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 .
Response to Amendment
By way of the amendment filed 2/6/2026: claims 1-5, 8, 9, 11-13, and 15 are amended; claims 6, 7, 10, and 14 were previously presented; and claims 16-20 are withdrawn.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The previous rejections under this heading are withdrawn due to the amendments.
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.
Claim 5 is 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 5 states: “wherein in a projection of the end portion of the marginal passage along the second direction onto a plane comprising the build area, a mapping of a cross-section of the end portion at least partly lies outside the build area.”
The metes and bounds of this limitation are unknown since there are more than one cross-section. You can have the cross-section of the projection, and then just the actual cross-section of the end portion. For examination purposes the former will be used as the interpretation since this would match the idea of the end portion projection, and wanting the cross section of the projection to be outside the build area.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
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 1-4 and 6-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehl et al (U.S. PGPub 2018/0065296; already of record, herein Mehl), in view of Nyrhila et al (DE 102014205875; already of record, herein Nyrhila, using U.S. 2017/0216916 as the English equivalent, already of record). Regarding claim 1, Mehl teaches:
A process chamber for building the three-dimensional object, the process chamber comprising the build area and a ceiling of the process chamber located opposite the build area (Figure 2, process chamber 3 with ceiling 4a opposite build area 10)
A nozzle element for introducing gas into the process chamber, positioned in the ceiling of the process chamber (Figures 2 and 9a-9d, nozzle 43)
Wherein the nozzle element comprises an inlet, an outlet that faces the build area (As seen in Figures 8 and 9a-9d)
Wherein the outlet of the nozzle element has an elongate shape, defining a longitudinal direction of the nozzle element (As seen in Figures 9a-9d)
Further regarding claim 1, Mehl is silent to:
A plurality of gas flow passages in fluidic communication with the inlet and the outlet for receiving the gas at the inlet and supplying the gas through the outlet into the process chamber;
Wherein the plurality of gas flow passages subdivide a cavity of the nozzle element at least along the longitudinal direction; and
Wherein the plurality of gas flow passages is shaped and arranged such that the plurality of gas flow passages fans out from the inlet towards the outlet of the nozzle element
In the same field of endeavor Nyrhila teaches a nozzle with a plurality of gas flow passages as claimed, and where the passages subdivide a cavity of the nozzle along the longitudinal direction, and which fan out from the inlet to the outlet (Figures 8 and 9, nozzle 70 with channels 72 and walls 73).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to use the walls of Nyrhila in the nozzle of Mehl, since doing so ensures laminar flow from the nozzle (Nyrhila paragraph 0057). This is in line with the teaching of Mehl (paragraph 0086), where the ceiling gas stream may be laminar. Thus using the walls of Nyrhila ensures the ceiling gas stream of Mehl is laminar.
Regarding claim 2, for the previously discussed reason Nyrhila teaches:
Wherein the outlet comprises a plurality of outlet openings, each outlet opening being in fluidic communication with a gas flow passage of the plurality of gas flow passages (As seen in Figures 8 and 9, the nozzle outlet comprises a plurality of openings (channels 72) which are in fluidic communication as claimed)
Regarding claim 3, for the previously discussed reason Nyrhila teaches:
Wherein the inlet comprises a plurality of inlet openings, each inlet opening being in fluidic communication with at least one of the plurality of gas flow passages (As seen in Figure 9, the nozzle inlet comprises a plurality of openings (inlet openings 75) which are in fluidic communication as claimed)
Regarding claim 4, for the previously discussed reason Nyrhila teaches:
Wherein each gas flow passage comprises an end portion adjacent to the outlet of the nozzle element (Nyrhila, teaches for the previously discussed reason, the walls 73 and passages 72 in Figures 8 and 9 are adjacent to the outlet of the nozzle), and
Wherein each end portion terminates in an outlet opening facing the build area (The outlet of the nozzle of Mehl, as previously discussed, faces the build area), the outlet openings together forming the outlet of the nozzle element (As previously discussed)
Regarding claim 6, the combination makes obvious:
Wherein in an orthogonal projection of the outlet openings onto a projection plane parallel to the build area, an outline of the projected outlet openings is shaped as an oval, an ellipse or a rectangle, wherein the oval, ellipse or rectangle has an aspect ratio of at least 3:1
As shown in Figures 9a-9d the nozzle of Mehl would make an oval/elliptical projection, thus the combination of the passages of Nyrhila in the oval-like nozzle of Mehl would still make an the oval/elliptical projection.
