The arguments and amendments submitted 01/22/2026 have been considered. The merits of the claims in view of the present amendments and updated search are discussed below.
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 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 limitations are:
Backwash apparatus configured to perform backwash by blowing the inert gas in a direction opposite to the inflow direction onto the filter
Irradiation apparatus forms a solidified layer by irradiating the material layer with an energy beam
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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.
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1 and 3-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaya (US PG Pub 2021/0001557) in view of Wakelam (US PG Pub 2020/0061655) and Koyama (US PG Pub 2012/0137890).
Regarding claim 1, Amaya teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (Fig. 3), comprising:
a chamber, an inert gas supply apparatus, a fume collector, a pressure detection apparatus (paras. 0035-0036), and a control apparatus (all as shown in Fig. 3),
wherein the chamber covers a building region where a desired three-dimensional object is formed (Fig. 3);
the inert gas supply apparatus supplies an inert gas to the chamber (para. 0003);
the fume collector comprises a blower (3 in Fig. 3 and para. 0035) and a filter (41 in Fig. 3 and para. 0045) and removes fumes from the inert gas that is exhausted together with the fumes from the chamber (paras. 0003 and 0025);
the blower circulates the inert gas between the chamber and the fume collector by operating at a predetermined rotation speed (as shown in Fig. 3 and per para. 0023);
the filter is configured to be capable of capturing the fumes from the inert gas that is exhausted together with the fumes from the chamber (paras. 0019, 0066, and 0070), and the inert gas that is exhausted together with the fumes from the chamber that passes through the filter in a predetermined inflow direction (as shown in Fig. 3);
the pressure detection apparatus detects a pressure inside the chamber (para. 0036); and
the control apparatus controls the fume collector to switch a rotation speed of the blower based on the pressure (abstract and para. 0023).
Amaya does not explicitly teach that the pressure detection apparatus comprises a pressure sensor and instead teaches it comprises a propeller or turbine (para. 0036). Furthermore, Amaya does teach that a pressure measurement can be used instead of a wind speed measurement using the propeller or turbine (para. 0036).
However, selection of a pressure sensor for a pressure detection apparatus used for gas flow monitoring is conventional in the 3D manufacturing arts, as shown for example, by Wakelam (paras. 0037 and 0053).
Per MPEP §2143.I, simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results is sufficient to establish a prima facie case of obviousness. See MPEP §2143.I (rationale B) and KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007).
In view of Wakelam’s teachings and/or KSR rationale B, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to substitute Wakelam’s pressure sensor for Amaya’s propeller or turbine in the pressure detection apparatus to predictably obtain alternative suitable means for pressure measurement and gas flow monitoring.
Amaya does not teach a backwash apparatus comprising a gas supply path and including a pressure accumulating tank and a gas supply valve, as interpreted under 112(f), and wherein the backwash apparatus is configured to perform backwash by blowing the inert gas in a direction opposite to the inflow direction onto the filter.
However, Koyama teaches a dust-removing filter apparatus (abstract and Fig. 3) with a backwash apparatus (as shown in Fig. 3) comprising a gas supply path (31) and including a pressure accumulating tank (46 or 42 in Fig. 3 and para. 0070) and a gas supply valve (38 or 40), as interpreted under 112(f), and wherein the backwash apparatus is configured to perform backwash by blowing the inert gas in a direction opposite to the inflow direction onto the filter (para. 0042 and as shown in Fig. 3).
Koyama teaches that this backwash apparatus releases and removes caked dust deposited over use on the filter surfaces (para. 0005) with good operating reliability (para. 0016).
In view of Koyama’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Amaya’s apparatus in view of Wakelam to include Koyama’s backwash apparatus to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Koyama, as cited above, and thereby decreasing the need for removal and replacement of the filter and associated maintenance costs and manufacturing downtime.
Regarding claim 3, Amaya teaches the fume collector is configured to comprise a fume removal mode as an operating mode, in which in the fume removal mode, the blower is operated to remove the fumes from the inert gas by the filter (paras. 0019, 0066, and 0070), and the control apparatus controls the fume collector in the fume removal mode so as to switch the rotation speed of the blower based on the pressure (abstract and para. 0023).
Koyama teaches the fume collector is configured to comprise a fume removal mode and a backwash mode as operating modes (paras. 0002, 0010-0011), in which in the fume removal mode, the blower is operated to remove the fumes from the inert gas by the filter (para. 0002), and in the backwash mode, the blower is stopped and the backwash is performed by the backwash apparatus (para. 0011); the control apparatus (control system of Fig. 3 with control instructions per paras. 0011, 0061, and 0072) comprises a mode switching part (control instructions per paras. 0011 and 0061, control valve 50, and gas valves 38 and 40, are each mode switching parts); the mode switching part switches between the operating modes (paras. 0011, 0061, and 0072).
