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 .
Drawings
The drawings were received on 08/20/2024. These drawings are accepted.
Status of Claims
Claims 1, 2, 7, and 8 are currently amended and Claims 3-6 and 9-12 are as originally filed.
Claim Interpretation
Claim
Means for or Step for
Functional Language
Structure or Material
Disclosure Support
1
n/a
“supplies”
“an ambient gas”
“gas supply device”; page 4, lines 6 and 7
1
n/a
“supplies”
“a powder”
“powder supply device”; page 5, lines 15 and 16
1
n/a
“irradiates”
“a molding region”
“irradiation device”; page 4, lines 11 and 12
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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:
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.
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.”
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are as listed above in the table.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buller et al (US 2023/0356330 A1).
Buller et al teaches three-dimensional printing apparatuses as represented below in the annotated drawings (Figs 1 and 4):
PNG
media_image1.png
506
460
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
502
546
media_image2.png
Greyscale
The pressure within the internal volume of the enclosure, or processing chamber, is above the atmospheric pressure external to the processing chamber [0045]. The controller is taught in [0044]. Buller et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the flow of gas is controlled [0048] and is continuously provided in the processing chamber during printing during irradiation of the laser [0050], which is related to the pressure of the gas in the chamber [0054].
Regarding Claim 3, the temperature of the flow of gas can be less than the temperature external to the processing chamber [0046].
Regarding Claim 4, the temperature of the atmosphere within the internal volume of the enclosure can vary based on the flow of gas [0046], which is related to the pressure of the gas in the chamber [0054].
Regarding Claim 5, the volume of the chamber changes as the platform vertically translates [0033]. The sensors determine the composition of the atmosphere including the measurement of gas flow velocity in terms of pressure [0054].
Regarding Claim 6, the powder is iron [0005] (page 2, column 1).
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Buller et al.
Buller et al teaches processes for producing three-dimensional objects as represented above in the annotated drawings. The specification describes “ambient gas” as nitrogen, helium, argon, neon, or other inert gases (page 4, lines 6-9). Buller et al teaches that the flow gas is an inert gas, nitrogen, or argon [0042]. The pressure within the internal volume of the enclosure, or processing chamber, is above the atmospheric pressure external to the processing chamber [0045]. Buller et al anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, the flow of gas is controlled [0048] and is continuously provided in the processing chamber during printing during irradiation of the laser [0050], which is related to the pressure of the gas in the chamber [0054].
Regarding Claim 9, the temperature of the flow of gas can be less than the temperature external to the processing chamber [0046].
Regarding Claim 10, the temperature of the atmosphere within the internal volume of the enclosure can vary based on the flow of gas [0046], which is related to the pressure of the gas in the chamber [0054].
Regarding Claim 11, the volume of the chamber changes as the platform vertically translates [0033]. The sensors determine the composition of the atmosphere including the measurement of gas flow velocity in terms of pressure [0054].
Regarding Claim 12, the powder is iron [0005] (page 2, column 1).
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP 3 797 903 A1.
EP 3 797 903 A1 (EP ‘903) teaches forming a three-dimensional object in a manufacturing space as represented below in the annotated drawings of Figures 1 and 3:
PNG
media_image3.png
516
532
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
360
544
media_image4.png
Greyscale
The powder supply is represented by 7 and 8. The powder bed is taught in [0043]. The pressure inside the manufacturing space is above atmospheric pressure [0028]. The control unit performs closed-loop control to maintain increased pressure [0083], receives signals from a pressure sensor and temperature sensor [0064], and controls the pump, valve, and cooling means [0068]. EP ‘903 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 2, the atmosphere is maintained during manufacturing [0078], which reads on during irradiation.
Regarding Claim 3, the temperature of the process gas can be reduced as the pressure is increased [0082]. The gas is cooled [0029].
Regarding Claim 4, the increase in pressure raises density, which in turn changes the temperature [0028-0029].
Regarding Claim 5, the pressure can be increased by increasing the amount of gas in the manufacturing space [0083].
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by EP ‘903.
EP ‘903 teaches a method of forming a three-dimensional object in a manufacturing space as represented above in the annotated drawings. The specification describes “ambient gas” as nitrogen, helium, argon, neon, or other inert gases (page 4, lines 6-9). EP ‘903 teaches that the gas is an inert gas [0024], helium, nitrogen, or argon [0026]. The pressure within the manufacturing space is above the atmospheric pressure [0028]. EP ‘903 anticipates the claimed invention.
Regarding Claim 8, the atmosphere is maintained during manufacturing [0078], which reads on during irradiation.
Regarding Claim 9, the temperature of the process gas can be reduced as the pressure is increased [0082]. The gas is cooled [0029].
Regarding Claim 10, the increase in pressure raises density, which in turn changes the temperature [0028-0029].
Regarding Claim 11, the pressure can be increased by increasing the amount of gas in the manufacturing space [0083], which reads on changing the volume of gas.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Tima M. McGuthry-Banks whose telephone number is (571)272-2744. The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, 7:00 am to 3:00 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, Keith D. Hendricks can be reached at (571) 272-1401. 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.
Tima M. McGuthry-Banks
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1733
/Tima M. McGuthry-Banks/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1733
Prosecution Insights