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 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.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMurtry et al. (US 2016/0136731 A1, hereinafter McMurtry) in view of Krause et al. (US 2013/0040074 A1, hereinafter Krause).
Regarding Claims 1, 6, and 8-12, McMurtry teaches in Figure 1 and [0065] a method of operating an additive manufacturing machine, the method comprising circulating a first gas 118 through a condensate loop 111 and a first gas circulation device 113 operably coupled to the condensate loop and through a build area of the additive manufacturing machine proximate a build platform 102 of the additive manufacturing machine from a first discharge port 112 to a first suction port 110 positioned proximate a work surface for circulating the first gas as a laminar flow over the work surface to be proximate and parallel to a powder bed (as seen in Figure 1).
However, McMurtry is silent on a purge air loop as claimed.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printing, Krause teaches in [0020] that purge gas is known to be delivered via pump (as seen in Figure 1) through nozzle 136 to protect sensitive components like a directing optic/scanner lens from debris and smoke by directing a shield across the component in question.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art prior to the invention’s filing to include purge gas delivery in McMurtry to protect sensitive components of the additive manufacturing machine.
However, while McMurtry is silent on using a loop as claimed to deliver the purge gas, McMurtry as discussed above teaches using loops with a gap created by a space between a discharge port and suction port as a way to deliver flowing gas to a specific spot in a 3D printer, and thus it would have been obvious to make the purge air gas delivery of the present combination a purge air loop as claimed with the second discharge port (a nozzle as applied above) and second suction port (which would then draw in the second gas and contaminants like the debris and smoke discussed by Krause) positioned proximate to the sensitive component, since such a combination would be simple substitution of one known gas delivery for another to yield the predictable result of targeted gas delivery.
Regarding Claims 12-16, the previous combination remains as applied above and while McMurtry is silent about the specific gas used, Krause teaches that argon and nitrogen are appropriate gases for use in gas shielding 3D printing applications, and therefore it would have been obvious to use either known gas one as the first gas and either one as the second gas in 3D printing to yield the predictable result of gas shielding , with the gases thus being different in the case that one loop uses argon and the other uses nitrogen.
Furthermore, while the combination is silent on the specific flow rates and pressures of the gases, the pumps would have to be set to some level of pressure and flow rate, and it would have been obvious to make the first gas circulate at a lower pressure and higher flow rate than the second gas, since finding the optimum or workable range has been held to require only ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding Claim 17, the previous combination remains as applied above and both McMurtry’s pump 113 and Krause’s pump are reasonably characterized as a blowers owing to the fact that they blow gas.
Claims 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMurtry and Krause as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Cano et al. (US 2021/0221058 A1, hereinafter Cano).
Regarding Claims 2-5, the previous combination remains as applied, and Krause further teaches using a coolant loop 130 to dissipate heat from the laser, but is silent on the coolant being a gas and the cooling fluid being in fluid communication with an electronics compartment containing electronic components to thus comprise and be a part of an electronics cooling subsystem.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printers, Cano teaches in [0016]-[0018] that a known method of cooling printer components involves circulating ambient air through a filter into fluid communication with a compartment containing electronic components such as lamps.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the previous combination’s coolant loop to use ambient air as the coolant and, as necessary, place electronic components needing cooling in a compartment fluidly communicating through a filter with the loop’s ambient air in order to cool the components.
While this combination is silent on the relative flow rates of the first, second, and third gases, some speed for the third gas would have to be chosen (as evidenced by [0023] of Cano), and it would have been obvious to make the third gas speed a higher flow rate than first and second gas, since finding the optimum or workable range has been held to require only ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McMurtry and Krause as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Go et al. (US 2017/0151704 A1, hereinafter Go).
Regarding Claims 7, the previous combination remains as applied, but is silent on gantry exposure to the purge air loop.
In analogous art pertaining to 3D printers, Go teaches in [0107] that gantries are known to be used in motion systems and are sensitive equipment.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify the previous combination to, use a gantry as part of the 3D printer motion system if it is not already using a gantry to yield the predictable result of controlling motion, and to position the purge air loop proximate to the gantry for shielding of the sensitive component per Krause as applied above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN M OCHYLSKI whose telephone number is (571)270-7009. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9-6.
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.
/RYAN M OCHYLSKI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights