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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “303” has been used to designate both the first intermediate flow channel and the second intermediate flow channel (in addition to the other channels).
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: 132, 133.
The drawings are objected to because fig. 3B is presented as a photograph, but is not the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1). The drawing should be presented as a line drawing. (Fig. 4A is acceptable as a photographic black-and-white drawing.)
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.
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.
Claims 1 and 4–10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Schödel et al. (US Pub. 2019/0118478).
Claim 1: Schödel discloses a system, comprising:
a material removal apparatus (¶ 2 mentions an “additive manufacturing apparatus”) comprising a laser (¶ 6, “laser”), wherein the material removal apparatus is configured to perform a material removal operation with respect to a workpiece (¶ 2 describes that, for its additive manufacturing apparatus, “Due to the irradiation of the build material, particles and/or residues are generated such as fumes, smoke and smolder or for example particles of build material, e.g. stirred up or partially evaporated in the manufacturing process”; furthermore, the laser of an additive manufacturing apparatus would be inherently capable of performing material removal on some workpieces);
a vacuum system (2, 9) configured to provide suction during the material removal operation; and
a manifold (3) configured to remove debris from the workpiece responsive to the suction provided by the vacuum system (via 4), wherein the manifold comprises:
a plurality of vanes (11) arranged radially around an open center portion (8) of the manifold (see figs. 1 and 4); and
a shell (7) at least partially enclosing the plurality of vanes.
Claim 4: Schödel discloses that the manifold is configured to provide substantially uniform suction across an area of the open center portion of the manifold (appreciable from the flow depicted in fig. 4; the functional limitation of this claim is broad enough to read on Schödel as it does not demand specific structure).
Claim 5: Schödel discloses that the workpiece comprises a component of a substrate processing chamber (the claimed workpiece is the apparatus worked upon and does not meaningfully limit the claim; see MPEP § 2115; the additive manufacturing apparatus of Schödel would be capable of housing a component of a substrate processing chamber).
Claim 6: Schödel discloses that the vacuum system comprises a filter to catch the removed debris (¶ 53, “filter unit”).
Claim 7: Schödel discloses that the manifold further comprises a substantially ring-shaped profile (see fig. 1) and a substantially round cross-section (base body 7 has a substantially round cross-section, see fig. 3).
Claim 8: Schödel discloses that the material removal apparatus is configured to direct the laser through the open center portion of the manifold towards a top surface of the workpiece to perform the material removal operation (¶ 45, “The energy beam (not shown) can pass through the inner suction volume 8 to irradiate build material in the build plane 6, for example along the rotation axis 10”).
Claim 9: Schödel discloses that the shell is configured to substantially surround the workpiece within the open center portion (the workpiece in at Schödel’s build plane (not positively recited, see MPEP § 2115) may be of such a size that it can be surrounded by Schödel’s shell 7).
Claim 10: Schödel discloses a movable stage configured to support the workpiece, wherein the movable stage is movable relative to the laser and the manifold (¶ 50, “the build plane 6 and the combined module 1 are movable relative to one another, for example by moving the combined module 1 relative to the build plane 6 or vice versa or a combination of both movements”).
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schödel as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Xuan (CN 1952408 A, cited by, and translation provided by, the Office).
Claim 2: Schödel discloses that the vacuum system (9) is coupled to an outlet of the manifold (20; appreciable from fig. 4).
Schödel does not disclose that the manifold further comprises: one or more dividers configured to direct a flow of air from the open center portion to an outlet of the manifold.
However, Xuan discloses a similar construction with a manifold (1) that comprises one or more dividers (3) configured to direct a flow of air from a center portion (at 2) to an outlet of the manifold (at 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dividers of Xuan to the manifold of Schödel to reduce flow interference and improve the flow efficiency, as taught by Xuan.
Claim 3: Modified as per claim 2 above, Xuan discloses that one of the one or more dividers form one or more channels within the shell (see fig. 2), and wherein a subset of the plurality of vanes guide a portion of the flow of air from the open center portion into a first channel of the one or more channels (appreciable from 2 and 3 in fig. 2).
Claims 11–20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schödel in view of Xuan.
