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 and Status of Claims
Applicant’s election of Invention II, claims 15-31 in the reply filed on 5/20/26 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 1-14 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 5/20/26.
Thus, claims 15-31 are examined in this office action.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 15 and 28-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2006/024373 A2 of Fockele.
As to claim 15, Fockele discloses a method of forming a shaped body in a layer by layer construction manner (Fockele, paragraph [0005]), meeting the limitation of an additive manufacturing system. Fockele discloses a suction nozzle extending into to the process chamber where the suction nozzle can extract process fumes and protective gas during the construction process (Fockele, paragraph [0014]), meeting the limitation of a gas head. Fockele discloses where the suction nozzle is flexible and can be manipulated to move the suction nozzle (Fockele, paragraph [0014]), meeting the limitation of moving the gas head. As any place can be suitable for cleaning depending on the stage of building a part, by Fockele disclosing moving the gas head, this meets the limitation of moving the gas head to an area of the additive manufacturing system suitable for cleaning the gas head. Fockele discloses where a powder brush element is combined near the suction opening of the suction nozzle as a cleaning tool for cleaning (Fockele, paragraph [0017]), meeting the limitation of separating debris from a surface of the gas head with a gas head cleaning device of the system; and removing debris from the gas head.
As to claim 28, Fockele discloses where a powder brush element is combined near the suction opening of the suction nozzle as a cleaning tool for cleaning (Fockele, paragraph [0017]), meeting the claim limitation of separating debris from the surface of the gas head comprises dislodging debris from the surface using a brush of the gas head cleaning device.
As to claim 29, Fockele discloses where the suction nozzle extracts protective gas and/or powder (Fockele, paragraph [0016]), meeting the limitation of creating a flow of gas through the gas head, and entraining debris in the flow of gas.
As to claim 30, Fockele discloses using selective laser melting where the material powder is applied as a binder- and flux-free, metallic, ceramic or mixed metallic/ceramic material powder and heated to melting temperature by the laser beam (Fockele, paragraph [0005]), meeting the limitation of fusing precursor material with laser energy from one or more laser energy sources to form one or more parts on a build surface.
As to claim 31, applicant is claiming a product in a product-by-process manner. Even though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process. The structure implied by the process steps should be considered when assessing the patentability of product-by-process claims over the prior art, especially where the product can only be defined by the process steps by which the product is made, or where the manufacturing process steps would be expected to impart distinctive structural characteristics to the final product, see MPEP § 2113(I). In the instant case, a method of cleaning a gas head of an additive manufacturing system will not have any affect on the structure of a part made by the system. Thus, as Fockele discloses a shaped body (Fockele, paragraph [0003]), this additively manufactured structure meets the claim limitation.
Further, as noted in the rejection of claim 15 above, Fockele discloses the method of cleaning a gas head of an additive manufacturing system of claim 15, thereby meeting the process limitations.
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 16, 19-21, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2006/024373 A2 of Fockele in view of US 2020/0164575 A1 of Yuwaki.
As to claim 16, Fockele discloses where the suction nozzle is flexible and can be manipulated to move the suction nozzle (Fockele, paragraph [0014]), meeting the limitation of moving the gas head. However, Fockele does not disclose where the gas head is moved to a cleaning area adjacent to and separate from a build surface of the additive manufacturing system.
Yuwaki relates to the same field of endeavor of three dimensional shaping apparatus (Yuwaki, abstract). Yuwaki teaches having a nozzle cleaning member where the nozzle cleaning member comprises a brush with bristles facing upward in an outer circumferential portion of an opening in the waste-material storing section (Yuwaki, paragraph [0027] and Fig 12), where a waste material storage section meets the limitation of a cleaning area adjacent to and separate from a build surface of the additive manufacturing system. Yuwaki teaches that this allows for waste material to be stored separately from the build platform and use of the nozzle cleaning member removes material adhering to the tip portion of the nozzle (Yuwaki, paragraphs [0026] and [0073]).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a waste storage section with an associated cleaning brush as taught by Yuwaki to the method of cleaning a suction nozzle disclosed by Fockele, thereby allowing for waste material to be stored separately from the build platform and use of the nozzle cleaning member removes material adhering to the tip portion of the nozzle (Yuwaki, paragraphs [0026] and [0073]).
As to claim 19, Yuwaki teaches rubbing the tip portion of the nozzle against the nozzle cleaning member to remove material adhering to the tip portion of the second nozzle (Yuwaki, paragraph [0073]), meeting the limitation of separating debris from the surface of the gas head comprises separating debris from an external surface of the gas head.
