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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 8/24/2026 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Murphree et al. (US 2018/0126650), hereinafter Murphree.
Regarding claim 1, Murphree discloses an apparatus for printing 3D objects, comprising one or more controllers (par. 0018) configured to:
(a) operatively couple with one or more components associated with a 3D printer that is configured to print one or more objects (par. 0018);
(b) generate an estimation (par. 0217 – “the controller may acquire data from the one or more sensors . . . [t]he data may comprise . . .estimation”) of the pressure based on (i) at least one first characteristic of the 3D object printed (par. 0211, 0256) or at least one second characteristic of the material bed (par. 0350) in an enclosure (Fig. 1, 126 – processing chamber); and
(c) direct the one or more components to assist in regulating the pressure based at least in part on the estimation or sensed data (par. 0210-0211 describes feedback or feedforward control relying upon the sensor data which can be used to estimate; par. 0018 – “maintaining a pressure”). Murphree, par. 0332 also explains that the 3D object forms debris in the air within the enclosure which is based at least in part on the object being printed and the material used.
Please see below for further explanation on this rejection in the Response to Arguments section.
Regarding claim 2, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the controllers are configured to operatively couple with a gas enrichment system (par. 0049 – “adjust chemical makeup . . . level of a reactive agent”; par. 0153), to enrich gas flowing into the enclosure with at least one reactive agent.
Regarding claim 3, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses that the gas enrichment system is part of a gas conveyance system (gas flow mechanism) (par. 0021) which is both operatively coupled with the enclosure and in fluidic communication with the enclosure (Fig. 17, 19A-19B).
Regarding claims 4-5, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses at least one sensor coupled with the controllers that regulate the pressure fluctuation based on the data received (par. 0256, 0324; Fig. 28 shows air flow throughout the enclosure).
Regarding claim 6, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 1, and further discloses a layer dispensing mechanism (par. 0173) coupled with the controllers, the layer dispensing mechanism being located in the enclosure (Fig. 1), and being configured to deposit a layer of a starting material on a target surface (par. 0053, 0173), the layer of material from the material bed.
Regarding claim 7, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 6, and further discloses that the layer dispensing mechanism has a material dispenser (par. 0173) and a remover (Fig. 1, 118; par. 0173 or par. 0346), the dispenser is configured to dispense the material, and the remover removes material from the powder bed (par. 0053, 0346).
Regarding claims 8-9, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 7, and further discloses that the pressure fluctuation can be positive or negative in different areas of the enclosure (as shown in Fig. 28), thus always meeting both of these claims. The remover is described above in claim 7.
Regarding claim 10, Murphree discloses a method of printing one or more 3D objects comprising: (a) printing the one or more 3D objects in an enclosure about a material bed (par. 0018-0019, 0033);
(b) generating an estimation (par. 0217) of a pressure fluctuation (par. 0256) of an atmosphere of the enclosure during printing of the one or more 3D objects (par. 0350); the estimation being generated by considering (i) at least one characteristic of the one or more 3D objects being printed (par. 0211, 0256, 0332) or at least one characteristic of the material bed about which the 3D objects are printed; and
(c) regulating the pressure fluctuation of the atmosphere of the enclosure (par. 0018-0019, 0210-0211).
Please see below for further explanation on this rejection in the Response to Arguments section.
Regarding claim 11, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 10, and further discloses controlling a pressure in the enclosure to be above an ambient pressure external to the enclosure (par. 0339).
Regarding claim 12, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 10, and further discloses removing a material from the powder bed with a remover (par. 0346).
Regarding claims 13-14, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 12, and further describes that the pressure fluctuation can be positive or negative in different portions of the enclosure (see Fig. 28).
Regarding claims 15 and 18-19, Murphree discloses a device for printing one or more 3D objects comprising: (a) a reservoir operatively coupled with a 3D printer (ancillary chamber 1765 or canisters 1705, 1710) and pump (1755), wherein the reservoir is configured to exchange at least a portion of the gases from the processing chamber (par. 0272-0273); and wherein the exchange includes an egress of gas from the enclosure and an ingress of gas from the reservoir (par. 0274-0276). The pump is considered to read upon the “compressor” as it is configured to facilitate flow of the gas during egress of the gas from the enclosure or control one or more gas related variables (par. 0277, 0282). Par. 0256 introduces the gas flow mechanism that covers all of the structures above. Par. 0342-0343 describe a gas recycling system that shows the filtration of the gases.
Murphree further discloses that there are inlet valves and outlet valves (par. 0289) and that there is a modulation (inlet) valve with a smaller cross section than a purge (outlet) valve (par. 0289) as is required in claim 19.
The amendment to claim 18 does not change the scope because condition (ii) is an “or” with condition (i) which means only one of these must be met in the prior art.
Regarding claim 16, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 15, and further discloses that the reservoir (“the pressure in the area enclosing the pump may be at a positive pressure with respect to the ambient pressure” – par. 0282).
Regarding claim 17, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 15, and further discloses that the reservoir has a pressure reservoir (the other canister of 1705, 1710) (Fig. 17) not used to meet the reservoir above can be used to meet this claim limitation.
Regarding claim 20, Murphree discloses the subject matter of claim 15, and further discloses that the device further comprises at least one filtering mechanism (par. 0272) configured to facilitate removal of a gas borne material carried by the gas egressed from the disclosure and being coupled with the reservoir (Fig. 17).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 8/24/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to the arguments on p. 8-9, there is no requirement of identifying “pressure, pressure differentials, or pressure fluctuation” specifically as a problem. This is not relevant in the inquiry of whether or not a reference’s teachings would meet a given claim limitation, especially in an anticipation analysis. Even in the context of an obviousness analysis, there is no requirement of the identification of the same problem as the Applicant.
In response to the arguments on p. 10, the disclosure of controller types and process control at a high level is not read in a vacuum or with only this paragraph in mind – it just teaches these concepts. The reference is almost entirely related to the manipulation of the pressures within the chamber. Additionally, “a pressure fluctuation” is not defined in the claims and could read upon any of these concepts that are argued to be distinctive by Applicant. The reference very clearly describes changes in pressure, which are, as would have been understood by one of ordinary skill in the art, “fluctuations.” Examiner notes that the velocity of the flow of gas, or the direction of flow, might even relate to “pressure fluctuations” under BRI as this term is not defined and does not have a precise meaning in the art. Additionally, the pressure at two different locations within the enclosure could also be viewed as a “fluctuation” in pressure.
Also, the teaching of the feed-forward control in par. 0211 would be sufficient to enable such a change in pressure based on the sensed conditions within the enclosure, as is argued is missing on p. 13 of the Remarks. Examiner notes that “feed-forward” control relates to changing the conditions of the input based on an estimate of the conditions expected to be present later in time, and not based directly on a sensed input (as this would be known as “feedback” control, but this is also described in this paragraph).
Also, Par. 0058 reads that “the method further comprises detecting . . . (iv) a pressure” and this same paragraph describes that this occurs “(i) during the printing.” These two teachings, when read together, support the fact that one of ordinary skill in the art would have immediately envisaged such an arrangement as is recited in the claims as this would reflect a “pressure fluctuation” and the estimation available in par. 0211 also enables this feature. One of ordinary skill in the art would have understood these teachings to mean that the pressure(s) are measured during the printing which would capture any change in pressure and pressure differences in different locations of the device. As such, this arrangement is arranged as in the claimed invention as there is no modification required in order to meet the claims, when considering these specific teachings of Murphree as outlined above.
Furthermore, claim 1 recites “(i) at least one first characteristic . . . and/or (ii) at least one second characteristic of a material bed . . . “ (emphasis added) which only requires consideration of the material bed and does not actually require any printing. It does not only “use a scheme that considers real-time characteristics of the 3D objects being printed” under BRI. There are clearly two different options here recited in the claim, and only one must be met. Applicant’s argument bolds portions of the claim that are optional under BRI due to the use of the term “and/or” which explicitly does not require both conditions to be met and can be met by one of the two limitations.
Additionally, claim 15 is broader than claim 1. There is no requirement that the flow of gas goes through the same means of egress from the reservoir to the enclosure (or in two different directions). The claim can also be met by a loop where the gas leaves the canister from a different location from where it entered. Additionally, the claim requires “at least a portion of gas” to be exchanged as the function of the claimed device, which does not actually require any activity as this is a function of the claimed device. Any prior art system capable, without modification, of performing this function meets the claim, such as the system applied above.
Furthermore, the device in instant claim 20 is also filtered, with the filter being coupled with the reservoir. Accordingly, the arguments presented on p. 13 regarding the filter in Murphree are not persuasive. It is not logical to conclude here that the filters are distinctive features in the prior art reference, when the claims also specifically require a filter coupled with the reservoir. Furthermore, the instant specification at par. 0240 describes the reservoir as a cylinder, which would be similar in nature to the “canister” described in the reference, also being a cylinder. Accordingly, the arguments are not found persuasive and the rejections are maintained as updated above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ANDREW D GRAHAM whose telephone number is (469)295-9232. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:30AM-4:00PM (CST).
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 at (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 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.
/ANDREW D GRAHAM/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
