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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/01/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
Election/Restrictions
Restriction to one of the following inventions is required under 35 U.S.C. 121:
I. Claims 1-17, drawn to an apparatus for additive manufacturing, classified in B22F12/00.
ll. Claims 18-34, drawn to a method for removing contaminants in a three dimension (3-D) printer, classified in B08B15/00.
Inventions ll and l are related as process and apparatus for its practice. The inventions are distinct if it can be shown that either: (1) the process as claimed can be practiced by another materially different apparatus or by hand, or (2) the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process. (MPEP § 806.05(e)). In the instant case, the apparatus as claimed can be used to practice another materially different process, i.e., the electrostatically charged plate of Invention l can be used to deposit the material in a pattern instead of attracting or repelling at least a portion of the contaminants in the build chamber.
Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper because all the inventions listed in this action are independent or distinct for the reasons given above and there would be a serious search and/or examination burden if restriction were not required because one or more of the following reasons apply:
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art in view of their different classification.
the inventions have acquired a separate status in the art due to their recognized divergent subject matter.
the invention require a different field of search (e.g., searching different classes/subclasses or electronic resources, or employing different search strategies or search queries).
Applicant is advised that the reply to this requirement to be complete must include (i) an election of an invention to be examined even though the requirement may be traversed (37 CFR 1.143) and (ii) identification of the claims encompassing the elected invention.
The election of an invention may be made with or without traverse. To reserve a right to petition, the election must be made with traverse. If the reply does not distinctly and specifically point out supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election shall be treated as an election without traverse. Traversal must be presented at the time of election in order to be considered timely. Failure to timely traverse the requirement will result in the loss of right to petition under 37 CFR 1.144. If claims are added after the election, applicant must indicate which of these claims are readable upon the elected invention.
Should applicant traverse on the ground that the inventions are not patentably distinct, applicant should submit evidence or identify such evidence now of record showing the inventions to be obvious variants or clearly admit on the record that this is the case. In either instance, if the examiner finds one of the inventions unpatentable over the prior art, the evidence or admission may be used in a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the other invention
Applicant is reminded that upon the cancellation of claims to a non-elected invention, the inventorship must be corrected in compliance with 37 CFR 1.48(a) if one or more of the currently named inventors is no longer an inventor of at least one claim remaining in the application. A request to correct inventorship under 37 CFR 1.48(a) must be accompanied by an application data sheet in accordance with 37 CFR 1.76 that identifies each inventor by his or her legal name and by the processing fee required under 37 CFR 1.17(i).
The examiner has required restriction between product or apparatus claims and process claims. Where applicant elects claims directed to the product/apparatus, and all product/apparatus claims are subsequently found allowable, withdrawn process claims that include all the limitations of the allowable product/apparatus claims should be considered for rejoinder. All claims directed to a nonelected process invention must include all the limitations of an allowable product/apparatus claim for that process invention to be rejoined.
In the event of rejoinder, the requirement for restriction between the product/apparatus claims and the rejoined process claims will be withdrawn, and the rejoined process claims will be fully examined for patentability in accordance with 37 CFR 1.104. Thus, to be allowable, the rejoined claims must meet all criteria for patentability including the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 101, 102, 103 and 112. Until all claims to the elected product/apparatus are found allowable, an otherwise proper restriction requirement between product/apparatus claims and process claims may be maintained. Withdrawn process claims that are not commensurate in scope with an allowable product/apparatus claim will not be rejoined. See MPEP § 821.04. Additionally, in order for rejoinder to occur, applicant is advised that the process claims should be amended during prosecution to require the limitations of the product/apparatus claims. Failure to do so may result in no rejoinder. Further, note that the prohibition against double patenting rejections of 35 U.S.C. 121 does not apply where the restriction requirement is withdrawn by the examiner before the patent issues. See MPEP § 804.01.
During a telephone conversation with Craig Gelfound (Reg. No. 41,032) on 07/17/2026 a provisional election was made to prosecute the invention ll, claims 18-34. Affirmation of this election must be made by applicant in replying to this Office action. Claims 1-17 are withdrawn from further consideration by the examiner, 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a non-elected invention.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 25 and 28-30 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.
Claim 25 recites the limitation "the wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 28 recites the limitation "the wall" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The remaining dependent claims 29 and 30 are also rejected under 112 (b) because they depend from, and thus include all the limitations of rejected claim 28.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) as being anticipated by Guerrier et al. (US 2017/0246709-of record).
With respect to claim 18, Guerrier teaches a method for removing contaminants in a three dimension (3-D) printer (“a method of additive manufacturing”, Pa [0012]) comprising:
depositing material into a build chamber (“a chamber 113”, Pa [0020]) (“A wiper 107 is operable to apply additional layers or levels of powder 105 over the top fused layer of object 109”, Pa [0021]);
generating an energy beam (“directing a laser beam”, Pa [0012]);
applying the energy beam to the material, wherein the energy beam generates contaminants in the build chamber when applied to the material (“directing a laser beam through a transparent window into a chamber to fuse powder in a powder bed, wherein electrically charged condensate is generated from the powder”, Pa [0012]);
providing an electrostatically charged plate (“at least one electrode 202”, Pa [0024]); and
applying a voltage to the electrostatically charged plate such that the electrostatically charged plate attracts or repels at least a portion of the contaminants in the build chamber (“applying an electrical bias to an electrode disposed in the chamber to attract or repel the electrically charged condensate”, Pa [0012]; “voltage source 204 may provide a +100 V bias to the electrode 202”, Pa [0024]).
With respect to claim 19, Guerrier as applied to claim 18 above further teaches that the build chamber comprises a wall (“The walls 101 and transparent window 102 cooperate to define a chamber 113”, Pa [0020]), and the method comprises: integrally forming the electrostatically charged plate with the wall (“electrode 202 may be positioned on or in one of the walls 101 of chamber 113.”, Pa [0025]).
With respect to claim 20, Guerrier as applied to claim 18 above further teaches that the build chamber comprises a wall (“The walls 101 and transparent window 102 cooperate to define a chamber 113”, Pa [0020]), and the method comprises: coupling the electrostatically charged plate to the wall (“electrode 202 may be positioned on or in one of the walls 101 of chamber 113.”, Pa [0025]).
With respect to claim 21, Guerrier as applied to claim 18 above further teaches coupling a beam entry window (“transparent window 102”) to the build chamber such that the beam entry window is configured to pass the energy beam into the build chamber (“A laser source 103 is arranged to generate and project a laser beam 108 through transparent window 102 toward a powder bed 106 located within chamber 113.”, Pa [0020]); and positioning the electrostatically charged plate in a configuration to prevent the contaminants from depositing on the beam entry window (“electrode 202 is positioned near filter 112 such that most of the condensate 110 either forms a deposit on electrode 202 or is directed into filter 112. Consequently, build-up of condensate 110 on the transparent window 102 is reduced.”, Pa [0025]).
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.
Claims 22-34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious Guerrier et al. (US 2017/0246709-of record) as applied to claim 18 above.
With respect to claims 22 and 23, Guerrier as applied to claim 18 above further teaches that the various electrodes disclosed herein can be used in conjunction with the flow of the inert gas in the chamber 113, this gas flow may, for example, help move condensate 110 away from the transparent window 102, away from the object 109, or toward the filter 112 (Pa [0036]). Thus, one would appreciate that the filter would be a gas outlet for the flow of the inert gas. Even though Guerrier is silent to an gas inlet, one would have found it obvious to provide the gas inlet in order to form the flow of the inert gas so as to help move condensate away from the transparent window, away from the object, or toward the filter.
With respect to claim 24, Guerrier as applied to claim 18 above further teaches that the electrostatically charged plate includes a plurality of electrostatically charged plates (“the various embodiments of FIGS. 2-5 may be combined. For example, a transparent condensate deflection electrode 402 may be used with one or more other electrodes 202, 302, or 502.”, Pa [0034]).
With respect to claim 25, Guerrier as applied to claim 24 above further teaches coupling the plurality of electrostatically charged plates to the wall (“electrode 202 may be positioned on or in one of the walls 101 of chamber 113.”, Pa [0025]; “electrode 302 may be positioned on or in one of the walls 101 of chamber 113.”, Pa [0027]; “a transparent electrode 402 disposed on transparent window 102.”, Pa [0028]; “The electrode 502 is positioned on or in the filter 112.”, Pa [0029]).
With respect to claim 26, Guerrier as applied to claim 24 above further teaches that at least one plate (“electrode 502”, Fig. 5) of the plurality of electrostatically charged plates is non-planar (“a rod or some other shape”, Pa [0032]).
With respect to claim 27, Guerrier as applied to claim 24 above further teaches providing a first voltage to a first plate of the plurality of electrostatically charged plates (“voltage source 204 may provide a +100 V bias to the electrode 202”, Pa [0024]); and providing a second voltage to a second plate of the plurality of electrostatically charged plates (“voltage source 304 may provide a −100 V bias to electrode 302”, Pa [0026]), wherein the first voltage is different from the second voltage.
With respect to claim 28, Guerrier as applied to claim 24 above further teaches positioning the plurality of electrostatically charged plates on or within the wall; and arranging the plurality of electrostatically charged plates in one of: an offset configuration, or a non-parallel configuration (“a transparent condensate deflection electrode 402 may be used with one or more other electrodes 202, 302, or 502.”, Pa [0034]).
With respect to claim 29, Guerrier as applied to claim 28 above further teaches that the offset configuration comprises the plurality of electrostatically charged plates not positioned horizontally aligned or not positioned vertically aligned (“a transparent condensate deflection electrode 402 may be used with one or more other electrodes 202, 302, or 502.”, Pa [0034]).
With respect to claim 30, Guerrier as applied to claim 28 above further teaches arranging a first plate and a second plate of the plurality of electrostatically charged plates such that at least one gap is between the first plate and the second plate (“a transparent condensate deflection electrode 402 may be used with one or more other electrodes 202, 302, or 502.”, Pa [0034]).
With respect to claim 31, Guerrier as applied to claim 24 above further teaches that the build chamber further comprises a plurality of walls (“The walls 101 and transparent window 102 cooperate to define a chamber 113”, Pa [0020]), wherein a top wall of the plurality of walls comprises a beam entry window (“transparent window 102”) configured to pass the energy beam into the build chamber (“A laser source 103 is arranged to generate and project a laser beam 108 through transparent window 102 toward a powder bed 106 located within chamber 113.”, Pa [0020]), the top wall further comprises a first plate (“a transparent electrode 402”) of the plurality of electrostatically charged plates (“a transparent electrode 402 disposed on transparent window 102.”, Pa [0028]), and a second plate (“electrode 202”) is positioned on a wall of the plurality of walls (“electrode 202 may be positioned on or in one of the walls 101 of chamber 113.”), the method further comprising: providing a voltage to the first plate to repel the contaminants away from the beam entry window (“the biased electrode 402 repels condensate 110 away from transparent window 102 and electrode 402”, Pa [0028]).
With respect to claim 32, Guerrier as applied to claim 31 above further teaches providing a voltage to the second plate to attract the contaminants (“electrode 202 may be biased to have the opposite polarity as condensate 110, whereby the condensate 110 is attracted toward electrode 202.”, Pa [0024]).
With respect to claim 33, Guerrier as applied to claim 18 above further teaches changing the voltage on the electrostatically charged plate such that the electrostatically charged plate changes from attracting the contaminants to repelling the contaminants, or from repelling the contaminants to attracting the contaminants (“The electrode 502 is connectable to a voltage source 504 by way of a switch. Consequently, an electrical bias can be selectively applied to electrode 502, wherein the bias is of the same or opposite of polarity of the condensate 110. The electrode 502 can be configured to attract condensate 110 to the filter 112 or retain condensate 110 in the filter 112.”, Pa [0029]).
With respect to claim 34, Guerrier as applied to claim 33 above further teaches that changing the voltage is based on the material provided to the build chamber (“an electrical bias can be selectively applied to electrode 502, wherein the bias is of the same or opposite of polarity of the condensate 110.”, Pa [0029]).
Alternatively, claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious Guerrier et al. (US 2017/0246709-of record) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Buller et al. (US 2025/0050421).
With respect to claims 22 and 23, Guerrier as applied to claim 18 above further teaches that the various electrodes disclosed herein can be used in conjunction with the flow of the inert gas in the chamber 113, this gas flow may, for example, help move condensate 110 away from the transparent window 102, away from the object 109, or toward the filter 112 (Pa [0036]). Thus, one would appreciate that the filter would be a gas outlet for the flow of the inert gas. But Guerrier is silent to a gas inlet.
In the same field of endeavor, three-dimensional (3D) printing, Buller teaches that a 3D printing system 300 comprises a filter unit 309 and gas flow mechanism comprising gas inlets disposed in enclosure 313, and the filtering system may filter gas and/or pre-transformed (e.g., powder) material (Pa [0141]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Guerrier with the teachings of Buller and provide a gas inlet with the filter 112 in order to form the flow of the inert gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YUNJU KIM whose telephone number is (571)270-1146. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:00-4:00 EST M-Th; Flexing Fri.
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, Christina Johnson can be reached on 571-272-1176. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YUNJU KIM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights