Detailed Office Action
Applicant’s amendments and arguments dated 6/4/2026 have been entered and fully considered. Claims 8, 16-20, and 23 are amended. New claim 25 is added. Claims 1-7 and 9-10 are cancelled. Claims 8 and 11-25 remain 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 .
Response to Amendments and Arguments
Applicant’s amendments have overcome claim objection and the 35 USC 112(a) and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the non-final office action of 12/15/2025. Those objection and rejections are withdrawn.
Amendments are noted. Upon further search and consideration these amendments are rejected in view of an additional prior art as outlined below in the 35 USC 103 rejection section.
Claim Objections
Claims 18-19 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 18, line 1: replace “abvove” with “above”.
Claim 19, line 2: replace “a air ducts” with “the air ducts” so it has a correct antecedent basis for the four ducts recited in the independent 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “energy input means”. The Examiner interprets this under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) because (A) the claim uses the term “means” and (B) the terms “means” is modified by the functional language “energy input” and (C) the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structure for performing the function of inputting energy. The Examiner referred to the instant specification and will interpret “energy input means” as overhead heater or IR lamp or equivalents thereof.
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 8, 11-20, 23, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAACK (EP-2774703-A1), hereinafter HAACK, in view of BAUMANN (US-2007/0238056), hereinafter BAUMANN.
Regarding claims 8, 11-20, 23, and 25, 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 claim 8, the annotated FIG. 2 of HAACK discloses all the limitations of i) through vii). The Examiner notes that coater 14 is the claimed recoater for applying the particulate material onto the construction field.
HAACK, however, is silent on the last limitation of claim 8 reciting “viii) a print head for applying a liquid” and claim 25 limitation of “wherein the print head selectively applies the liquid and the liquid includes an absorber”.
In the same field of endeavor that is related to additive manufacturing, BAUMANN discloses “viii) a print head for applying a liquid” and claim 25 limitation of “wherein the print head selectively applies the liquid and the liquid includes an absorber” {[abstract], [0008], [0028]}.
At the effective filing date of the instant invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have replaced the laser sintering device of HAACK with the print head liquid absorber applicator and electromagnetic energy heater of BAUMANN to carry out the selective sintering and additive manufacturing of the applied powder.
As disclosed by BUAMANN, the advantage of this replacement is that the selectivity is achieved solely via the application of the absorber; the resultant achievable precision and speed of the process are therefore the same as, or higher than, those obtained with conventional laser sintering using a laser, and the process is markedly less expensive, more flexible, and simpler to operate {[0008]}.
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”.
Regarding claim 18, the Examiner notes that modified HAACK will have the energy input means as disclosed by BAUMANN {[FIG. 1] IR lamp 5}. As seen, this device is closer to the surface, and as the result, the air flow of HAACK is conducted above the energy input means.
Regarding claim 19 and since HAACK discloses that the purpose of flow is purging {[0041]}, the cooling of the construction field is achieved via fresh gas flow.
PNG
media_image1.png
720
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over HAACK and BAUMANN 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, combination of HAACK and BAUMANN discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. This combination, 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 combination device of HAACK and BAUMANN and have included a temperature sensor in gas flow in the device of HAACK and BAUMANN. 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 and BAUMANN 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 22, combination of HAACK and BAUMANN discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. This combination, 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 combination device of HAACK and BAUMANN and have included an anemometer in gas flow in the device of HAACK and BAUMANN. 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 and BAUMANN 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, combination of HAACK and BAUMANN discloses all the limitations of claim 8, as discussed above. This combination, 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 combination device of HAACK and BAUMANN and have included an overhead radiator in the device of HAACK and BAUMANN. As disclosed by EDERER, the advantage of this radiator is that can provide additional heat if needed {[0018]}.
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 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
Prosecution Insights