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 with traverse of Group II (claims 11-20) in the reply filed on 06/15/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that there is no serious search burden in view of their shared additive-manufacturing context, shared chamber, layer of particles, fusing beam/path, and movable air-flow components. This is not found persuasive because not only do apparatuses and methods require different interpretations due to being different statutory categories of invention, but also, they require significantly different search strategies due to different considerations in interpretation.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claims 1-10 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on 06/15/2026.
Status of Claims
Pending: claims 1-20
Withdrawn: claims 1-10
Under examination: claims 11-20
Amended: claim 20
Rejected: claims 11-20
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.
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 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 20210101186 A1).
Regarding claim 11, with regard to the claimed “A method for performing additive manufacturing comprising: fusing particles in a layer of particles with a beam,”; Fisher teaches a gas knife system for additive manufacturing (Abstract), wherein the additive manufacturing system may include a laser system [0013], [0031] and a powder recoater system [0013] for a powder bed [0037]. Using a laser with a powder bed in additive manufacturing means the particles are fused with the laser beam.
With regard to the claimed “the beam moving in a fusing path from one end of a chamber to another end of the chamber in a first direction”, Fisher teaches an embodiment that the laser can be moved with a gantry [0031], which necessarily means that the laser would be moved from one end to another when a gantry is used.
With regard to the claimed “providing an outlet for blowing air in a second direction opposite of the first direction”, as can be seen in Fig. 2, the gas flow moves in one direction, while the gantry moves in the same axis but in either direction. Therefore, the gas flow moves in the opposite direction (left) when the gantry is moving right, which satisfies the limitation. In the interest of clarity of the record, Fisher teaches that an outlet is removes air from the build area and an inlet adds air to the build area, while in the instant claims and disclosure, an outlet adds air to the build area and an inlet removes air to the build area.
With regard to the claimed “moving the outlet along the first direction and keeping the outlet upstream of the fusing path”, Fisher teaches that one or more gas delivery members move relative to a build area of the additive manufacturing system, and that the inlet and outlet conduits supplying and collecting the gas move relative to the build area [0005], [0033]. Fisher further teaches that the control module can be configured to maintain a position of the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold such that the melt pool is at a medial point between the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold [0012], which meets the limitation, particularly when the gantry is moving in the opposite direction of the gas flow. Furthermore, because Fisher teaches that the inlet and outlet are movable with respect to the laser beam and melt pool, it nonetheless would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the outlet upstream of the fusing path, because there is a clear correlation between maintaining the inlet and outlet with respect to the melt pool, and improved spatter collection [0034] and therefore higher build quality [0039].
Regarding claim 12, Fisher teaches using a laser beam [0031]-[0032].
Regarding claim 13, Fisher teaches that the outlet can extend across an entire width of the build area [0007].
Regarding claim 14, Fisher teaches that the gas knife system can include rails for the inlet and outlet manifold, which are configured to extend over a build area [0006]; the gas knife system being on rails means that it extends along the length of the chamber.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fisher et al. (US 20210101186 A1), as applied to claim 14 above, in view of Sukhman et al. (US 20120192718 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Fisher teaches the method of claim 1 above, but is silent regarding the inlet being configured to draw air from within the chamber to an environment external to the chamber.
Sukhman teaches embodiments of recirculating filtration and exhaust systems for material processing systems (Abstract), particularly for applications involving lasers which create contaminants such as fumes, particulates, smoke, debris, etc. [0003].
Sukhman teaches that the contaminants generated from the material processing site [0003] are evacuated to outside of the material processing site [0010], Fig. 1.
It would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Fisher to include the filtration system of Sukhman, as doing so would avoid the negative effects and damage of optical components and motion system components of the laser system of Fisher [0003].
Regarding claim 16, Fisher and Sukhman teach the method of claim 15 above, and Fisher further teaches that the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold can be fixed in position relative to each other such that the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold slide together and maintain a constant distance apart [0008]. In certain embodiments, the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold are positioned parallel relative to each other [0008].
Regarding claim 17, Fisher and Sukhman teach the method of claim 15 above, and Fisher teaches that the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold can be configured to extend across an entire width of the build area [0007].
Regarding claim 18, Fisher and Sukhman teach the method of claim 16 above, and teaches any motive system to move the manifolds 103, 107 relative to the rails 101a, 101b, whether together with the other manifold or each manifold independently [0021].
Regarding claim 19, Fisher and Sukhman teach the method of claim 18 above, and as discussed above, teaches that the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold can be configured to extend across an entire width of the build area [0007]. The one or more rails can include two rails configured to be on opposite sides of the build area, wherein the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold are configured to slide on the two rails [0007]. The fact that there are rails means that they move across a build area, meaning that there would be a starting position for the build area and an ending position on the build area.
Regarding claim 20, in the interest of clarity of the record, Fisher teaches that an outlet is removes air from the build area and an inlet adds air to the build area, while in the instant claims and disclosure, an outlet adds air to the build area and an inlet removes air to the build area. Fisher and Sukhman teach the method of claim 19 above, and as discussed above, Fisher teaches that one or more gas delivery members move relative to a build area of the additive manufacturing system, and that the inlet and outlet conduits supplying and collecting the gas move relative to the build area [0005], [0033]. Fisher further teaches that the control module can be configured to maintain a position of the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold such that the melt pool is at a medial point between the inlet manifold and the outlet manifold [0012], which meets the limitation, particularly when the gantry is moving in the opposite direction of the gas flow. See Fig. 2, where gas is flowing in one direction and there is an “outlet” (per the claimed definition of “outlet”) upstream of the beam path and an inlet (per the claimed definition of “inlet”) downstream of the beam path.
Furthermore, because Fisher teaches that the inlet and outlet are movable with respect to the laser beam and melt pool, it nonetheless would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to keep the outlet upstream of the fusing path and the inlet downstream of the fusing path, because there is a clear correlation between maintaining the inlet and outlet with respect to the melt pool, and improved spatter collection [0034] and therefore higher build quality [0039].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adil Siddiqui whose telephone number is (571)272-8047. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM CST.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 571-272-3458. 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.
/ADIL A. SIDDIQUI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights