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 .
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 1-11 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.
Instant claim 1 recites “an angle between an ejection axis of the cavitation jet ejected from the nozzle and the support surface is between 0 to 20 degrees,” and instant claims 5 and 9-11 recite the limitation “the angle between the ejection axis and the support surface is between 10 and 20 degrees.” This limitation is indefinite because in cavitation processes, the cavitation jet is formed by a liquid comprising bubbles, and said jet therefore extends in a wide area. As such, the “ejection axis” of the cavitation jet (or cloud) does not follow a linear direction and is considered to follow directions over a wide range of angles at the nozzle outlet. This renders the precise angle relationship between said axis and the support surface indefinite which renders the scope of the claims indefinite.
Instant claims 2-11 depend on instant claim 1 and are indefinite for at least the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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 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.
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(s) 1-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1 and 2) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US 2023/0173641 A1 to Sanders et al in view of the evidentiary reference US 2019/0322898 A1 to Hutchinson et al.
Regarding claim 1, Sanders discloses a method for removing support structure, comprising: suspending abrasive into a process liquid (218); providing an additively manufactured workpiece (224), which would have necessarily been produced by cutting a support structure along a cutting surface from an additively manufactured workpiece having a support surface, the support surface including the support structure for fixing the workpiece to a build platform, installing the workpiece (224) with the support structure remaining on the support surface in the process liquid (218) with suspended abrasive; immersing a nozzle (212) for ejecting a cavitation jet (232) of the process liquid (218) into the process liquid (218); and ejecting the cavitation jet (232) onto the workpiece (224) from the nozzle (212) immersed in the process liquid (218) to perform “efficient finishing” of the workpiece (224) (Sanders, para [0055-0064], figures 3 and 4). The evidentiary reference Hutchinson et al discloses that “finishing” of an additive manufactured workpiece entails removal of undesirable material including remaining support structure adhered to the workpiece (Hutchinson, para [0073]).
Regarding the limitation “such that an angle between an ejection axis of the cavitation jet ejected from the nozzle and the support surface is between 0 to 20 degrees” the workpiece of Hutchinson is rotated within a ring of cavitation jet which are ejecting process fluid such that process fluid flows around “all sides of each part” (Sanders, para [0056]). Given that the jets are emitting a cone of process fluids in all directions and that the workpieces are being rotated within the ring of jets, the workpiece of Sanders would appear to be necessarily oriented “such that an angle between an ejection axis of the cavitation jet ejected from the nozzle and the support surface is between 0 to 20 degrees” at least at some point during the rotation of the workpiece within the ring of jets, thus meeting the instantly claimed limitation. Alternatively, Sanders discloses that both the position and orientation of the nozzles and workpiece may be adjusted to any pattern or arrangement based on part geometry and desired cavitation peening process and/or surface finishing process (Sanders, para [0015-0017]). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, Sanders recognizes nozzle and workpiece positioning and orientation as a result effective variable for controlling the surface finishing process. It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of angle of the nozzle relative to the workpiece to achieve workable or optimal finishing in the process of Sanders.
Regarding claim 2, the nozzle of Sanders ejects the process liquid in a horizontal direction (Sanders, figures 3 and 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 6, Sanders discloses that a compressive residual stress is applied to a surface of the workpiece (Sanders, para [0064]).
Regarding claims 4, 7 and 8, Examiner takes official notice that a mesh structure is inherent to additively manufactured workpieces.
Regarding claims 5 and 9-11, the workpiece of Hutchinson is rotated within a ring of cavitation jet which are ejecting process fluid such that process fluid flows around “all sides of each part” (Sanders, para [0056]). Given that the jets are emitting a cone of process fluids in all directions and that the workpieces are being rotated within the ring of jets, the workpiece of Sanders would appear to be necessarily oriented “such that an angle between an ejection axis of the cavitation jet ejected from the nozzle and the support surface is between 10 to 20 degrees” at least at some point during the rotation of the workpiece within the ring of jets, thus meeting the instantly claimed limitation. Alternatively, Sanders discloses that both the position and orientation of the nozzles and workpiece may be adjusted to any pattern or arrangement based on part geometry and desired cavitation peening process and/or surface finishing process (Sanders, para [0015-0017]). “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 [R-5]. In the instant case, Sanders recognizes nozzle and workpiece positioning and orientation as a result effective variable for controlling the surface finishing process. It would require little more than routine experimentation by one of ordinary skill in the art to determine the optimal or workable ranges of angle of the nozzle relative to the workpiece to achieve workable or optimal finishing in the process of Sanders.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN D WALCK whose telephone number is (571)270-5905. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10 AM - 6:30 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, Sally Merkling can be reached at 571-272-6297. 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.
/BRIAN D WALCK/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1738
