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 .
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This final action on the merits is in response to the remarks, amendments and affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 received by the office on 16 January 2026. Claims 25 -38 are pending. Previously withdrawn claims 39-41 are cancelled. Claims 25-27, 30 and 38 are amended. No claims are added.
Response to Amendment
The affidavit under 37 CFR 1.132 filed 16 January 2026 is insufficient to overcome the rejection of claims 25-27 & 31 based upon 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0178284, claims 28 and 29 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘284 in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0304945, claims 28 and 29 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘614 in view ‘284 in view of ‘945, claims 28 and 29 based upon 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘614 in view ‘284 in view of ‘945 as set forth in the last Office action because: the expert opinion evidence presented by an employee of the assignee other than one of the named inventors lacks a nexus with the invention claimed. Specifically, the expert opinion was directed solely to an apparatus with a certain percentage of helium or neon gas while the apparatus claimed does not require either helium or neon – “using the inert gas that (i) comprises at least 20% of He and/or Ne and/or that has a density below 1.3 kg/m3, and that (ii) flows through the process chamber between the inert gas inlet and the inert gas outlet” (quoting claim 25 as presented 16 January 2026. Emphasis examiner’s). Helium or neon are two of three possible claimed alternatives for the circulating gas. The affidavit filed is silent with respect to the third option, an inert gas with a density of less than 1.3 kilograms per cubic meter.
Furthermore, opinion evidence should be supported by actual proof. The affidavit, in similar fashion to the original disclosure, does not provide any examples of the claimed unexpected result or comparative examples of the result of the prior art. Absent such, applicant has not demonstrated that the alleged unexpected result is either unexpected or significant. (See MPEP 716.01(c) I and III, 716.02 (b) I)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 25-38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the inert gas" in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the inert gas source" in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 25-27, & 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0178284 to Martin et al. (‘284 hereafter).
Regarding claim 25, ‘284 teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: at least a first beam source configured to emit at least a first beam, at least a second beam source configured to emit at least a second beam (Fig 1 items 24), and a process chamber housing, wherein the process chamber housing comprises a process chamber, wherein the process chamber has at least: a bottom, a ceiling, and side walls, jointly enclosing a volume of the process chamber (Fig 1 item26), an inert gas inlet configured to provide the inert gas from the inert gas source into the process chamber (Fig 2 item 68), and an inert gas outlet configured to release the inert gas out of the process chamber (Fig 2 item 70), wherein the bottom has an opening delimited by opening walls and a vertically movable support for supporting a powder bed, and a three-dimensional object located in between of the opening walls (Fig 2 items 20, 22), wherein at the additive manufacturing apparatus further comprises a process chamber controlling device configured to control the additive manufacturing apparatus to execute the step of fusing at least - a first location of the powder bed using the at least the first beam, thereby generating a first smoke plume that covers a second location of the powder bed, and - the second location of the powder bed using the at least the second beam, thereby generating a second smoke plume, wherein the first location is closer to the inert gas inlet than the second location and the second location is closer to the inert gas outlet than the first location, while delivering at least one of the at least the first beam and the at least the second beam through the first smoke plume and/or the second smoke plume and using the inert gas that (i) comprises at least 20% of He and/or Ne and/or that has a density below 1.3 kg/m3, and that (ii) flows through the process chamber between the inert gas inlet and the inert gas outlet (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0034, 0038-0050 - nitrogen has a density of about 1.25 kg/m^3 at STP)
Regarding claim 26, ‘284 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the inert gas inlet and the inert gas outlet are positioned at opposite sides of the process chamber and/or the opening, thereby being configured to establish a flow of the inert gas in a main flow direction from the inert gas inlet over the opening to the inert gas outlet (Fig 2 items 68 and 70).
Regarding claim 27, ‘284 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the flow of the inert gas in the main flow direction has a flow speed, and wherein that a mean flow speed of the flow of the inert gas measured at a location 0.5 cm over the opening is: above 0.75m/s, and/or below 4 m/s (insofar as this limitation is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus as disclosed is capable of being used in such a manner).
Regarding claim 31, ‘284 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the inert gas outlet is in fluid communication with a vacuum pump and/or wherein the inert gas inlet is in fluid communication with an inert gas source, wherein a throttle valve is located upstream of the inert gas inlet (Fig 1 items 62, 70, 68, 74).
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.
Claim(s) 25-27, 30-33, 35-38 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0043614 to Greenfield et al. (‘614 hereafter) in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2018/0178284 to Martin et al. (‘284 hereafter).
