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 .
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.
Claim(s) 1-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over DE102017222645 (English machine translation previously provided with the Office action mailed 6/30/25) in view of DE4404181 (English machine translation provided herewith; short specification).
Regarding claim 1, DE102017222645 teaches:
1. A method for producing a three-dimensional object by selectively solidifying a build material applied layer by layer, the method comprising:
in at least one process chamber, applying the build material layer by layer to a build platform (DE102017222645: figs 1-10),
generating at least one beam for solidifying the build material using a radiation source (DE102017222645: laser beam device 5), and feeding the at least one beam to the build material in the build platform using at least one beam guiding element (DE102017222645: coil 18, wherein the laser beam passes through the coils),
generating a primary gas flow along the build platform using a process assistance device, wherein the process assistance device comprises a centre module (DE102017222645: gas outlet 11) and two outer modules arranged on opposite sides of the centre module and (DE102017222645: gas inlets 10 on opposite side of the gas outlet 11) aligned with the centre module, so that a section over which primary gas flows is formed between the centre module and of the two outer modules (DE102017222645: figs 1-10; the inlets and outlets are aligned with each other to create a gas flow parallel to the build platform),
wherein the centre module is moved along the build platform, while the at least one of the two outer module modules is stationary or an outlet nozzle of the at least one of the two outer modules is moved along the build platform independently from the centre module and relative to the centre module (DE102017222645: figs 1-10; since both modules are connected to the frame 9, the gas inlets 10/outer module are stationary relative to the gas outlet 11/centre module),
wherein each of the two outer modules has telescopic feed channels so as to allow the outlet nozzle of the at least one of the two outer modules to move along the build platform (DE102017222645: figs 1-10; there are two gas inlets 10/outer module about the gas outlet 11/centre module, and each gas inlet is connect to flexible hoses that feeds the gas to the gas inlet and whose length is variable, i.e. moves along the build platform, depending on the position of the gas inlet relative to the build platform).
However, DE102017222645 does not teach feed channels that are telescopic. DE4404181 teaches a blowing device comprising a flexible telescopic hose 7 that can be easily pushed together or extended depending on need. Since DE102017222645 and DE4404181 are analogous with regard to using a flexible hose for conducting a gas or air, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to design the flexible pipe of DE102017222645 to also be telescopic as taught by DE4404181 in order to facilitate the extension and retraction of the flexible pipe of DE102017222645 as it is moved along the build platform of DE102017222645.
Regarding claim 2, such is taught by DE102017222645 (DE102017222645: figs 1-10).
Regarding claim 3, such is taught by DE102017222645 (DE102017222645: figs 1-10).
Regarding claim 4, such is taught by DE102017222645 (DE102017222645: figs 1-10; gas outlet 11 is designed to suck of the protective gas).
Regarding claim 5, DE102017222645 does not teach a secondary gas aligned onto and fed to the build platform using a feed device above the build platform. Connell teaches, adding to a first flow of protective gas that is parallel to a build platform, a second flow of protective gas directed towards a build platform from above the platform in order to suppress entrainment and recirculation of smoke and/or particulate matter (para. 0015; figs 1-2 and 4-5). Since DE102017222645 and Connell are analogous with respect to using protective gas in an additive manufacturing process, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to add the second flow as taught by Connell to the gas flow and additive manufacturing process of DE102017222645 in order to better suppress entrainment and recirculation of smoke and/or particulates.
Regarding claim 6, such is taught by the above combination of DE102017222645 and Connell since DE102017222645 teaches two gas outlets 11 that are designed to suck off the protective gas.
Regarding claim 7, such is taught by the above combination of DE102017222645 and Connell since DE102017222645 teaches sucking the protective gas through the two gas outlets 11 when the gas flow that is parallel to the build platform is triggered.
Regarding claim 8, DE102017222645 (modified) does not teach only extracting the primary gas flow and the secondary gas flow by suction and/or only triggering the outer module to discharge the primary gas flow. It is well-known in the additive manufacturing art to either only suction a protective gas or only trigger a flow of protective gas from a periphery of the build platform in order to create a flow path that suppresses smoke and/or particulates. Furthermore, protective gas flow path is well-known in the additive manufacturing art as an important molding parameter and the flow path created by the claimed suction of gas or trigger of gas would have been obviously and readily determined through routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to only extract the primary gas flow and the secondary gas flow of DE102017222645 (modified) by suction and/or only triggering the outer module of DE102017222645 (modified) to discharge the primary gas flow in order to reduce manufacturing costs while maintaining the suppression of smoke and/or particulates.
Regarding claim 9, such is taught by DE102017222645 (DE102017222645: figs 1-10).
Applicant's arguments filed 6/24/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues DE102017222645 does not disclose or suggest that the centre module is moved along the build platform while the at least one of the two outer modules is stationary. This argument is misplaced since both gas inlets 10/modules are connected to the frame 9, the gas inlets 10/outer module are stationary relative to the gas outlet 11/centre module. Since the inlets are stationary relative to the outlet, this claim limitation is met by DE102017222645.
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 EDMUND H LEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1204. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9AM-4PM.
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, Xiao (Sam) Zhao can be reached at 571-270-5343. 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.
EHL
/EDMUND H LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1744
Prosecution Insights