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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 8/22/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
Claim 7 is 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.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "wherein the third gas guide element" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as no third gas guide element has been established. For examination purposes, claim 7 is interpreted to depend from claim 5 which has established a third gas guide element (reference claim 5, line 2).
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) 1-4, 8 and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Wakelam (US 2019/0322051 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wakelam teaches flow device (Figure 2) for a manufacturing device for additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object by selectively solidifying a building material layer by layer (AM system 10; paragraphs 0021-0024), in a build area within a process chamber (chamber 20) of the manufacturing device, wherein the flow device comprises:
a gas supply device for generating a gas flow at least in the process chamber (upper and lower gas delivery mechanisms; paragraphs 0025, 0028),
a supply line for supplying the gas flow to the process chamber (74, 106), and
a flow modification element (Figures 5-6) for introducing the gas flow from the supply line into the process chamber (paragraph 0039),
wherein the flow modification element comprises a gas inlet side (lower gas inlet 84) facing the supply line, a gas outlet side (lower gas outlet 102) facing away from the supply line, at least a first gas guide element (section made up from dividing walls 142, 146 in Figures 5-6) extending from the gas inlet side to the gas outlet side and a plurality of channels (143, 147, 151), wherein each of the channels allows a transport of gas from the gas inlet side to the gas outlet side (Figures 5-6; paragraph 0036),
wherein a number of first channels and a number of second channels are at least partially defined by the first gas guide element (143, 147), which are spaced apart from one another such that the number of second channels is arranged closer to the build area (10) in a direction perpendicular to the build area than the number of first channels (Figures 5-6, showing channel 147 is closer to build platform 70 (i.e., build area) than channel 143), and
wherein the first gas guide element is configured such that a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first channels on the gas outlet side differs from a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of second channels on the gas outlet side (paragraphs 0037, the variations in shapes and nozzle effects of the dividing walls 88, as discussed in FIGS. 3 and 4, are also applicable to multiple pairs of dividing walls (e.g., the first, second, and third pairs of dividing walls 142, 146, and 150 of FIG. 6), and a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first channels on the gas inlet side and a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of second channels on the gas inlet side are substantially equal (Figure 5; paragraph 0036, The distances 154 and 156 may be the same or different), and/or
wherein the first gas guide element (142 in Figures 5-6) is configured such that at least a partial gas flow, which is introduced into the process chamber (20) from the number of first channels during operation of the flow device, is directed towards a plane of the build area (Figures 2, 5-6, showing gas flow 86 being directed toward build platform 70 (i.e., build area)).
Regarding claim 2, Wakelam further discloses the flow modification element further comprises a second gas guide element (section made up from dividing walls 146, 150 in Figures 5-6) extending from the gas inlet side to the gas outlet side and at least partially defining a number of third channels (151), wherein the number of third channels is spaced apart from the number of first channels (143) and the number of second channels (147) such that the number of third channels is arranged closer to the build area than the number of second channels in a direction perpendicular to the build area (Figures 5-6, showing channel 151 is closer to build platform 70 (i.e., build area) than channel 147).
Regarding claim 3, Wakelam teaches all the elements of claim 2 and further discloses the first gas guide element and the second gas guide element are configured such that the total opening cross- sectional area associated with the number of second channels on the gas outlet side is greater than the total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first channels on the gas outlet side and/or a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of third channels on the gas outlet side (paragraphs 0037, the variations in shapes and nozzle effects of the dividing walls 88, as discussed in FIGS. 3 and 4, are also applicable to multiple pairs of dividing walls (e.g., the first, second, and third pairs of dividing walls 142, 146, and 150 of FIG. 6),
wherein a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first channels on the gas inlet side and/or a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of second channels on the gas inlet side and/or a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of third channels on the gas inlet side is substantially equal (Figure 5, showing 154 and 156 being substantially equal; paragraph 00336, The distances 154 and 156 may be the same or different; hence, making 143, 147, 151 being substantially equal), and/or
wherein the first gas guide element and the second gas guide element are configured such that the total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first and/or second and/or third channels on the gas outlet side is in each case smaller than the total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first or second or third channels on the gas inlet side, respectively.
Regarding claim 4, Wakelam further discloses the first and/or the second gas guide element comprises a first portion adjacent to the gas inlet side , which has a shape tapering towards the gas inlet side, and/or a second portion adjacent to the gas outlet side, which has a shape tapering towards the gas outlet side (Figures 3-4, showing gas outlet side being tapered),
wherein an extension of the first portion between the gas inlet side and the gas outlet side is greater than an extension of the second portion between the gas inlet side and the gas outlet side and/or
wherein an expansion angle of the second portion is greater than an expansion angle of the first portion and/or
wherein the first gas guide element and/or the second gas guide element extends over an entire extension of the flow modification element from the gas inlet side to the gas outlet side (as shown in Figures 5-6, first and second gas guide elements (i.e., sections made up from dividing walls 142, 146) extends entire length).
Regarding claim 8, Wakelam teaches a flow modification element (Figures 5-6) for a manufacturing device for additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object by selectively solidifying a building material layer by layer in a build area (AM system 10; paragraphs 0021-0024) within a process chamber (chamber 20) of the manufacturing device, wherein the flow modification element is configured to supply a gas flow from a supply line (paragraphs 0025, 0028, couples to a gas supply line) into the process chamber (3),
wherein the flow modification element comprises a gas inlet side (lower gas inlet 84) facing the supply line, a gas outlet side (lower gas outlet 102) facing away from the supply line, at least a first gas guide element (section made up from dividing walls 142, 146 in Figures 5-6) extending from the gas inlet side to the gas outlet side and a plurality of channels (143, 147, 151), wherein each of the channels allows a transport of gas from the gas inlet side (141) to the gas outlet side (Figures 5-6; paragraph 0036),
wherein a number of first channels and a number of second channels are at least partially defined by the first gas guide element (143, 147), which are spaced apart from one another such that the number of second channels is arranged closer to the build area (10) in a direction perpendicular to the build area than the number of first channels (Figures 5-6, showing channel 147 is closer to build platform 70 (i.e., build area) than channel 143), and
wherein the first gas guide element is configured such that a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first channels on the gas outlet side differs from a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of second channels on the gas outlet side (paragraphs 0037, the variations in shapes and nozzle effects of the dividing walls 88, as discussed in FIGS. 3 and 4, are also applicable to multiple pairs of dividing walls (e.g., the first, second, and third pairs of dividing walls 142, 146, and 150 of FIG. 6), and a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first channels on the gas inlet side and a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of second channels on the gas inlet side are substantially equal (Figure 5; paragraph 0036, The distances 154 and 156 may be the same or different), and/or
wherein the first gas guide element (142 in Figures 5-6) is configured such that at least a partial gas flow, which is introduced into the process chamber (20) from the number of first channels during operation of the flow device, is directed towards a plane of the build area (Figures 2, 5-6, showing gas flow 86 being directed toward build platform 70 (i.e., build area)).
Regarding claim 15, Wakelam further discloses the flow modification element (31) is provided substantially in a lower height region of the process chamber (as shown in Figure 2, dividing walls 88 is provided in lower region of chamber 20).
Regarding claim 16, Wakelam teaches a flow device according to claim 1 (reference claim 1 rejection) and a manufacturing device for additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object by selectively solidifying a building material layer by layer (AM system 10; paragraphs 0021-0024) in a build area within a process chamber (20), comprising said flow device.