Regarding claim 25, ‘614 teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus comprising: at least a first beam source configured to emit at least a first beam (Fig 1 item 105), and a process chamber housing, wherein the process chamber housing comprises a process chamber, wherein the process chamber has at least: a bottom, a ceiling, and side walls, jointly enclosing a volume of the process chamber (Fig 1 item 101), an inert gas inlet configured to provide an inert gas into the process chamber (Fig 1 item 140), an inert gas outlet configured to release the inert gas out of the process chamber (Fig 1 item 141), wherein the bottom has an opening delimited by opening walls and a vertically movable support for supporting a powder bed, and a three-dimensional object located in between of the opening walls (Fig 1 items 114, 116, and 102), and wherein the gas inlet is configured to provide an inert gas comprising at least 20% helium and/or neon and/or a density of less than 1.3 kg/ m3 into the process chamber (paragraph 0003, nitrogen has a density of 1.25 kg/m3 at S.T.P.), characterized in that and in that the inert gas inlet and the inert gas outlet are configured to remove the smoke plumes from the process chamber by a main inert gas flow (paragraph 0003). ‘614 does not teach a second beam source.
In the same field of endeavor additive manufacturing, ‘284 teaches at least a second beam source configured to emit at least a second beam (Fig 1 items 24), the additive manufacturing apparatus further comprises a process chamber controlling device configured to control the additive manufacturing apparatus to execute the step of fusing at least - a first location of the powder bed using the first beam, thereby generating a first smoke plume, and - a second location of the powder bed using the second beam, thereby generating a second smoke plume, wherein the first location is closer to the inert gas inlet than the second location and the second location is closer to the inert gas outlet than the first location, while the at least one second beam is controlled to fuse the second location of the powder bed being covered by the first smoke plume generated by fusing the first location of the powder bed with the at least one first beam (Fig. 4, Paragraphs 0038-0050) for the benefit of reducing production time and increasing apparatus throughput. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘614 with that of ‘284 for the benefit of increasing production speed and throughput while also improving surface finish of the articles produced.
Regarding claim 26, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the inert gas inlet and the inert gas outlet are positioned at opposite sides of the process chamber and/or the opening, thereby being configured to establish a flow of the inert gas in a main flow direction from the inert gas inlet over the opening to the inert gas outlet (Fig 1 items 140 and 141).
Regarding claim 27, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the flow of the inert gas in the main flow direction has a flow speed, and wherein that a mean flow speed of the inert gas flow measured at a location 0.5 cm over the opening is: above 0.75m/s, and/or below 4 m/s (insofar as this limitation is a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and the prior art apparatus as disclosed is capable of being used in such a manner).
Regarding claim 30, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber comprises a heater (Fig 1 item 167) configured to heat at least a portion of a flow of the inert gas flow through the process chamber to or above a temperature of at least one of 25°C, 40°C, 60°C, 80°C, 1000C, 1500C, 250°C, 300°C, 350°C, 400°C,and 450°C (insofar as the specific temperature is regarded as a recitation of intended use of the claimed apparatus and the applied prior art is capable of being operated in such a manner).
Regarding claim 31, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the inert gas outlet is in fluid communication with a vacuum pump and/or wherein the inert gas inlet is in fluid communication with an inert gas source, wherein a throttle valve is located upstream of the inert gas inlet (Fig 1 items 141, 170).
Regarding claim 32, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber further comprises: at least one auxiliary gas outlet in at least one of the bottom, the support, the opening walls, and the opening bottom; and/or at least one auxiliary inert gas inlet in the ceiling (Fig 1 items 145 and 143).
Regarding claim 33, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the auxiliary gas outlet is connected to an auxiliary gas outlet control valve, and/or the auxiliary gas outlet is connected to a gas inlet of an auxiliary outlet vacuum pump (Fig 1 items 186, 187, 188, 189 and 170).
Regarding claim 35, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber housing further comprises at least one beam entry window located above the opening (Fig 1 item 107).
Regarding claim 36, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber housing further comprises at least one inert gas jet stream inlet nozzle, positioned to provide an inert gas jet stream between the window and the support, and/or at least one inert gas jet stream outlet nozzle, positioned to provide an inert gas jet stream between the window and the support (Fig 1 item 160 and item 148).
Regarding claim 37, ‘614 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the least one inert gas jet stream inlet nozzle has a nozzle outlet opening that is oriented substantially parallel within an angle ajs to the inert gas inlet, wherein ajs belongs to set A, and A = {30°, 20°, 10°, 5°, 2.5°, 1°, 0°} (Fig 1 item 148 shows a gas flow from inlet to outlet parallel to at least the window and build surface).
Regarding claim 38, ‘614 teaches a beam source placed outside the build chamber, and emitting a beam into build chamber through a window (Fig 1 items 105, 106 and 107) while ‘284 teaches two beam sources (Fig 1 items 24) for the benefit of reducing production time, increasing apparatus throughput and improving surface finish of the articles made. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘614 with that of ‘284 for the benefit of increasing production speed and throughput while also improving surface finish of the articles produced.
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘284 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2017/0304945 to Christopher John Sutcliffe (‘945 hereafter).
