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 § 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 the amended portion of the claim.
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.
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 the amended portion of the claim.
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.
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 4/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant’s arguments will be addressed below and referred to when needed in the response.
In response, Examiner points out that the claim amendment reads “wherein the at least one first characteristic comprises a structure of the one or more 3D objects as the objects as the one or more 3D objects are being printed” which seems to be reflective of feedback control. But regardless of this fact, par. 0210 clearly teaches “feedback and/or feed forward mechanisms.” Also, par. 0211 clearly teaches “monitor[ing] the amount of material in the enclosure” which would seem to cover “a structure of the one or more 3D objects as [they] are being printed.”
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., see p. 8, Remarks, with respect to claims 1 and 10 and with respect to the ability to “predict pressure changes before they occur”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). The claim requires an estimation of a pressure fluctuation, but does not require the ability to predict said fluctuation (emphasis added). Par. 0217 explains that the data may comprise an estimation and can use all types of different known controlling modes including PID controllers which can perform many types of calculations in order to control the environment and use different sensor inputs.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., see p. 9, Remarks with respect to the “bidirectional gas flow, integration with filtration, and use for event-driven pressure regulation” with respect to claim 15) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
As the arguments are not found persuasive, the rejections are maintained as outlined above.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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
Prosecution Insights