Regarding claim 17, Wakelam teaches a flow method for generating a gas flow (Figure7; claims 12-15) in a manufacturing device for additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object by selectively solidifying a building material layer by layer (AM system 10; paragraphs 0021-0024) in a build area within a process chamber (20) of the manufacturing device, the flow method comprising the following steps:
generating a gas flow at least in the process chamber using a gas supply device (upper and lower gas delivery mechanisms; paragraphs 0025, 0028),
supplying the gas flow to the process chamber via a supply line (paragraphs 0025, 0028, couples to a gas supply line), and
introducing the gas flow from the supply line via a flow modification element (Figure 5-6) into the process chamber (paragraph 0039),
wherein the flow modification element comprises a gas inlet side (lower gas inlet 84) facing the supply line, a gas outlet side (lower gas outlet 102) facing away from the supply line, at least a first gas guide element (section made up from dividing walls 142, 146 in Figures 5-6) extending from the gas inlet side to the gas outlet side and a plurality of channels (143, 147, 151), wherein each of the channels allows a transport of gas from the gas inlet side to the gas outlet side (Figures 5-6; paragraph 0036),
wherein a number of first channels and a number of second channels are at least partially defined by the first gas guide element (143, 147), which are spaced apart from one another such that the number of second channels is arranged closer to the build area (10) in a direction perpendicular to the build area than the number of first channels (Figures 5-6, showing channel 147 is closer to build platform 70 (i.e., build area) than channel 143), and
wherein the first gas guide element is configured such that a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first channels on the gas outlet side differs from a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of second channels on the gas outlet side (paragraphs 0037, the variations in shapes and nozzle effects of the dividing walls 88, as discussed in FIGS. 3 and 4, are also applicable to multiple pairs of dividing walls (e.g., the first, second, and third pairs of dividing walls 142, 146, and 150 of FIG. 6), and a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of first channels on the gas inlet side and a total opening cross-sectional area associated with the number of second channels on the gas inlet side are substantially equal (Figure 5; paragraph 0036, The distances 154 and 156 may be the same or different), and/or
wherein the first gas guide element (142 in Figures 5-6) is configured such that at least a partial gas flow, which is introduced into the process chamber (20) from the number of first channels during operation of the flow device, is directed towards a plane of the build area (Figures 2, 5-6, showing gas flow 86 being directed toward build platform 70 (i.e., build area)).
Regarding claim 19, Wakelam teaches a manufacturing method for additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object (paragraph 0018) in a process chamber (20) of a manufacturing device (AM system 10 in Figure 1), comprising the steps of:
applying a building material layer by layer in a build area (paragraph 0041, depositing (step 162) a quantity of a powder material onto the build platform 22),
selectively solidifying the applied layer (paragraphs 0044-0045, focused energy beam to the quantity of a powder material deposited on the build platform 22), and
repeating the steps of layer-wise applying and selectively solidifying until the three- dimensional object is completed (170 in Figure 7; paragraph 0045, repeating the steps 162, 164, 166, and 168 multiple times to form successive additional solidified layers to form the desired article),
wherein a flow method according to claim 17 is carried out at least temporarily during the manufacture of the three-dimensional object (reference claim 17 rejection).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claim(s) 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakelam.
Regarding claim 5, Wakelam teaches all the elements of claim 1, but does not disclose the flow modification element further comprises at least a third gas guide element extending substantially perpendicular to a plane of the build area,
wherein the third gas guide element extends from the gas inlet side towards the gas outlet side of the flow modification element and ends at a distance from the gas outlet side, further wherein the third gas guide element extends over a length which corresponds to at most two thirds of the extension of the flow modification element from the gas inlet side to the gas outlet side. However, Wakelam discloses any suitable number of pairs of dividing walls (i.e., gas guide element) may be provided to create any suitable number of streams (paragraph 0036). Absent a showing of new or unexpected results, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to duplicate the first or second gas guide element, since it have been held that a mere duplication of working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to duplicate the first or second gas guide element for the purpose of providing another stream, as disclosed by Wakelam. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). The court held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. Further, it is noted either the both the first and second gas guide elements comprise a tapered portion which is substantially perpendicular to the build platform (i.e., build area) and appears to be less than a third the length of the flow medication element (as shown in Figures 3-6).
Regarding claim 6, Wakelam teaches all the elements of claim 5 and further discloses the third gas guide element comprises a first portion adjacent to the gas inlet side, which has a shape tapering towards the gas inlet side, and/or a second portion provided downstream of the first portion, which has a shape tapering towards the gas outlet side (Figures 3-4, showing gas outlet side being tapered),
wherein an extension of the first portion between the gas inlet side and the gas outlet side is greater than an extension of the second portion between the gas inlet side and the gas outlet side (Figures 3-4, showing tapered portion (i.e., second portion) being less than straight portion (i.e., first portion)) and/or
wherein an expansion angle of the second portion is greater than an expansion angle of the first portion (153).
Regarding claim 7, Wakelam teaches all the elements of claim [*5] and further discloses the first and/or the second gas guide element is formed as a substantially horizontally arranged flat body (Figure 2, showing dividing walls being substantially horizontally arranged and being flat) and/or wherein the third gas guide element is formed as a substantially vertically arranged flat body. Regarding the limitation “wherein the entire flow modification element, is manufactured in an additive manufacturing method”, such relates only to the method of producing the claimed apparatus, which does not impart patentability to the apparatus claims. Note that determination of patentability is based on the product apparatus itself, In re Brown, 173 USPQ 685, 688, and the patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production, In re Pilkington, 162 USPQ 145, 147; see also In re Thorpe, 227 USPQ 964 (CAFC 1985). In the instant case, Wakelam discloses all the structural limitations of claim 7.
Claim(s) 9-14 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Upadhye (US 2019/0366434 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Upadhye (US 2019/0366434 A1) teaches a flow device (Figures 5-6) for a manufacturing device for additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object by selectively solidifying a building material layer by layer (Figure 1; paragraph 0025) in a build area within a process chamber (130) of the manufacturing device, wherein the flow device comprises:
a gas supply device for generating a gas flow (Figures 5-6, 10) at least in the process chamber,
a supply line (228, 240) for supplying the gas flow to the process chamber and
a flow modification element (slots 252 of plate 250; paragraph 0077) for introducing the gas flow from the supply line into the process chamber (Figure 10),
wherein the supply line comprises at least a first line section which is spaced from the flow modification element (252) and which is formed substantially in an s-shape and/or z-shape (Figures 5-6, shows 240 being substantially s-shaped), and
the supply line comprises at least a second line section, which is provided between the first line section and the flow modification element (252), directly adjoining the first line section and the flow modification element, respectively, and which extends along a first extension direction that is substantially parallel to a plane of the build area over a length that is at least as great as ten times, a height of the second line section transverse to the first extension direction and substantially perpendicular to a plane of the build area (reference annotated Figure 5)
PNG
media_image1.png
509
858
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Upadhye teaches all the elements of claim 9, but does not disclose the first extension is at least as great as ten times, a height of the second line section transverse to the first extension that is substantially perpendicular to the build area. However, while patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Figure 5 of Upadhye appears to show wherein the first extension is at least 10 as greats as the width (i.e., height) of the transverse second line section. Hence, it would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art that Upadhye discloses the first extension is at least as great as ten times, a height of the second line section transverse to the first extension that is substantially perpendicular to the build area.
Regarding claim 10, Upadhye teaches all the elements of claim 9, but does not disclose the second line section extends along its first extension direction over a length that is at least as great as half a width of the second line section transverse to the first extension direction and substantially parallel to a plane of the build area,
wherein the length of the second line section is at least three times greater than the width of the second line section.
However, as noted in claim 9, patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Figure 5 of Upadhye appears to show wherein a length of the second section is at greater than half a width thereof and further appears to show the second line section is at least three greater than the width (see annotated Figure 5 above). Hence, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art Upadhye discloses the second line section extends along its first extension direction over a length that is at least as great as half a width of the second line section transverse to the first extension direction and substantially parallel to a plane of the build area, wherein the length of the second line section is at least three times greater than the width of the second line section.
Regarding claim 11, Upadhye further discloses the first line section comprises at least a first sub-section and at least a second sub-section, which are arranged substantially parallel to one another and/or parallel to a plane of the build area and/or which are in fluidic communication with one another via a curved sub-section of the first line section (reference annotated Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
412
717
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Upadhye does not disclose a total length of the first line section, which comprises at least a first length of the first sub-section and a second length of the second sub-section in a direction substantially parallel to the first extension direction, is at least as great as ten times, a width of the flow modification element and/or of the second line section transverse to the first extension direction and substantially parallel to a plane of the build area. However, similar to above, while patent drawings are not necessarily to scale, relationships clearly shown in the drawings of a reference patent cannot be disregarded in determining the patentability of claims. See In re Mraz, 173 USPQ 25 (CCPA 1972). Figure 5 of Upadhye appears to show the total length of the first line section being greater than at least ten time a width of flow medication element (252). Hence, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art Upadhye discloses a total length of the first line section, which comprises at least a first length of the first sub-section and a second length of the second sub-section in a direction substantially parallel to the first extension direction, is at least as great as ten times, a width of the flow modification element.
Regarding claim 12, Upadhye further discloses a cross-section of the second line section in a plane transverse to the first extension direction is substantially as large as a cross-section of the flow modification element at a gas inlet side of the flow modification element adjoining the second line section, and/or has a rectangular shape (Figure 6, showing cross-section of the second line section being rectangular (reference annotated Figure 5 for interpretation of section line section)).
Regarding claim 13, Upadhye further discloses in a direction parallel to the plane of the build area (10), a width of at least a sub-section of the first line section adjoining the second line section is substantially equal to the width of the second line section, wherein the sub-section of the first line section comprises at least two thirds of a total extension of the first line section (reference annotated Figure 5 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
412
899
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 14, Upadhye further discloses in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the build area a height of the first line section decreases continuously or stepwise, and/or
wherein a height of the second line section in a direction perpendicular to the plane of the build area is substantially constant (reference annotated Figure 5, showing height of second line section being substantially constant).
Regarding claim 18, Upadhye teaches a flow method for generating a gas flow in a manufacturing device for additively manufacturing a three-dimensional object by selectively solidifying a building material layer by layer (Figure 1; paragraph 0025) in a build area within a process chamber (130) of the manufacturing device, the flow method comprising the following steps:
generating a gas flow at least within the process chamber (130) using a gas supply device (Figures 5-6, 10),
supplying the gas flow to the process chamber via a supply line (228, 240), and
introducing the gas flow from the supply line via a flow modification element (slots 252 of plate 250; paragraph 0077) into the process chamber (130),
wherein the supply line comprises at least a first line section which is spaced from the flow modification element (252) and which is formed substantially in an s-shape and/or z-shape (Figures 5-6, shows 240 being substantially s-shaped), and
the supply line comprises at least a second line section, which is provided directly adjoining the first line section and the flow modification element (252), respectively, and which extends along a first extension direction that is substantially parallel to a plane of the build area over a length that is at least as great as ten times a height of the second line section transverse to the first extension direction and substantially perpendicular to a plane of the build area (reference claim 9 rejection).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Nyrhila (US 2017/0216916 A1) discloses a flow device of an application device containing a nozzle, the nozzle comprising a plurality of channels which are separated by walls.
Wakelam (US 2020/0061655 A1) discloses a flow direction system for an additive manufacturing system.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Virak Nguon whose telephone number is (571)272-4196. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday (and alternate Fridays) 7:30-5:00.
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571-270-7001. 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.
/VIRAK NGUON/Examiner, Art Unit 1741 2/06/2026