Regarding claim 28, ‘284 does not teach a sensor. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber comprises at least one gas component concentration sensor, wherein the at least one gas component concentration sensor is located on the bottom, and/or in a recess of the bottom, and/or below a location at a distance of 5 cm above the bottom, and/or on the support and/or below the support, and/or at or within a distance of at least one of 10 cm, 5 cm, 2.5 cm, 1 cm, 0.5 cm from an edge in the bottom encircling the opening, and/or in a duct connecting the inert gas outlet with the inert gas inlet (Fig 1 item 167) for the benefit of maintaining a reducing atmosphere. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘284 for ‘945 for the benefit of maintaining a reducing atmosphere in an inert gas additive manufacturing environment.
Regarding claim 29, ‘284 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber housing further comprises at least one inert gas component source that is fluidly connected via an inert gas component valve with the inert gas inlet of the process chamber (Fig 2 item 74).
Claim(s) 28 and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘614 in view ‘284 as applied to claim 25 above, and further in view of ‘945.
Regarding claim 28, ‘614 in view of ‘284 does not teach a gas component sensor. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘945 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber comprises at least one gas component concentration sensor, wherein the at least one gas component concentration sensor is located on the bottom, and/or in a recess of the bottom, and/or below a location at a distance of 5 cm above the bottom, and/or on the support and/or below the support, and/or at or within a distance of at least one of 10 cm, 5 cm, 2.5 cm, 1 cm, 0.5 cm from an edge in the bottom encircling the opening, and/or in a duct connecting the inert gas outlet with the inert gas inlet (Fig 1 item 167) for the benefit of maintaining a reducing atmosphere. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teachings of ‘284 for ‘945 for the benefit of maintaining a reducing atmosphere in an inert gas additive manufacturing environment.
Regarding claim 29, ‘284 teaches the additive manufacturing apparatus wherein the process chamber housing further comprises at least one inert gas component source that is fluidly connected via an inert gas component valve with the inert gas inlet of the process chamber (Fig 2 item 74).
Claim(s) 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ‘614 in view of ‘284 as applied to claim 33 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent Application Publication 2014/0265045 to Cullen et al. (‘045 hereafter).
Regarding claim 34, ‘614 in view of ‘284 does not teach a check valve. In the same field of endeavor, additive manufacturing, ‘045 teaches that it is known to incorporate check valves in to gas environmental cleaning circuits in additive manufacturing (paragraph 0021) for the benefit of preventing pollution of the cleaned gas. It would have been obvious to one possessed of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to combine the teaching of ‘614 in view of ‘284 with those of ‘045 for the benefit of maintaining the cleanliness of the clean gas stream.
Response to Arguments
Applicant has advanced several arguments in support of the patentability of the instant claims. They are:
Independent claim 25 recites a method, the steps of which the ‘284 reference specifically avoids performing.
Neither ‘284 nor ‘614 teach an inert gas of the recited content.
‘284 requires avoiding smoke plumes and modifying the reference would render it unsatisfactory for its intended purpose.
The claim interpretation set forth in the previous 35 USC 112(b) rejection of claim 25 and dependents creates a non-sensical interpretation with respect to the ‘284 reference.
Regarding arguments (a) and (c), applicant is correct that the method disclosed by ‘284 teaches planning laser scan paths which avoid smoke plumes, it only does so after disclosing that the prior art apparatus is capable of being controlled as claimed (see at least Fig 4 and paragraphs 0039-0041). Quoting MPEP 2131.05: “[a] reference is no less anticipatory if, after disclosing the invention, the reference then disparages it.” Furthermore, while examiner tends to agree that modifying the method of ‘284 in the manner suggested previously and above might tend to render the method taught unsuitable for its intended purpose, we are concerned instantly with the apparatus taught by ‘284. No such unsuitable modification to the structure of the prior art apparatus is presented, since the express disclosure of ‘284 is that it is capable of being used in the manner claimed.
Regarding argument (b), examiner notes that the ‘284 reference teaches the use of nitrogen gas (paragraph 0034), which meets the inert gas limitation claimed instantly.
Although applicant’s amendment of claim 25 has corrected the deficiency noted by the 35 USC 112(b) rejection in the previous office action (see non-final action on the merits mailed 01 October 2025, paragraphs 5 and 6), applicant has made several remarks beginning on labeled page 12 of the response that appear to misconstrue the 112 issue. Specifically, it seems to be applicant’s understanding of the indefiniteness rejection due to lack of antecedent basis that examiner would interpret the claimed first location and second location as being the same location. This is incorrect. As set forth in the previous rejection the examiner was stating an intention to regard the previously cited “second location” established in line 22 of claim 25 and “ the second location of the powder bed being covered by the first smoke plume” in lines 26-27 of claim 25 (again, referring to the claims of 09 Sept 2025) as the same second location. Any arguments based upon this faulty understanding of the rejection are not persuasive.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
U.S. Patent Application Publication 2016/0096325 to Araie et al. teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus with a helium gas flow.
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 John P Robitaille whose telephone number is (571)270-7006. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:30AM-6:00PM.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached at (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JPR/Examiner, Art Unit 1743
/GALEN H HAUTH/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1743