It is noted that Mehl does not teach the aspect ratio of the nozzle, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such a ratio, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A)
Regarding claim 7, Mehl teaches:
Wherein a dimension of the outlet of the nozzle element in the longitudinal direction is smaller than or substantially corresponds to a dimension of the build area measured in a direction parallel to the longitudinal direction of the nozzle element (As seen in Figures 2, 7, 8, 11, and 12 the nozzle is smaller in all dimensions that the build area) and/or
Wherein the additive manufacturing apparatus comprises a recoater moving across the build area in a movement direction for applying layers of the building material within the build area, the movement direction of the recoater being substantially parallel to the longitudinal direction of the nozzle element (Figure 2, recoater 14)
Regarding claim 8, for the previously discussed reason Nyrhila teaches:
Wherein the nozzle element comprises a central partition element extending continuously from the inlet to the outlet of the nozzle element and dividing each of the plurality of gas flow passages to form a plurality of first gas flow passages on a first side of the central partition element and a plurality of second gas flow passages on a second side of the central partition element opposite the first side (As seen in Figures 8 and 9, the walls 73 act as claimed and has a central partition element)
Regarding claim 9, for the previously discussed reason Nyrhila teaches:
Wherein the central partition element has a first section that tapers in a direction towards the inlet of the nozzle element (The central wall portion would taper towards the inlet in Figures 8 and 9)
Regarding claim 10, for the previously discussed reason Nyrhila teaches:
Wherein the central partition element divides the plurality of gas flow passages along a width direction of the nozzle element substantially perpendicular to the longitudinal direction (As seen in the design of the walls 73 in Figures 8 and 9)
Regarding claim 11, the combination teaches:
Wherein the gas flow passages are shaped and/or arranged within the nozzle element such that a substantially homogeneous velocity distribution of partial gas streams exiting the gas flow passages at the outlet of the nozzle element is achieved (As previously discussed both Mehl and Nyrhila produce laminar flow)
Regarding claim 12:
Wherein a total opening cross-sectional area of the gas inlet of the nozzle element exceeds a total opening cross-sectional area of the gas outlet of the nozzle element
Mehl teaches that the shape of the circular inlet compared to the oval/elliptical outlet is arbitrary and the change in area is to concentrate the flow (paragraphs 0170-0174). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have the claimed areas, since it has been held that where the only difference between the prior art and the claims was a recitation of relative dimensions of the claimed device and a device having the claimed relative dimensions would not perform differently than the prior art device, the claimed device was not patentably distinct from the prior art device (MPEP 2144.04 IV A).
Regarding claim 13, Mehl teaches:
Wherein the nozzle element has a circular cross-section at the inlet, wherein the additive manufacturing apparatus comprises a gas supply line to supply gas to the nozzle element, the inlet of the nozzle element being reversibly connectable to the gas supply line (As seen in Figures 9c and 9d the inlet has a circular cross section, there is inherently a gas supply line there to, which the inlet of the nozzle would be connected)
Regarding claim 14, Mehl teaches:
Wherein the nozzle element has a shape that is substantially symmetric with respect to a symmetry plane passing centrally through the nozzle element from the inlet to the outlet and parallel to the longitudinal direction of the nozzle element and/or perpendicular to the longitudinal direction of the nozzle element (The nozzles of Figures 9a-9d have symmetry as claimed both in the parallel direction and the perpendicular direction)
Regarding claim 15:
Mehl teaches the claimed first and second gas outlets in Figure 2 at outlets 42a/b, and as shown in Figures 7, 11a, and 11b the orientation and gas flow is as claimed.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mehl and Nyrhila as applied above, and further in view of Dimter et al (US PGPub 2016/0001401; herein Dimter). Regarding claim 5:
Each gas flow passage comprises an end portion adjacent to the outlet of the nozzle element (As previously discussed)
Wherein the plurality of gas flow passages comprises at least a central passage and at least a marginal passage having an end portion extending in a second direction, the central passage being arranged at a center of the nozzle element and the marginal passage next to a margin of the nozzle element with respect to the longitudinal direction
Further regarding claim 5, as previously discussed, Nyrhila teaches the nozzle in Figure 8. As seen in Figure 8, this nozzle has a central passage and a marginal passage (Figure 8, the first or last outlet on a row is the marginal, and the central outlet is the central). The last outlet extending in a second direction (since no first direction is connected to this second direction, the second numbering becomes void and is treated as just direction. The first direction was found previously in claim 4, which claim 5 used to depend from, however claim 5 was amended to depend on claim 1, where there is no first direction). However, Nyrhila does not teach:
Wherein in a projection of the end portion of the marginal passage along the second direction onto a plane comprising the build area, a mapping of a cross-section of the end portion at least partly lies outside the build area
In the same field of endeavor Dimter teaches an air nozzle system that extends beyond the boundary of the build area, thus any projection there from would be outside of the build area (As seen in Figure 1)
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have such a design, since the shape of a known object is an obvious design choice absent new or unexpected results (MPEP 2144.01 I and IV, B)
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant argues that Nyrhila does not teach the newly added fanning out limitation. The Examiner disagrees. The design of the nozzle in Figure 8 clearly shows a fanning out from the inlet. The amendment separated the fanning out limitation from the curve shape limitation in claim 4, and based on the stacked and/or’s in claim 4 the curve shape limitation is still optional; which appears to be what the Applicant is arguing with regards to whether or not the channels of Nyrhila fan out or not.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: see PTO-892.
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 TIMOTHY J KENNEDY whose telephone number is (571)270-7068. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8am-5pm..
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.
/TIMOTHY KENNEDY/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743