Regarding claim 4, Amaya teaches a material layer forming apparatus comprising a recoater head (squeegee of the abstract is a recoater head) and an irradiation apparatus (laser beam or electron beam of the abstract), wherein the material layer forming apparatus forms a material layer by supplying a material powder to the building region (abstract); the irradiation apparatus forms a solidified layer by irradiating the material layer with an energy beam (abstract).
The remaining feature recited in the claim is merely a manner of operating the claimed apparatus and thus does not further limit the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that the manner of operating the device does not differentiate apparatus claims from the prior art. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." See MPEP §2114.II and Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original).
Regarding claim 5, Amaya teaches a control apparatus (5 in Fig. 3 and para. 0035) comprises a mode continuation time setting part (paras. 0031, 0038). The remaining feature recited in the claim is merely a manner of operating the claimed apparatus and thus does not further limit the claimed apparatus for the reasons cited above.
Regarding claims 6-7, these claims recite manners of operating the claimed apparatus and therefore do not further limit the claimed apparatus for the reasons cited above.
Regarding claim 8, Amaya teaches the control apparatus controls the fume collector to increase the rotation speed of the blower when the pressure falls below a predetermined allowable range (abstract).
Regarding claim 9, Amaya teaches the control apparatus controls the fume collector to decrease the rotation speed of the blower when the pressure exceeds a predetermined allowable range (para. 0053).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Amaya (US PG Pub 2021/0001557) in view of Koyama (US PG Pub 2012/0137890).
Regarding claim 10, Amaya teaches a method of manufacturing three-dimensional object (Figs. 1 and 2), forming a desired three-dimensional object by at least covering a building region where the desired three-dimensional object is formed with a chamber and supplying an inert gas to the chamber, while exhausting the inert gas containing fumes from the chamber and removing the fumes contained in the inert gas exhausted from the chamber by a fume collector, wherein the fume collector comprises a blower that circulates the inert gas between the chamber and the fume collector by operating at a predetermined rotation speed (Figs. 1 and 2 and citations above for claim 1), and
wherein the method comprises:
a solidified layer forming process of laminating a solidified layer by repeating a material layer forming process of forming a material layer by supplying a material powder to the building region and a solidifying process of forming the solidified layer by irradiating the material layer with an energy beam (abstract and para. 0025); and
a fume removal process comprising:
providing a filter capable of capturing the fumes from the inert gas that is exhausted together with the fumes from the chamber by the blower (paras. 0019, 0066, and 0070), and the inert gas that is exhausted together with the fumes from the chamber that passes through the filter in a predetermined inflow direction (as shown in Fig. 3);
switching the rotation speed of the blower of the fume collector based on a pressure in the chamber (abstract, para. 0023 and per Figs. 1-2).
Amaya does not teach providing a backwash apparatus including a pressure accumulating tank and a gas supply valve, as interpreted under 112(f), to perform backwash by blowing the inert gas in a direction opposite to the inflow direction onto the filter.
However, Koyama teaches a dust-removing filter apparatus (abstract and Fig. 3) with a backwash apparatus (as shown in Fig. 3) comprising a gas supply path (31) and including a pressure accumulating tank (46 or 42 in Fig. 3 and para. 0070) and a gas supply valve (38 or 40), as interpreted under 112(f), to perform backwash by blowing the inert gas in a direction opposite to the inflow direction onto the filter (para. 0042 and as shown in Fig. 3).
Koyama teaches that this backwash apparatus releases and removes caked dust deposited over use on the filter surfaces (para. 0005) with good operating reliability (para. 0016).
In view of Koyama’s teachings, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Amaya’s apparatus to include Koyama’s backwash apparatus to predictably obtain the benefits taught by Koyama, as cited above, and thereby decreasing the need for removal and replacement of the filter and associated maintenance costs and manufacturing downtime.
Response to Arguments
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that the term backwash apparatus does not invoke 112(f) due the present amendment reciting a backwash apparatus comprising a gas supply path.
However, this argument is not persuasive because a gas supply path is not sufficient structure to entirely perform the recited function of blowing the inert gas in a direction opposite to the inflow direction onto the filter. A gas supply path is merely a path through which gas can be supplied and there is no structure recited in claim 1 as part of the backwash apparatus which blows the inert gas in a direction opposite to the inflow direction onto the filter.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIM R SMITH whose telephone number is (303)297-4318. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri. 9-6 MST.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached on 571-272-1095. 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.
/JIMMY R SMITH JR./Examiner, Art Unit 1745