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 .
It is noted here that the claim amendment filed 04/07/2026 did not have the proper status identifier for claims 1 and 14, which is currently original. The current application says original even though it is amended. Applicant is encouraged to ensure that all claims have the proper status identifiers in the future in accordance with MPEP 714(II)C.
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 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.
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 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) 1-3, 5, 7-10, 12-15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhart (US 2019/0224748 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Barnhart teaches an additive manufacturing apparatus (200), comprising: a build unit (208) comprising
a powder delivery mechanism (214),
a powder recoating mechanism (216), and
an irradiation beam directing mechanism [0042];
a build platform having a surface to receive a powder bed (208, 204, [0043]) the build platform having an inner diameter (224) and an outer diameter (222);
and a fluid flow mechanism (380), comprising:
an inlet body (382) forming an inlet plenum (384), and
a collector body extended from the inlet body, wherein the collector body comprises:
a collector plenum in fluid communication with the inlet plenum (see figure 5 below);
an outlet plenum in fluid communication with the collector plenum (see figure 5);
(an another exemplary embodiment discloses a plurality of inner distribution fairings (398 and 338) in paragraph [0061]) extended from the inlet body, wherein the collector body forms a collector plenum (distribution plenum 384 [0061]) in fluid communication with the outlet plenum (384), therefore it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have incorporated the exemplary embodiments since KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007))
and wherein an outlet opening is in fluid communication with the outlet plenum (354) [0042] (see figure 5).
As for the limitation and co-directional to the surface of the build platform before directing the flow of the fluid out of the outlet opening toward the outer portion, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Further, figure 7 depicts the outlet is positioned co-directional to the surface of the rotatable build platform.
PNG
media_image1.png
416
530
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5
Barnhart teaches collector body comprises a second plenum wall ( see figure 7), wherein the first plenum wall and the second plenum wall together form a toroidal profile (see figures 3 and 5 that show the donut like shape).
Regarding claim 2, Barnhart teaches the outlet opening is a slot (perforations) extended along the collector body [0054].
Regarding claim 3, Barnhart teaches the collector body (398) forms a collector passage (362) extended between the collector plenum (384) and an outlet plenum (62) .
Regarding claim 5, annotated figure 5 depicts the collector passage (362) is a plurality of discrete collector passages (362) in adjacent (figure 4).
Regarding claim 6, Barnhart depicts the collector passage is a slot (perforation 362) (see slots (outlets) in figure 5).
Regarding claim 7, annotated figure 7 depicts the collector body comprises a first plenum wall diverging from a collector passage outlet to the outlet opening.
PNG
media_image2.png
302
506
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7
Regarding claim 8, Barnhart does not explicitly disclose wherein the first plenum wall provides an increasing cross-sectional are of the outlet plenum, wherein the increasing cross-sectional area is from the collector passage outlet to the outlet opening. However, MPEP 2144.04 states In re Rinehart, 531 F.2d 1048, 189 USPQ 143 (CCPA 1976) Mere scaling up or down of a prior art process capable of being scaled up or down would not establish patentability in a claim to an old process so scaled and It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23. In this case, increasing the cross section area would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention since it has been held that a mere change in shape/size of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change ins shape/size is not significant to the function of the combination.
Regarding claim 9, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the material worked upon (e.g., inert gas), as per MPEP §2115.
Regarding claim 10, annotated figure 7 depicts the fluid flow mechanism comprising: an outlet body (354 in figure 7) forming an outlet cavity configured to receive the flow of fluid from the outlet opening of the collector body.
Regarding claim 12, Barnhart teaches the collector body (398) forms a collector passage (362) extended between the collector plenum (384) and an outlet plenum (62), wherein the collector passage forms a converging cross-sectional area (362) from the collector plenum toward the outlet plenum.
Regarding claim 13, Barnhart teaches the collector passage forms a collector passage outlet distal to the inner diameter of the build platform (since the collector passages can be anywhere on the build plate, some instances of the collector passage would be found in the outer diameter which is distal to the inner diameter [0054]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the collector passage forms a collector passage outlet distal to the inner diameter of the build platform since (1) Barnhart suggests it [0054] and (2) KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding claim 14, Barnhart teaches a build unit (208) comprising:
a powder delivery mechanism (214);
and an irradiation beam directing mechanism [0042];
a build platform [0043], wherein a powder bed is between the build platform and the build unit and wherein the powder bed includes a bottom surface proximate the build platform and a top surface opposite the bottom surface where the top surface defines an upper extent of the powder bed (in figure 1, the powder bed is depicted between the build platform and the build unit where 240 is the bottom of the powder bed and 220 is the top surface of the powder bed);
and a fluid flow mechanism (380), comprising a collector body between the build unit and the powder bed, the collector body comprising an outlet opening above the top surface of the powder bed, the outlet opening and extending co-directional to the top surface (figure 7 depicts the opening above the powder bed), the outlet opening configured to direct a fluid in an inward direction with respect to the build platform (see annotated figures 5 and 7 above, and turntable 304). As for the limitation, configured to direct a fluid in an inward direction with respect to the build platform being directing the fluid in an outward direction with respect to the build platform to create a fluid momentum above the powder bed to push undesired particulate matter away in the outward direction. However, this is intended use and does not further limit the claim. "[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2144 II). Furthermore, the outward is depicted in figure 5 through 352 and the fact that Barnhart teaches the gas flow in multiple paths [0062]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to direct a fluid in an inward direction with respect to the build platform being directing the fluid in an outward direction with respect to the build platform to create a fluid momentum above the powder bed to push undesired particulate matter away in the outward direction since ) KSR states "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
As for the limitation and parallel to the surface of the build platform before directing the flow of the fluid out of the outlet opening toward the outer portion, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Further, figure 7 depicts the outlet is positioned parallel to the surface of the rotatable build platform.
Regarding claim 15, Barnhart teaches the outlet opening is a slot (perforations) extended along the collector body [0054].
Regarding claim 17, annotated figure 5 depicts the collector passage (362) is a plurality of discrete collector passages (362) in adjacent arrangement along an arc corresponding to the build platform (build platform is an arc as depicted in figure 4).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhart (US 2019/0224748 A1) in view of Neill (US 2022/0219402 A1).
Barnhart teaches all the limitations of claim 1 but does not explicitly discloses the collector passage is extended along a z-axis, and wherein the outlet plenum is positioned between the build platform and the collector plenum along the z-axis. However, it is conventionally known for build plates to be positioned along the z-axis. Analogous rotatable build plate additive manufacturing art, Neill, discloses a rotatable build plate that can move along the Z-axis [0248]. Both Barnhart and Neil are directed towards additive manufacturing and are analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the collector passage is extended along a z-axis, and wherein the outlet plenum is positioned between the build platform and the collector plenum along the z-axis since (1) it is conventionally known and (2) increase the degree of freedom of the build platform [0248].
Claim(s) 11 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barnhart (US 2019/0224748 A1), as applied to claim 10/14, in view of Morris et al (US 2021/0069967 A1).
Regarding claims 11 and 16, Barnhart teaches the apparatus comprising: a positive displacement pump (circulation pump [0058]) configured to provide a positive pressure flow of fluid to the inlet plenum but does not explicitly teach a vacuum pump configured to scavenge the flow of fluid from the outlet cavity. Analogous additive manufacturing art, Morris et al, discloses “the vacuum pump 152 includes a nozzle 162 configured to extend into the build chamber 114. The vacuum pump 152 may be used to remove excess powder after the applicator 142 has leveled powder and before fusing takes place” [0057]. Both Barnhart and Morris et al are directed towards additive manufacturing and are analogous art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective fling date of the claimed invention to have modified the additive manufacturing apparatus taught by Barnhart to include a vacuum pump, as taught by Morris et al, in order to remove any excess powder.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of U.S. Patent No. US12042866. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims are directed to a build unit comprising :a powder delivery mechanism; a powder recoating mechanism; and an irradiation beam directing mechanism, a build platform having a surface to receive a powder bed, a fluid flow mechanism comprising an inlet body forming an inlet plenum; and a collector body extended from the inlet body, wherein the collector body forms: a collector plenum in fluid communication with the inlet plenum; and an outlet opening, and an outlet opening in fluid communication with the outlet plenum; and wherein the outlet plenum is defined by a first plenum wall and a second plenum wall which are found in both claim sets.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the instant independent claim 1 is merely broader than copending independent claim 1. It is clear that all of the elements of claims, a build unit comprising :a powder delivery mechanism; a powder recoating mechanism; and an irradiation beam directing mechanism, a build platform having a surface to receive a powder bed, a fluid flow mechanism comprising an inlet body forming an inlet plenum; and a collector body extended from the inlet body, wherein the collector body forms: a collector plenum in fluid communication with the inlet plenum; and an outlet opening, and an outlet opening in fluid communication with the outlet plenum; and wherein the outlet plenum is defined by a first plenum wall and a second plenum wall are found in claim 1 of the copending application. The difference lies in the fact that the copending claims include many more elements and is thus much more specific. Thus the invention of the copending claims are in effect a "species" of the "generic" invention of the instant claim. It has been held that the generic invention is "anticipated” by the “species". See MPEP 804 Section II (B). Since claim 1 are anticipated by copending claim 1, they are not patentably distinct from the copending claim 1.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 4/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues Barnhart does not disclose an outlet plenum is defined by a first plenum wall and a second plenum wall, the first and second plenum walls forming a toroidal profile to direct a flow of fluid within the outlet plenum in a direction toward the inner portion and co-directional to the surface of the build platform.
As for the limitation and co-directional to the surface of the build platform before directing the flow of the fluid out of the outlet opening toward the outer portion, Applicant is reminded that apparatus claims are not limited by the function they perform, as per MPEP §2114. While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. As the apparatus of the prior art and the claimed apparatus are patentably indistinguishable in terms of structure, the apparatus of the prior art is reasonably expected to be able to perform the claimed functionalities. Further, figure 7 depicts the outlet is positioned co-directional to the surface of the rotatable build platform.
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 FARAH N TAUFIQ whose telephone number is (571)272-6765. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday: 8:00 am-4:30 pm.
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, Susan Leong can be reached at (571)270-1487. 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.
/FARAH TAUFIQ/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1754
Prosecution Insights