, L21-25). Meiners discloses the desire to provide an upper gas flow in a process chamber (1) having opposite flow sides proceeding from a feed opening (13) such at a distance between gas the flow sides progressively reduces towards a build platform (2) in at least in a portion of the chamber (Fig. 1) for the benefit(s) of providing an efficient protective gas flow over the building platform and keeping away vapors created in the processing zone from the beam injection window (C2, L36-C3, L34). This teaching motivates providing to the process chamber wall portions that have tulip/parabolic flow surfaces that progressively reduce towards the build platform to facilitate/improve the generation of the taught upper gas flow (See annotated Fig. 1 below).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kawada in view of Herzog and Meiners by delimitating a length of the process chamber that extends in a Y direction with mutually opposite wall portions that have flow surfaces, proceeding from the feed opening such that a distance between the flow surfaces progressively reduces towards the build platform and by changing the shape of the process chamber to a tulip-shaped, a conical contour, a contour in the form of a parabolic inlet funnel by virtue of the flow surfaces of the wall portions for the benefit(s) of providing an efficient protective/secondary gas flow over the building platform, keeping away vapors created in the processing zone from the beam inlet opening, and optimizing type/speed of the secondary flow as suggested by Herzog and Meiners.
Regarding claim 15, Kawada, as modified above, fails to disclose the claimed subject matter.
However, Meiners further suggests/motivates to provide proceeding from a smallest distance (d1 for the desirable tulip/parabolic flow surfaces or d2 for the shown flow surface) between the flow surfaces in the process chamber, a widening of the wall portions as far as a horizontally aligned boundary surface (HABS1 and/or HABS2), wherein the horizontally aligned boundary surfaces extend in opposite directions and extend above a process assistance device (7 and 9), which is aligned with a process chamber floor, or the smallest distance (d2) between the flow surfaces is reached at ends of the flow surfaces that point towards the build platform (2), as far as a horizontally aligned boundary surface connected thereto (HABS1 and/or HABS2) for the benefit(s) of providing an efficient protective secondary/upper gas flow without affecting the primary/lower gas flow (C2, L36-C3, L34, and annotated Fig. 1 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
335
436
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kawada in view of Meiners by providing i) a widening of the wall portions as far as a horizontally aligned boundary surface proceeding from a smallest distance between the flow surfaces in the process chamber, wherein the horizontally aligned boundary surfaces extend in opposite directions and extend above the process assistance device, which is aligned with the process chamber floor, or ii) the smallest distance between the flow surfaces is reached at ends of the flow surfaces that point towards the build platform, as far as a horizontally aligned boundary surface connected thereto for the benefit(s) of providing an efficient protective secondary/upper gas flow without affecting the primary/lower gas flow as suggested by Meiners.
Regarding claim 16, Kawada, as modified above, fails to disclose the claimed subject matter.
However, since Kawada teaches to eliminate fumes that rise to a ceiling of the chamber 1 from the sintering (P0047) while Meiners shows a smallest distance (d1/d2) between the flow surfaces is the same as or less, than a length of the build platform 2 (See annotated Fig. 1) and to use the secondary/upper gas flow to keep away vapors created in the processing zone from the beam injection window (i.e., ceiling of the chamber: C2, L36-C3, L34), it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kawada in view of Meiners by providing the flow surfaces such that a smallest distance between the flow surfaces is the same as or less, than a length of the build platform that extends in an X direction for the benefit(s) of providing an efficient protective secondary/upper gas flow without affecting the primary/lower gas flow and efficiently keeping away vapors created along the length of the build platform that extends in an X as suggested by Meiners.
Claim(s) 20 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawada as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Araie (US 20150367574) and Speker (US 20190176282).
Regarding claim 20, Kawada fails to disclose the claimed subject matter.
In the same field of endeavor, apparatuses for producing three-dimensional objects, Araie discloses/shows the desire to divide a secondary gas flow (27) into two lateral streams and a core stream in between them, wherein the core stream is capable of being fed to an end face of the beam inlet opening and the lateral streams is capable of being fed to a side portion of the feed opening that laterally adjoins the beam inlet opening (See Fig. 5). However, Araie is silent about using baffles to divide the secondary gas flow.
In analogous art, apparatuses for laser machining three-dimensional objects, Speker discloses the technique of providing baffles in feed channels (6, 10) to divide a secondary/upper gas flow into at least two lateral streams and a core stream in between them for the benefit(s) of generating a laminar supply air flow (Abstract, P0041, 0045, 0048, Fig. 7). Speker further discloses the technique of incorporating a throughflow element in feed channels (P0047-0048, Fig. 3).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kawada in view of Araie and Speker by providing two baffles in feed channels to divide the secondary gas flow in the feed channels into two lateral streams and a core stream in between them, wherein the core stream is capable of being fed to the end face of the beam inlet opening and the lateral streams are capable of being fed to a side portion of the feed opening that laterally adjoins the beam inlet opening for the benefit(s) of generating a laminar/distributed gas flow to the beam inlet opening as suggested by the combination of Araie and Speker.
Regarding claim 23, Kawada fails to disclose the claimed subject matter. However, since Kawada teaches to direct the secondary flow in the direction of the beam, one of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to incorporate reverse-stream fin an end face of the beam inlet opening to ensure directing of the secondary flow in the direction of the beam.
Araie also teaches to direct the secondary flow in the direction of the beam (See Fig. 5). However, Araie is silent about using reverse-stream fins to direct flow.
In analogous art, apparatuses for laser machining three-dimensional objects, Speker discloses the technique of providing fins/plates to combine two horizontal reverse/opposing gas streams in the middle for the benefit(s) of creating a downward laminar flow (Abstract, P0041, 0045, 0048, Fig. 7, Fig. 9).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the apparatus of Kawada in view of Araie and Speker by providing a reverse-stream fin at an end face of the beam inlet opening for the benefit(s) of creating a downward laminar flow from two horizontal reverse/opposing gas streams and ensuring directing of the secondary flow in the direction of the beam as suggested by the combination of Araie and Speker.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 9 is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 24 of copending Application No. 18/311256 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because they are coextensive in scope (i.e., claim 24 of the reference application explicitly/implicitly discloses all the limitation of claim 9).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Additional prior art made of record and not relied upon that is considered to be pertinent to
Applicant’s disclosure:
Effernelli (US 20230043535) discloses an apparatus comprising a relevant processing device (Fig. 3 and accompanying text).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-0625. The examiner can normally be reached 1:00-10:00 PM PT.
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.
JERZI H. MORENO HERNANDEZ
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1743
/JERZI H MORENO HERNANDEZ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743