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 were received on 12/29/2025. These drawings are accepted.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Applicants’ Prior Art Fig. 1, hereinafter “PA1” in view of Kass et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0361035), hereinafter “Kass” and further in view of Mehl (U.S. Publication 2020/0078864).
The office notes that drawings may anticipate claims if the drawings clearly show the structure which is claimed. Further, it does not matter that the features shown are unintended or unexplained in the specification.
In regards to claims 1 and 16, PA1 discloses a gas delivery system for an additive manufacturing system, comprising: a gas delivery apparatus comprising: a first conduit (101) including a first end (103) spaced a distance apart from a second end (113) and is shaped to form an elbow (108) that is curved between the first end (101) and the second end (105) thereof, and having an outer diameter DA; and a second conduit (102), having an outer diameter DB, fluidly coupled to the first conduit (101) at a mixing region, the mixing region being positioned downstream of the elbow (108) of the first conduit (101) such that a centerline of the second conduit (102) is a distance Z from the second end (113) of the first conduit (101), the distance Z is = (0.75 * Db) – (0.25 * Db), and a diffuser (210) fluidly coupled to the first conduit (101) downstream of the mixing region, the diffuser comprising an outlet (220).
The office notes that the formula for Z simplifies to Z = 0.5*Db. Accordingly, claim 1 necessitates that the second conduit outer diameter be located at the second end of the first conduit, wherein the second end may be located at any point downstream of the elbow.
PA1 does not explicitly disclose that the centerline of the second conduit is disposed perpendicular to a centerline of the first conduit at the mixing region. However, Kass teaches an additive manufacturing system wherein a second conduit (2C) is disposed perpendicular to a first conduit (1C).
PNG
media_image1.png
582
886
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have coupled the first and second conduits of PA1 perpendicular to each other as illustrated by Kass to increase mixing turbulence (as compared to an angled coupling wherein flows are at least partially aligned in mixing) and reduce costs as the material needed to join conduit in a “T” configuration is less than the material needs of a “Y” configuration.
Further, It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have coupled the first and second conduits as necessitated by applicant as there were only two options: perpendicular or not perpendicular. Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed would have good reason to pursue both options as both option were in the technical grasp of a person coupling flow conduits.
PA1 does not explicitly disclose that the diffuser outlet includes a perforated plate. However, Mehl teaches a system for providing flow to a processing chamber wherein an inlet to the processing chamber (32) includes a perforated plate (132).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the outlet of the diffuser of PA1 with a perforated plate for the purpose of homogenization of the flow into the chamber as taught by Mehl (paras. [0017], [0022], [0023]).
In regards to claim 2, PA1 discloses that the gas delivery apparatus is fluidly coupled to a process chamber (150) of the additive manufacturing system, the process chamber (150) being fluidly coupled to the diffuser (210) at the outlet (220).
In regards to claims 3 and 17, note that the claims are directed to an apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather than function (MPEP 2144). Hence, function limitations (i.e. “a velocity variation, Δv; a gas mass fraction variation, Δw; and a temperature variation, ΔT”) which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language.
In regards to claims 4-6, and 18-20, it is the office’s position that PA1, as modified by Kass and Mehl, provides the parameters recited by applicant because the prior art as applied discloses applicants’ invention as claimed.
In regards to claim 8, the diffuser (210) directionally changes flow of the mixed gas by 180°.
In regards to claim 10, PA1, as modified, DB is uniform across a length of the second conduit (102).
In regards to claim 11, PA1 does not specifically disclose that DB decreases across a length near the mixing region.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the cross-sectional shape to be as recited by applicant as modifications regarding shapes are generally considered to be modifications which are obvious and within the purview of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the cross-sectional shape to be as recited by applicant within the course of ordinary research and development so as to achieve optimal results in the environment and/or application of usage.
Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation in the instant application.
The office further notes that reducing the outer diameter of the second conduit (with or without effecting the inner diameter) would facilitate placing the second conduit closer to the elbow end.
In regards to claim 12, the distance Z must at least be = (0.75 * DZ) – (0.25 * DZ), where DZ is the diameter of the second conduit at the mixing region because otherwise the second conduit would be placed on the elbow.
In regards to claim 13, PA1 does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first conduit (DA). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have dimensioned the inlet conduit as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The office notes that applicant does not assign any importance to such range as providing any novel or nonobvious benefit. Further, it is the office’s position that dimensioning the first conduit as claimed was well understood within the additive manufacturing arts to provide the required gas flows.
In regards to claim 14, Mehl does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the perforated plate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have dimensioned the plate perforations as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The office notes that applicant does not assign any importance to such range as providing any novel or nonobvious benefit. Further, it is the office’s position that dimensioning the plate as claimed was well understood within the additive manufacturing arts to provide the required gas flows. See paras. [0056] and [0057] which recite numerous porosity ranges for the plate without assigning any significance or nonobvious benefits by the range recited in the claim.
In regards to claim 15, Mehl does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the perforated plate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have dimensioned the plate thickness as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The office notes that applicant does not assign any importance to such range as providing any novel or nonobvious benefit. Further, it is the office’s position that dimensioning the plate as claimed was well understood within the additive manufacturing arts to provide the required gas flows.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PA1, Kass, and Mehl and further in view of Dupree (NPL cited on applicant’s IDS received 05/09/2024)
PA1, as modified, discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
PA1 does not specifically disclose a swirler disposed within the first conduit upstream of the diffuser.
Dupree teaches elbow geometry and discusses the benefits of baffles and vanes within an elbow (page 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the system to include baffles or vanes (i.e. swirler) to even out velocity distribution thus reducing turbulence and pressure drop as taught by Dupree.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, and 10-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kass et al. (U.S. Publication 2020/0361035), hereinafter “Kass” in view of Applicants’ Prior Art Fig. 1, hereinafter “PA1” and further in view of Mehl (U.S. Publication 2020/0078864).
The office notes that drawings may anticipate claims if the drawings clearly show the structure which is claimed. Further, it does not matter that the features shown are unintended or unexplained in the specification.
In regards to claims 1 and 16, Kass discloses a gas delivery system for an additive manufacturing system, comprising: a gas delivery apparatus comprising: a first conduit (1C) including a first end (FE) spaced a distance apart from a second end (SE) and is shaped to form an elbow (E) between the first end (FE) and the second end (SE) thereof, and a second conduit (102), fluidly coupled to the first conduit (1C) at a mixing region, the mixing region being positioned downstream of the elbow (E) of the first conduit (1C) such that a centerline of the second conduit (2C) is a distance Z from the second end (SE) of the first conduit (1C), the distance Z is = (0.75 * Db) – (0.25 * Db), and a diffuser (20) fluidly coupled to the first conduit (1C) downstream of the mixing region, the diffuser comprising an outlet.
PNG
media_image2.png
582
886
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The office notes that the formula for Z simplifies to Z = 0.5*Db. Accordingly, claim 1 necessitates that the second conduit outer diameter be located at the second end of the first conduit, wherein the second end may be located at any point downstream of the elbow.
Kass does not specifically disclose the cross-sectional shape of the first or second conduit, nor a curved elbow between the first end and the second end of the first conduit.
However, PA1 teaches a delivery system for additive manufacturing wherein a first and second conduit have a diameter and the first conduit includes a curved elbow between a first and second end.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the flow conduits of Kass to be circular (i.e. have a diameter) and to include a curved elbow along the first conduit as taught by PA to provide smoother fluid flow (i.e. reduced flow resistance due to eddy formation along corners) which results in greater fluid transport efficiency and thus lower costs.
Kass does not explicitly disclose that the diffuser outlet includes a perforated plate. However, Mehl teaches a system for providing flow to a processing chamber wherein an inlet to the processing chamber (32) includes a perforated plate (132).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the outlet of the diffuser of Kass with a perforated plate for the purpose of homogenization of the flow into the chamber as taught by Mehl (paras. [0017], [0022], [0023]).
In regards to claim 2, Kass discloses that the gas delivery apparatus is fluidly coupled to a process chamber (12) of the additive manufacturing system, the process chamber (12) being fluidly coupled to the diffuser (20) at the outlet. See para. [0178].
In regards to claims 3 and 17, note that the claims are directed to an apparatus which must be distinguished from the prior art in term of structure rather than function (MPEP 2144). Hence, function limitations (i.e. “a velocity variation, Δv; a gas mass fraction variation, Δw; and a temperature variation, ΔT”) which are narrative in form have not been given any patentable weight. In order to be given patentable weight, a functional recitation must be supported by recitation in the claim of sufficient structure to warrant the presence of the functional language.
In regards to claims 4-6, and 18-20, it is the office’s position that Kass, as modified by PA1 and Mehl, provides the parameters recited by applicant because the prior art as applied discloses applicants’ invention as claimed.
In regards to claim 8, the diffuser (20) directionally changes flow of the mixed gas by 180°.
In regards to claim 10, Kass, as modified, DB is uniform across a length of the second conduit (2C).
In regards to claim 11, Kass, does not specifically disclose that DB decreases across a length near the mixing region.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the cross-sectional shape to be as recited by applicant as modifications regarding shapes are generally considered to be modifications which are obvious and within the purview of a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Further, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the cross-sectional shape to be as recited by applicant within the course of ordinary research and development so as to achieve optimal results in the environment and/or application of usage.
Please note that applicant has not disclosed any criticality for the claimed limitation in the instant application.
The office further notes that reducing the outer diameter of the second conduit (with or without effecting the inner diameter) would facilitate placing the second conduit closer to the elbow end.
In regards to claim 12, the distance Z must at least be = (0.75 * DZ) – (0.25 * DZ), where DZ is the diameter of the second conduit at the mixing region because otherwise the second conduit would be placed on the elbow.
In regards to claim 13, PA1 does not explicitly disclose the diameter of the first conduit (DA). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have dimensioned the inlet conduit as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The office notes that applicant does not assign any importance to such range as providing any novel or nonobvious benefit. Further, it is the office’s position that dimensioning the first conduit as claimed was well understood within the additive manufacturing arts to provide the required gas flows.
In regards to claim 14, Mehl does not explicitly disclose the porosity of the perforated plate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have dimensioned the plate perforations as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The office notes that applicant does not assign any importance to such range as providing any novel or nonobvious benefit. Further, it is the office’s position that dimensioning the plate as claimed was well understood within the additive manufacturing arts to provide the required gas flows. See paras. [0056] and [0057] which recite numerous porosity ranges for the plate without assigning any significance or nonobvious benefits by the range recited in the claim.
In regards to claim 15, Mehl does not explicitly disclose the thickness of the perforated plate.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have dimensioned the plate thickness as claimed, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
The office notes that applicant does not assign any importance to such range as providing any novel or nonobvious benefit. Further, it is the office’s position that dimensioning the plate as claimed was well understood within the additive manufacturing arts to provide the required gas flows.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kass, PA1, and Mehl and further in view of Dupree (NPL cited on applicant’s IDS received 05/09/2024)
Kass, as modified, discloses all of the elements as discussed above.
Kass does not specifically disclose a swirler disposed within the first conduit upstream of the diffuser.
Dupree teaches elbow geometry and discusses the benefits of baffles and vanes within an elbow (page 4).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have designed the system to include baffles or vanes (i.e. swirler) to even out velocity distribution thus reducing turbulence and pressure drop as taught by Dupree.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot in light of the new grounds of rejection as outlined above.
As discussed above, applicant’s prior art, as modified by Kass, discloses applicant’s invention as now claimed.
Additionally, Kass, as modified by applicant’s admitted prior art, also discloses applicant’s invention as now claimed.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to R.K. Arundale whose telephone number is 571-270-3453. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday (9:30AM-6:00PM EST).
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisors can be reached by phone. Kenneth Rinehart can be reached at 571-272-4881, and Craig Schneider can be reached at 571-272-3607. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ROBERT K ARUNDALE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3753