Detailed Office Action
The communication dated 1/27/2025 has been entered and fully considered. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are cancelled. Claims 8 and 11-24 are pending.
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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 16 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 1, replace “the chamber” with “the process chamber” to be consistent with the same limitation in claim 8. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: device for preventing gas flow in claims 18 and 19.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claims 18 and 19 recite a device for preventing gas flow. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the term “device” and (B) the terms “device” is modified by the functional language “preventing gas flow” and (C) the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of extraction. The Examiner could not locate the detailed structural description of this device in the instant specification. As the result, this limitation and their claims are rejected under 35 USC 112(a) and 35 112 (b)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 18 and 19 recite a device for preventing the first and the second gas flow from flowing over the construction field. Instant disclosure does not provide any description and structure for this device. It is not clear how the gas flow is prevented from flowing over the construction field. There is a dashed line (032) in instant FIG. 7 that is drawn to illustrate the boundary of the construction field. However, it is not a solid line and thus not clear whether it is indeed a barrier. It seems to be two imaginary lines drawn to illustrate the extension of an imaginary boundary from the surface. Furthermore, there is no description of the detailed structure of this dashed line in the instant specification. Claims 19 and 20 are dependent on claim 18 and are rejected as well.
Note that the Examiner could not examine claims 18-19 since this device is unknown. Furthermore, instant claim 24 recites that the first and the second gas flow have to flow over the air spaces above construction field in order to cool them down (emphasis added by the Examiner). Therefore, placing a device for preventing these flows as recited in claims 18-19 is in contradiction with claim 24.
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 16-20 and 23 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.
Claims 16-17 recites the limitation "the exit duct" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims.
Claims 18 and 19 recite a device for preventing the first and second gas flow from flowing over the construction field. There is already a device recited in the preamble of all the claims. Therefore, there is confusion regarding whether these devices are the same.
Claims 18-19 limitation “device for preventing gas flow” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 19 and 20 are dependent on claim 18 and are rejected as well.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 23 recites the limitations "the first gas flow into the process chamber", "the first gas flow out of the process chamber", "the second gas flow into the process chamber", and "the second gas flow out of the process chamber". There are insufficient antecedent bases for these limitation in the claim. The Examiner notes that claim 8 recites that the first and the second gas flow are into the first air space and the second air space, respectively, and not into the process chamber.
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.
Claims 8, 11-17, 20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by HAACK (EP-2774703-A1), hereinafter HAACK.
Regarding claims 8, 11-17, 20, and 23, the Examiner has annotated FIG. 2 of HAACK and has pasted it below with detailed description of all the limitations of these instant claims. Note that the system is the process chamber (also see highlighted text on the first page of HAACK).
Regarding claims 13-14, the Examiner notes that when considering the very top of the vertical boundaries (first and second), the limitation “between” is met. Regarding claim 20, the Examiner notes that solid boundaries around the device of HAACK that prevents convection of flow from unassigned exits, read on the limitation of “convection guards”.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAACK as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DESIMONE (US-2017/0173880), hereinafter DESIMONE. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 21, HAACK discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. HAACK, however, is silent on a temperature sensor for the gas flow.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to 3D printing with gas induction, DESIMONE discloses wherein the device includes a temperature sensor and/or a controller for controlling a temperature of the first gas flow {[0195]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of DESIMONE in the device of HAACK and have included a temperature sensor in gas flow in the device of HAACK. As disclosed by DESIMONE, the advantage of the sensor is that it can be coupled to controller to maintain a desired temperature {[0195]}.
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAACK as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of GOLD (US-2017/0146382), hereinafter GOLD. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 21, HAACK discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. HAACK, however, is silent on an anemometer for the gas flow.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to gas flow characterization in 3D printing, GOLD discloses wherein the device includes an anemometer {[0035]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of GOLD in the device of HAACK and have included an anemometer in gas flow in the device of HAACK. As disclosed by GOLD, the advantage of the sensor is that it can accurately measure and characterize the gas flow {[0035]}.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAACK as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of DE-102013004940 – of record. The Examiner notes that for claim mapping and in lieu of DE-102013004940, its English family member US-2015/0266238 – of record, hereinafter EDERER is used. Note that the italicized text below are the instant claims.
Regarding claim 24, HAACK discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. HAACK, however, is silent on an overhead radiator.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to 3D printing, EDERER discloses wherein the device includes an overhead radiator, the first gas flow and the second gas flow cool the first air space and the second air space respectively, and the overhead radiator independently heats the build space above the construction field {[0018]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have incorporated the teaching of EDERER in the device of HAACK and have included an overhead radiator in the device of HAACK. As disclosed by EDERER, the advantage of this radiator is that can provide additional heat if needed {[0018]}. The Examiner notes that the device of HAACK also sinters or melts the raw material to produce the 3D printed object {[0002]} and therefore may need additional heat in certain circumstances.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI whose telephone number is (571)272-1373. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-(alt Fri) 7:30-5:00.
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, Abbas Rashid can be reached at 571-270-7457. 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.
/S. BEHROOZ GHORISHI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748