DETAILED ACTION
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 12/19/25. As directed by the amendment: claim 21 has been amended; claims 1, 5, 8, and 32 have been cancelled; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 2-4, 6, 7, and 9-31 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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.
Claims 2, 7, 19, 21, 22, 24, 25, and 29-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 10,272,525) in view of Lim et al. (US 2017/0168374).
With regard to claim 21, Buller describes A method of resisting contact with a portion of an optics assembly (522/521/520/519) of an additive manufacturing system (500) by fusion products released during fusion of a precursor material (504) on a build surface (510) in an additive manufacturing process (“melting of the powder creates debris as a byproduct. The debris may travel into the atmosphere within the processing chamber (e.g., during processing). The debris may also referred to as “gas-borne” debris. “, col. 9, ln. 66 to col. 10, ln. 3), the method comprising: passing laser energy (501/502; FIG. 5) through an optical window (515/516) of a debris shield (526) disposed between a portion (construed as any outer surface of the assembly) of the optics assembly (522/521/520/519) and the build surface (510), and producing a flow of gas (503) towards the build surface (510) through a gas flow passage (gas inlet ports 513/gas outlet 514) disposed between the optical window (515/516) and the build surface (510), the flow of gas (503) resisting movement of the fusion products through the gas flow passage (513/514) towards the portion of the optics assembly (522/521/520/519).
Buller dos not explicitly teach the limitation of “the debris shield is couplable to the optics assembly”; however, it is respectfully submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art as an obvious “making separable” (see MPEP 2144 V.C – Making Separable) to allow for simplified repair/replacement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Lim which is from the same field of endeavor directed toward a removable camera lens cover teaches the aforementioned limitation related to a separable lens cover: “n the embodiment of FIG. 3A, the removable lens cover 300 is placed over the lens of and onto the front surface of the camera 200 in a rotated position relative to the camera, illustrating an unlocked configuration. In the unlocked configuration, the removable lens cover 300 can be removed from the camera 200 or can be rotated and secured to the camera. In the embodiment of FIG. 3B, the removable lens cover 300 is shown in a locked configuration. In the locked configuration, the removable lens cover 300 is rotated from the unlocked configuration illustrated in FIG. 3A to the orientation illustrated in FIG. 3B, thereby securing the removable lens cover to the camera 200. In some embodiments, when the removable lens cover 300 is in the unlocked configuration, the removable lens cover can be rotated clockwise or counter-clockwise relative to the camera 200 to configure the removable lens cover into the locked configuration.”, para. [0028].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Buller reference, such that the debris shield is couplable, as suggested and taught by Lim, for the purpose of providing simplified repair/replacement of the subject debris shield.
With regard to claim 22, Buller describes producing the flow of gas (503) towards the build surface (510) through the gas flow passage (513/514) comprises providing gas (503) in a gas flow plenum (508, FIG. 5) and causing the gas to flow from the gas flow plenum into the gas flow passage (513/514).
With regard to claim 2, Buller describes the optics shield further providing gas in the gas flow plenum (508, FIG. 5) comprises providing gas (503) in the gas flow plenum coupled to an entrance of the gas flow passage (513/514).
With regard to claim 24, Buller describes causing the gas to flow (503) into the gas flow passage (513/514) comprises causing the gas to flow around the debris shield (526) within the gas flow plenum (508) into the gas flow passage (513/514) (FIG. 5).
With regard to claim 25, Buller describes producing the flow of gas (503) towards the build surface (510) through the gas flow passage comprises passing the flow of gas through a plurality of nozzles formed in an entrance of the gas flow passage (“In some embodiments, the inlet port(s), inlet opening(s), and/or outlet opening(s) are operationally coupled to one or more valves and/or nozzles. The valve(s) and/or nozzle(s) can control an amount (e.g., on or off) and/or a velocity of the flow of gas into the processing. The valve(s) and/or nozzle(s) may be controlled manually or automatically (e.g., using one or more controllers). The nozzle(s) may include jet (e.g., gas jet) nozzle, high velocity nozzle, propelling nozzle, magnetic nozzle, spray nozzle, vacuum nozzle, Venturi nozzle, or shaping nozzle (e.g., a die). The nozzle can be a convergent or a divergent nozzle. The spray nozzle may comprise an atomizer nozzle, an air-aspirating nozzle, or a swirl nozzle.”, col. 12, ln. 14-26).
With regard to claim 31, Buller describes fusing the precursor material with the laser energy to form one or more parts on the build surface (“the processing chamber includes a ceiling wall; one or more lasers configured to generate one or more laser beams that (i) melts at least a portion of the powder bed to a molten material as part of the three-dimensional object during the printing, and (ii) forms gas-borne debris within the internal volume”, Summary).
With regard to claim 7, Buller describes each nozzle of the plurality of nozzles is shaped to guide a flow of gas into the nozzle (“The valve(s) and/or nozzle(s) can control an amount (e.g., on or off) and/or a velocity of the flow of gas into the processing. The valve(s) and/or nozzle(s) may be controlled manually or automatically (e.g., using one or more controllers). The nozzle(s) may include jet (e.g., gas jet) nozzle, high velocity nozzle, propelling nozzle, magnetic nozzle, spray nozzle, vacuum nozzle, Venturi nozzle, or shaping nozzle (e.g., a die). The nozzle can be a convergent or a divergent nozzle. The spray nozzle may comprise an atomizer nozzle, an air-aspirating nozzle, or a swirl nozzle.”, col. 12, ln. 16-26).
With regard to claim 19, Buller teaches the invention as claimed including a housing (526), wherein the gas flow passage (513/514) extending extends from or through a portion of a housing (526); however, does not explicitly teach the limitation of the debris shield is insertable into and removable from the housing through an opening of the housing. However, Lim directed toward the same problem to be solved regarding a removable camera lens cover teaches the aforementioned limitation: “In the locked configuration shown in the embodiment of FIG. 3B, the protective lens surface 302 shields the lens 202 of the camera 200 from outside elements which can cause damage to the lens. A watertight seal is created between a rear surface of the removable lens cover 300 and a front surface of the camera 200, creating a cavity between the camera and the removable lens cover and preventing water, debris, and other outside elements from entering the cavity and causing damage to the camera.” (emphasis added), para. [0030].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Buller reference, to include the debris shield is insertable into and removable from the housing through an opening of the housing., as suggested and taught by Lim, for the purpose of providing a protective enclosure which may be removed if damaged and/or to be cleaned (Lim: para. [0030]).
With regard to claim 29, Buller teaches the invention as claimed; however, the citation does not teach the debris shield is a first debris shield, the method further comprising removing the first debris shield from an optics shield of the additive manufacturing system and installing a second debris shield in the optics shield. However, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made as an obvious duplication of parts and/or rearrangement of parts (see MPEP 2144 VI.B - Duplication of parts / VI.C – Rearrangement of Parts) for the purpose of replacing a damaged debris shield.
With regard to claim 30, although Buller does not explicitly teach removing the first debris shield comprises disengaging a locating pin of the optics shield from a locating bore of the debris shield, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time invention was made as an obvious making separable (MPEP 2144.V.C. – Making Separable) for the purpose of easily detaching a damaged debris shield.
Claims 3 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 10,272,525) in view of Lim et al. (US 2017/0168374), and further in view of Carter et al. (US 2018/0236603).
With regard to claim 23, Buller and Lim teach the invention as claimed; however, does not teach the limitation(s) of providing gas in the gas flow plenum comprises introducing the flow of gas into the gas flow plenum through a muffler or a diffuser. However, Carter from the same field of endeavor directed toward an additive manufacturing system and method of forming an object in a powder bed teaches the aforementioned limitation: “Spatter collection device 112 includes a blower 113 and a diffuser 114 that work in conjunction to discharge a stream 116 of inert gas across powder bed 104, and a collector 118 that receives stream 116 of inert gas and contaminants (not shown) entrained in stream 116 of inert gas.” (emphasis added), para. [0018].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Buller reference, such that providing gas in the gas flow plenum comprises introducing the flow of gas into the gas flow plenum through a muffler or a diffuser, as suggested and taught by Carter, for the purpose of providing enhanced removal of contaminants (Carter, para. [0018].
With regard to claim 3, Carter teaches the gas flow plenum includes a gas inlet for coupling to a gas source, the gas inlet comprising the muffler or the diffuser (“Spatter collection device 112 includes a blower 113 and a diffuser 114 that work in conjunction to discharge a stream 116 of inert gas across powder bed 104, and a collector 118 that receives stream 116 of inert gas and contaminants (not shown) entrained in stream 116 of inert gas.” (emphasis added), para. [0018].).
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 10,272,525) and Lim et al. (US 2017/0168374) as detailed above, and further in view of Mathisen (US 20190001437)
With regard to claim 26, Buller and Lim teach the invention as claimed but fails to teach the limitation of passing the flow of gas through the plurality of nozzles comprises passing a first portion of the flow of gas through a first group of the plurality of nozzles and passing a second portion of the flow of gas through a second group of the plurality of nozzles, the first and second portions of the flow of gas flowing toward each other. However, Mathisen from the same field of endeavor related to a solidification refinement and general phase transformation control through application of in situ gas jet impingement in metal additive manufacturing teaches the aforementioned limitation: : ”The jet device 100 depicted in the figure includes on one side a first conduit 10 containing five pairs of nozzles 25 that direct gas jets 30 toward the deposited string 95 and melt pool 90 of the workpiece. The jet device shown also includes a second conduit 60 containing five pairs of nozzles 75 that direct gas jets 80 toward the deposited string 95 and melt pool 90 of the workpiece.” (emphasis added), para. [0077].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Buller reference, such that passing the flow of gas through the plurality of nozzles comprises passing a first portion of the flow of gas through a first group of the plurality of nozzles and passing a second portion of the flow of gas through a second group of the plurality of nozzles, the first and second portions of the flow of gas flowing toward each other, as suggested and taught by Mathisen, for the purpose of providing enhanced gas delivery to predetermined locations.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buller et al. (US 10,272,525) and Lim et al. (US 2017/0168374), and further in view of Ramier et al. (US 20170211810)
With regard to claim 6, Buller and Lim teach the invention as claimed; however, does not explicitly teach the plurality of nozzles forms crenellations at the entrance of the gas flow passage. However, Ramier which is directed to the same field of endeavor directed toward a multi-functional fuel nozzle with a heat shield teaches the aforementioned limitation(s): “Nozzle cap 50 further comprises a plurality of gas fuel channels 68 (FIG. 8) circumferentially disposed about longitudinal axis 18 of nozzle 10. Gas fuel channels 68 comprise outlets 70 (FIG. 5) arranged at respective top surfaces 55 of castellations 53.” (emphasis added) (para. [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Buller reference, such that the plurality of nozzles forms crenellations at the entrance of the gas flow passage, as suggested and taught by Ramier, for the purpose of providing a desired gas flow through the nozzles.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 9-18, 20 27, and 28 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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot in view of the newly presented prior art rejections.
Conclusion
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 JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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 the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761