As to claims 20-21, Yuwaki discloses use of a brush with bristles facing upward in an outer circumferential portion of an opening in the waste-material storing section (Yuwaki, paragraph [0027] and Fig 12) and Yuwaki teaches rubbing the tip portion of the nozzle against the nozzle cleaning member to remove material adhering to the tip portion of the second nozzle (Yuwaki, paragraph [0073]). As there are multiple bristles disclosed in Yuwaki that would surround the nozzle being cleaned, these bristles form first and second scrapers that separate debris from a first and second surfaces of the nozzle simultaneously, meeting the claim limitations.
As to claim 25, Yuwaki discloses use of a brush with bristles facing upward in an outer circumferential portion of an opening in the waste-material storing section (Yuwaki, paragraph [0027] and Fig 12) and Yuwaki teaches rubbing the tip portion of the nozzle against the nozzle cleaning member to remove material adhering to the tip portion of the second nozzle (Yuwaki, paragraph [0073]), meeting the limitations of engaging a scraper of the gas head cleaning device with the surface of the gas head; and moving the gas head in at least one direction to pass the scraper along the surface of the gas head. While neither Fockele nor Yuwaki explicitly states that moving the gas head cleaning device from a storage position below a build surface of the additive manufacturing system to a cleaning position above the build surface, as Yuwaki teaches rubbing the tip portion of the nozzle against the nozzle cleaning member it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to move the nozzle cleaning member to the nozzle to achieve the rubbing motion that cleans the tip portion of the nozzle including moving the gas head cleaning device from a storage position below a build surface of the additive manufacturing system to a cleaning position above the build surface.
As to claim 26, Yuwaki teaches using the first moving mechanism to thereby rub the tip portion of the second nozzle against the nozzle cleaning member and remove the material adhering to the tip portion of the second nozzle (Yuwaki, paragraph [0073] and FIG. 12), meeting the limitation of moving the gas head cleaning device from the storage position to the cleaning position comprises translating the gas head cleaning device in a linear direction as FIG. 12 of Yuwaki shows that this process would involve moving the nozzle in a linear direction. As Yuwaki discloses that the nozzle is rubbed against the nozzle cleaning member and rubbing means to move something back and forth or with a rotary motion, this meets the limitation of engaging the scraper of the gas head cleaning device with the surface of the gas head comprises rotating the gas head cleaning device to place the scraper in contact with the surface.
Claims 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO 2006/024373 A2 of Fockele in view of US 2020/0324341 A1 of Liu.
As to claim 17, Fockele does not explicitly disclose where separating debris from the surface of the gas head comprises separating debris from an internal surface of the gas head.
Liu relates to the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing involving nozzles (Liu, abstract). Liu teaches mechanical removal of clogging material in a nozzle where a pin or wire is pushed through the nozzle to break loose the clogging material (Liu, paragraph [0022] and FIG. 7B). Liu teaches that this physical method can be used to remove clogs and allow fluid through the nozzle (Liu, paragraph [0022]).
As both Liu and Fockele are concerned with cleaning nozzles, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add a step of using a pin to physically remove clogging material as taught by Liu into the method of cleaning a gas nozzle disclosed in Fockele, thereby removing clogs and allowing fluid to flow through the nozzle (Liu, paragraph [0022]). This also constitutes simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results as Fockele only differs from the claims by the inclusion of separating debris from an internal surface of a nozzle, Liu teaches that pins and wires are used to remove internal clogs from nozzles and therefore one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted a pin for brush to produce a method of removing debris and unwanted material and the results of the substitution would have been predictable, see MPEP § 2143(I)(B).
As to claim 18, Liu discloses where material is separated from both a lower internal surface next to the exit of the nozzle as well as the upper internal surface which is adjacent to where the nozzle widens internally (Liu, FIG. 7B).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22-24 and 27 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Claim 22 depends from claim 20 and requires where “the first surface is on a first duct of the gas head and the second surface is on a second duct of the gas head” thus requiring where the gas head contains at least two separate ducts each having surfaces which have debris removed by a scraper. As Fockele does not disclose where the gas nozzle has more than one duct, Fockele does not meet the claim limitations and as such could not disclose where surfaces of each duct have debris separated by a scraper. This deficiency is not cured by either Yuwaki nor Liu as neither reference teaches the use of multiple ducts in a single gas head. Thus claim 22 is distinct from the art. As claim 22 is distinct from the art, claims 23-24 are also distinct form the art as they depend from and further limit claim 22.
Also, as claim 27 requires “two ducts of the gas head” it is also distinct from the art for the same reasons stated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Joshua S Carpenter whose telephone number is (571)272-2724. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 pm.
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 Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
/JOSHUA S CARPENTER/Examiner, Art Unit 1733
/JOPHY S. KOSHY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights