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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the instant amendment regarding the powder velocity have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the interaction parameter have been considered but unpersuasive because Ribic teaches the interaction parameter (Ribic, 0021 , 0026, 0034, 0070 e.g. see controlled paths as an interaction parameter). Ribic teaches controlled tool paths and/or powder paths in combination with the powder flow characteristics for powder depositing layers. It is noted the control is not exclusively based on the powder velocity because the claim language expands upon the types of powder flow characteristics but does not limit the control to powder flow velocity. The claims include powder velocity as an additional characteristic but the particular characteristic or combinations of characteristics are not defined for control purposes.
The Examiner recommends expanding upon the application of powder flow velocity described below:
0013 e.g. “In accordance with techniques of the disclosure, an additive manufacturing system may include at least one sensor for detecting at least one powder flow characteristic. By monitoring at least one powder flow characteristic, the systems described herein may enable a more efficient use of powder in fabricating a component, more effectively and/or efficiently control operation of additive manufacturing. For example, at least one sensor may be used to monitor a velocity of a powder cloud in situ or ex situ. Powder velocity (or another powder flow characteristic) may be correlated to at least one deposit quality metric or an abnormal event (e.g., clogging, spattering, or plugging). Process parameters may be controlled (e.g., by adjusting powder flow rate, carrier gas pressure, or carrier gas flow rate) based on at least one powder flow characteristic detected by at least one sensor. Monitoring powder flow thus may promote product quality, control of additive fabrication within specifications, a better understanding of relation of process parameters and product quality, for selection of appropriate components or for using a wider range of components (e.g., a variety of a nozzle) to be used to achieve a predetermined powder velocity.”
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.
Claim(s) 1-4, 11, 12-14, and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ribic et al. (PG/PUB 20230091046) in view over Valdes et al. (PG/PUB 20250001504).
Claim 1.
Ribic et al. teaches an additive manufacturing system (ABSTRACT), comprising:
an energy delivery device configured to deliver energy to a build surface of a component to form a melt pool in the build surface of the component (ABSTRACT, Figure 1, 0004 e.g. the disclosure describes an additive manufacturing system that includes an energy delivery device configured to deliver energy to a build surface of a component to form a melt pool in the build surface of the component);)
a powder delivery device configured to direct a powder stream toward the melt pool (([0004], Figure 1) a powder delivery device configured to direct a powder stream toward the melt pool))
at least one sensor configured to generate sensor data ([0004] plurality of mass sensors, each mass sensor associated with a portion of the additive manufacturing system; a plurality of heat sensors);
a computing device configured to (([004] and one or more computing devices. The one or more computing device are configured to: receive data from the plurality of mass sensors)[AltContent: ]:
receive the sensor data from the at least sensor (([004] determine an overall mass flux based on the data from the plurality of mass sensors);
determine, based on the sensor data, at least one powder flow characteristic (([004] determine an overall mass flux based on the data from the plurality of mass sensors);
generate a signal indicative of the at least one powder flow characteristic ([004] determine an overall mass flux based on the data from the plurality of mass sensors; control the powder delivery device based on the overall mass flux; receive data from the plurality of heat sensors; determine an overall heat flux based on the data from the plurality of heat sensors; and control the energy delivery device based on the overall heat flux);
control, based on the at least one powder flow characteristic and at least one component interaction parameter (e.g. tool path, for example), the energy delivery device and the powder delivery device to deposit a plurality of layers based on a set of deposition parameters ([004] determine an overall mass flux based on the data from the plurality of mass sensors; control the powder delivery device based on the overall mass flux; receive data from the plurality of heat sensors; determine an overall heat flux based on the data from the plurality of heat sensors; and control the energy delivery device based on the overall heat flux);
Ribic does not expressly teach the underlined powder flow velocity limitations described below. Valdes teaches the underlined powder flow velocity limitations described below
one powder flow characteristic comprising a powder flow velocity (Valdes, 0155 e.g. :The sensor may detect the velocity of the powder and/or gas during operation. In some examples, a plurality of separators may be operatively coupled to each other. A first separator may be connected to a second separator (e.g., in a serial manner, see also Ribic, 0050 e.g. controlling powder velocity and representing powder stream, 0051-52
control, based on the at least one powder flow characteristic and at least one component interaction parameter (Ribic, 0021 , 0026, 0034, 0070 e.g. see controlled paths as an interaction parameter), the energy delivery device and the powder delivery device to deposit a plurality of layers based on a set of deposition parameters.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention applying the teachings of Valdes, namely sensing a powder velocity, to the teachings of Ribic, namely controlling layer deposition based in part on mass flow rate of the particles, would achieve an expected and predictable result of determining a powder velocity in addition to its mass flow rate for controlling additive manufacturing. Valdes is in the same field of endeavor and reasonably pertinent to a problem of characterizing powder flow.
Claims 2 and 12 The additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one sensor comprises at least one of a powder flow monitor, an acoustic sensor, or an in-line gas flow sensor (([0016] For instance, the mass flow sensors may include a mass sensor associated with a powder source, a powder flow monitoring system sensing powder flow between an output of a powder delivery device and the melt pool, and a topology sensor for measuring a topology of material added to the melt pool);
Claims 3 and 13. The additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the at least one powder flow velocity comprises an in situ velocity or an ex situ powder velocity, supra Valdes, claim 1, characteristic comprises at least one of a powder flow rate, an in situ powder velocity, an ex situ powder velocity, a carrier gas flow rate, a carrier gas pressure, a center purge flow rate, or a center purge pressure ([0070] One or more computing devices 12 may be configured to control a powder feed rate output by powder source 42 (see top left of FIG. 7). For instance, one or more computing devices 12 may be configured to control an agitator of powder source 42, a gas flow rate of gas flowing through powder source 42, a position of one or more valves within flow path 46, or the like to control a powder feed rate output by powder source 42);
Claims 4 and 14.
The additive manufacturing system of claim 1, wherein the computing device is further configured to determine at least one deposit quality metric or at least one abnormal event based on the at least one powder flow characteristic (([0072] and [0076]In some examples, one or more computing devices 12 also may use the deposit topology (captured powder mass) and/or capture efficiency metric in the determination of the heat flux, as the added powder mass and quench effects associated with the captured powder affect the cooling rate);
Regarding claims 11, RIBIC discloses receiving, by a computing device, sensor data from at least one sensor of an additive manufacturing system ([005] receiving, by one or more computing devices, data from a plurality of mass sensors of an additive manufacturing system);
determining, by the computing device, based on the sensor data, at least one powder flow characteristic ([005] the plurality of mass sensors, each mass sensor associated with a portion of the additive manufacturing system, and a plurality of heat sensors; determining, by the one or more computing devices, an overall mass flux based on the data from the plurality of mass sensors;);
generating, by the computing device, a signal indicative of the at least one powder flow characteristic ([005] controlling, by the one or more computing devices, the powder delivery device based on the overall mass flux);
controlling, by the computing device, based on the at least one powder flow characteristic, an energy delivery device and a powder delivery device of the additive manufacturing system to deposit a plurality of layers based on a set of deposition parameters ([005] controlling, by the one or more computing devices, the powder delivery device based on the overall mass flux; receiving, by the one or more computing devices, data from the plurality of heat sensors; determining, by the one or more computing devices, an overall heat flux based on the data from the plurality of heat sensors; and controlling, by the one or more computing devices, the energy delivery device based on the overall heat flux);
Claim 21. Ribic teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the at least one component interaction parameter comprises at least one of a part geometry, a melt pool capture capability, or a tool path (Ribic, 0021 , 0026, 0034, 0070 e.g. see controlled paths as an interaction parameter)
Claims 5-10 and 15-20 are rejected under U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over RIBIC et al. PGPUB US20230091046A1) in view over Valdes et al. (PG/PUB 20250001504) in view over SHUCK (PGPUB (US20230090298A1).
Claim 5. The additive manufacturing system of claim 4, wherein the at least one abnormal event comprises accumulation or formation of material within or on a nozzle (Regarding claims 5 and 15, limitations of parent claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 have been discussed above. RIBIC discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine at least one deposit quality metric based on the at least one powder flow characteristic. (see [0072] and [0076]In some examples, one or more computing devices 12 also may use the deposit topology (captured powder mass) and/or capture efficiency metric in the determination of the heat flux, as the added powder mass and quench effects associated with the captured powder affect the cooling rate. )
Ribic et al. does not disclose expressly the at least one abnormal event comprises accumulation or formation of material within or on a nozzle.
SHUCK discloses the additive manufacturing system of claim 4, wherein the at least one abnormal event comprises accumulation or formation of material within or on a nozzle. (see [0098]The at least one metric may be indicative of one or more property of powder stream 58, including, for example, powder mass flux for powder stream 58, powder mass flux for a region of interest of powder stream 58, wear or damage to one or more powder nozzles 56, powder distribution within powder stream 58, clogging of one or more powder nozzles 56, flow of the carrier gas in which powder is entrained, flow of a purge gas, or the like.)
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify to detect at least one abnormal event comprises accumulation or formation of material within or on a nozzle. Ribic and Shuck are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor additive manufacturing system. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow the nozzle to be cleaned so production can continue (see NELSON, GRUBBS, AND SHUCK [0033] In some implementations, the computing device may be configured to control the blown powder additive manufacturing technique based on the image data. For instance, upon detecting a clog, the computing device may be configured to cause the powder delivery device to be cleaned, e.g.);
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A for the benefit of detecting at least one abnormal event comprises accumulation or formation of material within or on a nozzle to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 5 and 15.
Regarding claims 6 and 16, limitations of parent claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 have been discussed above, wherein the computing device is configured to determine at least one process response based on one powder flow characteristic (e.g. RIBIC discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine at least one deposit quality metric/process response based on the at least one powder flow characteristic. (see [0072] and [0076]In some examples, one or more computing devices 12 also may use the deposit topology (captured powder mass) and/or capture efficiency metric in the determination of the heat flux, as the added powder mass and quench effects associated with the captured powder affect the cooling rate. ); Rublic does not expressly teach the threshold response limitations described below. Shuck teaches the threshold response described below
wherein the computing device is further configured to determine the at least one quality metric by comparing the process response with a threshold response value (Shuck, ABSTRACT e.g. see a metric indicates an abnormal state, claims 5-6, 0100 e.g. “One or more computing devices 12 may be configured to determine that the at least one metric indicates the abnormal state in response to the comparison showing differences between the metrics above a threshold difference value. For instance, with reference to FIG. 12 , one or more computing devices 12 may compare a powder mass flux associated with quadrant 1 to powder mass fluxes associated with quadrants 2, 3, and 4, may compare a powder mass flux associated with quadrant 2 to powder mass fluxes associated with quadrants 3 and 4, and may compare a powder mass flux associated with quadrant 3 to powder mass fluxes associated with quadrant 4, such that each powder mass flux is compared to each other powder mass flux. In the example of FIG. 11 , the powder mass fluxes for quadrants 1 and 4 differ from the powder mass fluxes for quadrants 2 and 3, and may differ by more than a threshold difference value. This may indicate an abnormal state. As a counter example, the mass fluxes for each of the quadrants shown in FIG. 8A are substantially similar and may not differ by more than a threshold difference value. This may indicate a normal state.”
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify US 20230091046 A1 to determine at least one process response relative to a threshold based on the at least one powder flow characteristic in US 20230090298 A.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been SHUCK discloses increased accuracy of the overall build (see [0038] By including a PFMS as described herein and/or using the analysis techniques described herein, understanding and/or control of the powder stream in a blown powder additive manufacturing technique may be improved. This may facilitate development of blown powder additive manufacturing techniques for desired components, allow more precise control of a blown powder additive manufacturing technique, or the like.); Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A for the benefit of determining at least one process response based on the at least one powder flow characteristic. to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 6 and 16.
Regarding claim 17, limitations of parent claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14 and 16 have been discussed above. Ribic discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine at least one deposit quality metric based on the at least one powder flow characteristic. (see [0072] and [0076]In some examples, one or more computing devices 12 also may use the deposit topology (captured powder mass) and/or capture efficiency metric in the determination of the heat flux, as the added powder mass and quench effects associated with the captured powder affect the cooling rate. );
RIBIC does not disclose expressly to determine the at least one quality metric by comparing the process response with a threshold response value.
SHUCK discloses to determine the at least one quality metric by comparing the process response with a threshold response value (see [0103]The at least one action may depend on the abnormal state indicated by the at least one metric. For instance, if the at least one metric indicates a powder mass flux that is lower than a set powder mass flux, one or more computing devices 12 may be configured to cause a powder feed rate to nozzles 56 to increase);
US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A1 are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor additive manufacturing system;
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify US 20230091046 A1 to determine the at least one quality metric by comparing the process response with a threshold response value.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been setpoints increase uniformity of each layer to preserve quality. (see [0033] As another example, the computing device may be configured to compare a measured parameter, such as a measured particle detections, a measured mass flow rate, a measured detection or mass flow distribution, or the like to a setpoint or set range. Upon determining that the measured parameter deviates from the setpoint or set range, the computing device may control one or more process variables (e.g., mass flow of powder from a powder source, process gas flow rate, or the like) and re-measure the measured parameter until computing device determines that the measured parameter satisfies the setpoint or the set range);
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A for the benefit of determining the at least one quality metric by comparing the process response with a threshold response value to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 7 and 17.
Claims 8 and 18, limitations of parent claims 1, 4, 6, 11, 14 and 16 have been discussed above. RIBIC discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine at least one deposit quality metric based on the at least one powder flow characteristic. (see [0072] and [0076]In some examples, one or more computing devices 12 also may use the deposit topology (captured powder mass) and/or capture efficiency metric in the determination of the heat flux, as the added powder mass and quench effects associated with the captured powder affect the cooling rate. );
RIBIC does not disclose expressly wherein the at least one process response comprises at least one of a build quality, a build height, or a layer thickness.
SHUCK discloses wherein the at least one process response comprises at least one of a build quality, a build height, or a layer thickness (see [0103] if the at least one metric indicates a powder mass flux that is lower than a set powder mass flux, one or more computing devices 12 may be configured to cause a powder feed rate to nozzles 56 to increase, e.g., by increasing a carrier gas flow rate through a powder source, increasing a powder agitation rate within the powder source to entrain more powder in the carrier gas, or the like. Alternatively, if the at least one metric indicates a powder mass flux that is lower than a set powder mass flux for a single nozzle, one or more computing devices 12 may be configured to cause a powder feed rate to the single nozzle to increase, e.g., by controlling a valve associated with the single nozzle to open further and permit greater powder flow to the single nozzle);
US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor additive manufacturing system;
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify US 20230091046 A1 to at least one process response comprises at least one of a build quality, a build height, or a layer thickness.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been improved machine accuracy. (see US 20230091046 A1 [0016] By monitoring mass flow at different points along the powder flow and monitoring heat flow in multiple ways, the system described herein may enable a more complete understanding of mass and heat flux within the system. Accordingly, the computing device may more accurately control operating of the additive manufacturing system.)
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A for the benefit of at least one of a build quality, a build height, or a layer thickness in the claims 8 and 18.
Regarding claims 9 and 19, limitations of parent claims 1, 4, 11 and 14 have been discussed above. RIBIC discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine at least one deposit quality metric based on the at least one powder flow characteristic. (see [0072] and [0076]In some examples, one or more computing devices 12 also may use the deposit topology (captured powder mass) and/or capture efficiency metric in the determination of the heat flux, as the added powder mass and quench effects associated with the captured powder affect the cooling rate. )
RIBIC does not disclose expressly to adjust at least one powder control parameter based on the at least one deposit quality metric or the at least one abnormal event.
SHUCK discloses to adjust at least one powder control parameter based on the at least one deposit quality metric or the at least one abnormal event. (see [0105] In response to determining that the at least one metric again indicates the abnormal state, one or more computing devices 12 may change the at least one operating parameter to a new value, wait for the at least one operating parameter has stabilized to a substantially constant value, and determine and analyze the at least one metric to determine whether the at least one metric indicates a normal or abnormal state. One or more computing devices 12 may continue to iterate until determining that the at least one metric indicates a normal state);
US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A are analogous art because they are from same field of endeavor additive manufacturing system.
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify to adjust at least one powder control parameter based on the at least one deposit quality metric or the at least one abnormal event..
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow changes in powder flow so production can continue (see US 20230091046 A1 [0016] By monitoring mass flow at different points along the powder flow and monitoring heat flow in multiple ways, the system described herein may enable a more complete understanding of mass and heat flux within the system. Accordingly, the computing device may more accurately control operating of the additive manufacturing system);
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A for the benefit of adjust at least one powder control parameter based on the at least one deposit quality metric or the at least one abnormal event.to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 9 and 19.
Regarding claims 10 and 20, limitations of parent claims 1, 4, 9, 11, 14 and 19 have been discussed above. RIBIC discloses wherein the computing device is further configured to determine at least one deposit quality metric based on the at least one powder flow characteristic. (see [0072] and [0076]In some examples, one or more computing devices 12 also may use the deposit topology (captured powder mass) and/or capture efficiency metric in the determination of the heat flux, as the added powder mass and quench effects associated with the captured powder affect the cooling rate. )
RIBIC does not disclose expressly at least one of a powder feed rate, a carrier gas flow rate, a carrier gas pressure, a center purge flow rate, a center purge pressure, or a nozzle standoff distance.
SHUCK discloses the at least one powder control parameter comprises at least one of a powder feed rate, a carrier gas flow rate, a carrier gas pressure, a center purge flow rate, a center purge pressure, or a nozzle standoff distance (see [0106] In some examples, one or more computing devices 12 may be configured control the at least one operating parameter of the additive manufacturing system (88) to clean one or more nozzles 56. For instance, one or more computing devices 12 determine that one or more of nozzles 56 is clogged, e.g., as described above with respect to FIGS. 12–14. In response, one or more computing devices 12 may be configured to cause powder delivery device 52 to move against a scrubbing surface to scrub a clog from one or more of nozzles 56. Alternatively, or additionally, one or more computing devices 12 may be configured to cause a relatively high flow rate of gas (e.g., purge gas or carrier gas) through the nozzle identified to be clogged to attempt to force the clog from the nozzle identified to be clogged.);
At the time of the invention, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to modify to the at least one powder control parameter comprises at least one of a powder feed rate, a carrier gas flow rate, a carrier gas pressure, a center purge flow rate, a center purge pressure, or a nozzle standoff distance.
The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been to allow changes in powder flow so production can continue (see US 20230091046 A1 [0016] By monitoring mass flow at different points along the powder flow and monitoring heat flow in multiple ways, the system described herein may enable a more complete understanding of mass and heat flux within the system. Accordingly, the computing device may more accurately control operating of the additive manufacturing system);
Therefore, It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art as of the effective filing date, to combine US 20230091046 A1 AND US 20230090298 A for the benefit the at least one powder control parameter comprises at least one of a powder feed rate, a carrier gas flow rate, a carrier gas pressure, a center purge flow rate, a center purge pressure, or a nozzle standoff distance to obtain the invention as specified in the claims 10 and 20.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Particle Velocity
3D particle tracking velocimetry for the determination of temporally resolved particle trajectories within laser powder bed fusion of metals To cite this article: Eric Eschner et al 2019 Int. J. Extrem. Manuf. 1 035002 e.g. see determining powder velocity
Interaction parameters
20230091046-0074 e.g. Similarly, one or more computing devices 12 may be configured to control energy delivery device 16 to deliver energy 34 to first layer 24 to establish a given heat input (see bottom left of FIG. 7 ). For example, one or more computing device 12 may control one or more operating parameters of energy delivery device 16, such as intensity, pulse rate, pulse width, or the like; one or more positional parameters related to energy delivery device 16, such as dwell time at a location, a movement rate relative to first layer 24, an overlap between adjacent passes of energy 34 across first layer 24, a pause time between adjacent passes of energy 34 across first layer 24, or the like to control heat input to system 10 (e.g., to melt pool 32 and component 22).
20160339519 – claim 1 relevancy e.g. “A powder bed sensing system and method is provided. A defect detection eddy current sensor array is configured to be movably coupled with respect to a powder bed, and generate a first plurality of sensor signals while moving over a workpiece in the powder bed. A workpiece edge detection eddy current sensor array is configured to be movably coupled with respect to the powder bed, and generates a second plurality of sensor signals while moving over the workpiece in the powder bed. A controller is coupled to the defect detection eddy current sensor array and the workpiece edge detection eddy current sensor array. The controller initiates an action based on at least one of a workpiece material layer quality and a workpiece edge location quality determined based on the first plurality of sensor signals and the second plurality of sensor signals”)
Claim 1 relevancy e.g. see general prior art describing AM powder deposition:
20220355384 20260241444 20250215530 20250020497 20250001504 20240033828 20230092671 20230089809 20230001484 7045738 20220355384 4976377 20250269433 20250196228 20250043153 20220355384 20260241444 20250215530 20250020497 20250001504 20240033828 20230092671 20230089809 20230001484 7045738
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 DARRIN D DUNN whose telephone number is (571)270-1645. The examiner can normally be reached M-Sat (10-8) PST.
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, Robert Fennema can be reached at 571-272-2748. 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.
/DARRIN D DUNN/Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2117
Prosecution Insights