Claim 11: Schödel discloses a manifold (3) configured to remove debris during a material removal operation performed with respect to a workpiece (¶ 2 describes that, for its additive manufacturing apparatus, “Due to the irradiation of the build material, particles and/or residues are generated such as fumes, smoke and smolder or for example particles of build material, e.g. stirred up or partially evaporated in the manufacturing process”; furthermore, the laser of an additive manufacturing apparatus would be inherently capable of performing material removal on some workpieces), the manifold comprising:
a plurality of vanes (11) arranged radially around an open center portion (8) of the manifold; and
a shell (7) at least partially enclosing the plurality of vanes (appreciable from figs. 1 and 4).
Schödel does not disclose one or more dividers configured to direct a flow of air from the open center portion to an outlet of the manifold.
However, Xuan discloses a similar construction with a manifold (1) that comprises one or more dividers (3) configured to direct a flow of air from a center portion (at 2) to an outlet of the manifold (at 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dividers of Xuan to the manifold of Schödel to reduce flow interference and improve the flow efficiency, as taught by Xuan.
Claim 12: Modified as per claim 11 above, Xuan discloses that the one or more dividers form one or more channels within the shell (see fig. 2), and wherein a subset of the plurality of vanes guide a portion of the flow of air from the open center portion into a first channel of the one or more channels (appreciable from 2 and 3 in fig. 2).
Claim 13: The manifold of claim 11, wherein the manifold is configured to provide substantially uniform suction across an area of the open center portion of the manifold (appreciable from the flow depicted in fig. 4; the functional limitation of this claim is broad enough to read on Schödel as it does not demand specific structure; Schödel’s combination with Xuan would further aid in providing a uniform suction).
Claim 14: Schödel discloses that the manifold further comprises a substantially ring-shaped profile (see fig. 1) and a substantially round cross-section (base body 7 has a substantially round cross-section, see fig. 3).
Claim 15: Schödel discloses that the manifold is configured to fluidly couple to a vacuum system (9) configured to provide suction during a material removal operation.
Claim 16: Schödel discloses a material removal system, comprising:
a vacuum system (2, 9) configured to provide suction during a material removal operation performed with respect to a workpiece (¶ 2 describes that, for its additive manufacturing apparatus, “Due to the irradiation of the build material, particles and/or residues are generated such as fumes, smoke and smolder or for example particles of build material, e.g. stirred up or partially evaporated in the manufacturing process”; furthermore, the laser of an additive manufacturing apparatus would be inherently capable of performing material removal on some workpieces); and
a manifold (3) configured to remove debris during the material removal operation, wherein the manifold comprises:
a plurality of vanes (11) arranged radially around an open center portion (8) of the manifold; and
a shell (7) at least partially enclosing the plurality of vanes.
Schödel does not disclose one or more dividers configured to direct a flow of air from the open center portion to an outlet of the manifold.
However, Xuan discloses a similar construction with a manifold (1) that comprises one or more dividers (3) configured to direct a flow of air from a center portion (at 2) to an outlet of the manifold (at 4).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the dividers of Xuan to the manifold of Schödel to reduce flow interference and improve the flow efficiency, as taught by Xuan.
Claim 17: Modified as per claim 16 above, Xuan discloses that the one or more dividers form one or more channels within the shell (see fig. 2), and wherein a subset of the plurality of vanes guide a portion of the flow of air from the open center portion into a first channel of the one or more channels (appreciable from 2 and 3 in fig. 2).
Claim 18: Schödel discloses that the manifold is configured to provide substantially uniform suction across an area of the open center portion of the manifold (appreciable from the flow depicted in fig. 4; the functional limitation of this claim is broad enough to read on Schödel as it does not demand specific structure; Schödel’s combination with Xuan would further aid in providing a uniform suction).
Claim 19: Schödel discloses that the workpiece comprises a component of a substrate processing chamber (the claimed workpiece is the apparatus worked upon and does not meaningfully limit the claim; see MPEP § 2115; the additive manufacturing apparatus of Schödel would be capable of housing a component of a substrate processing chamber).
Claim 20: Schödel discloses that the shell is configured to substantially surround the workpiece within the open center portion (the workpiece in at Schödel’s build plane (not positively recited, see MPEP § 2115) may be of such a size that it can be surrounded by Schödel’s shell 7).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure.
Ye et al. (CN 109441855 A, cited by the Office), Zhang et al. (CN 209557336 U, cited by the Office), and Liao et al. (CN 104373385 A, cited by the Office) are similar to Xuan.
Park et al. (KR 2018-0002958 A, cited by the Office) is cited as related to suction units for laser apparatuses.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights