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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 47, 49, 52 and 54-57, in the reply filed on May 4, 2026 is acknowledged. Election was made with traverse in the reply filed on May 4, 2026.
Claims 62-67 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected group there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Applicant timely traversed the restriction (election) requirement in the reply filed on May 4, 2026.
In the response, it was argued the apparatus claims and the method claims are linked by a common inventive distal container and its configurations (see Response pages 8-9).
This argument is deemed unpersuasive. “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Therefore, unity of invention is based upon the structural limitations of the claimed device. Common inventive limitation may not be based upon the configurations and/or functional language of the claimed distal container.
Thus, the requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made final.
Claim Objection
Claims 1 and 47 recites “a distal container configured accommodate the…”. Applicant is encouraged to amend to recite “configured to”.
Claim Interpretation
Independent claims 1 and 47 as well as the dependent claims recite structural limitation(s) followed by the manner to operate said limitation with corresponding functional language. “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.”
The following claim interpretations are herein presented to clarify on the record the limitation(s) recited in each of the noted claims:
Independent claim 1 recites “[A] device for filtering debris”; “a distal container configured accommodate the debris filtered at a filtering container”, “device being configured to operatively couple with, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system configured for the three dimensional printing”. It is noted that debris, a filtering container and a three-dimensional printing system are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 2 recites “the debris is prone to harmfully react with one or more reactive agents present in the ambient atmosphere, when the debris is exposed to the ambient atmosphere without further treatment comprising passivation or insulation”. It is noted that one or more reactive agents and treatment comprising passivation or insulation are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 4 recites “a lid that comprises (a) gas inlet port, (b) gas outlet port, (c) one or more vents, (d) at least one inlet port for a quelling material, or (e) at least one outlet port for the quelling material and any quelling reaction product; wherein, the quelling material comprises (i) a passivating material or (ii) an insulating material; wherein the passivating material is configured to passivate the debris from reacting with a reactive agent present in the ambient atmosphere; and wherein the insulating material is configured to insulate the debris at least in part from contacting a reactive agent present in the ambient atmosphere”. It is noted that quelling material, quelling reaction product, passivating material or insulating material are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 6 recites “the distal container is configured to operatively couple to at least one sensor”. It is noted that at least one sensor is not an element of the claimed device.
Claim 8 recites “device is configured to facilitate connection and disconnection of the distal container from the filtering container during debris filtering at least in part by the distal container remaining coupled with a channel during its connecting to the filtering container and during its disconnecting from the filtering container; wherein the channel is disposed between the distal container and the filtering container; and optionally wherein the connection and/or disconnection is reversible”. It is noted that a channel and filtering container are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 9 recites “the device is configured to facilitate reversible connection and disconnection of the distal container from the filtering container during debris filtering at the filtering container and during accumulation of the debris and any dilutive media: (i) in the filtering container and/or (ii) in a collection container that is part of, or is operatively coupled with, the filtering container”. It is noted that debris, filtering container, dilutive media, collection container are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 10 recites “the device is configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container; and wherein (i) the device is configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device, (ii) the device is configured to operatively couple to, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system printing in an atmosphere that (A) comprises at least one reactive agent at a concentration lower than in the ambient atmosphere and (B) is at a pressure above ambient pressure of the ambient atmosphere external to the three-dimensional printer”. It is noted that the filtering container, a three- dimensional printing system printing and at least one reactive agent are not elements of the claimed device.
Independent claim 47 recites “device for filtering debris generated by three-dimensional printing, the device comprising a lid comprising: a first surface configured to being exposed to an ambient environment, the first surface comprising: a first inlet configured for receiving gas; a second inlet configured for receiving a quelling material comprising passivating material or an insulating material; a first outlet configured for expelling the gas; a second outlet configured for expelling the quelling material; and a third inlet configured for receiving the debris and any dilutive media, the device being configured to close an opening of the distal container configured accommodate the debris filtered at a filtering container, the lid being configured to reversibly engage and disengage with the filtering container during the filtering of the debris at the filtering container, the device being configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container, and wherein (i) the lid being configured to close the distal container such that the distal container closed by the lid is configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the distal container when closed by the lid, (ii) the lid being configured to operatively couple with, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system configured for the three dimensional printing, and (iii) the debris is a byproduct of the three-dimensional printing”. It is noted that gas, quelling material comprising passivating material or insulating material, debris, dilutive media, a distal container and a filtering container are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 49 recites “the lid is configured to engage with a channel having a proximal end and an opposing distal end, the proximal end of the channel being configured to couple with the filtering container, and the distal end of the channel being configured to couple with the distal container”. It is noted that a channel, the filtering container and the distal container are not elements of the claimed device. Claim 52 is similarly interpreted.
Claim 54 recites “the second outlet is operatively coupled with an overfill prevention pipe, the at least one outlet port being for a quelling material comprising (i) a passivator or (ii) an insulator”. It is noted that an overfill prevention pipe and a quelling material comprising (i) a passivator or (ii) an insulator are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 55 recites “the filtering container is configured to filter the debris by using (a) at least one filter disposed in the filtering container, (b) dilutive media disposed in the filtering container, and (c) gas flow in a first direction towards the filter during the filtering of the debris”. It is noted that the filtering container, at least one filter, dilutive medial and gas are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 56 recites “the lid is configured to operatively couple with, or include, at least one sensor indicative of (i) an amount of debris accumulating in the distal container and/or (ii) status of accumulation of material in the distal container, the material comprising the debris; and optionally wherein the lid is configured to operatively couple to at least one sensor indicating that (i) a volume of any free volume in the distal container, (ii) an amount of any material in the distal container, which material in the distal container comprises the debris and/or (iii) a weight of the distal container with any of the material”. It is noted that at least one sensor, debris, distal container and accumulation of material are not elements of the claimed device.
Claim 57 recites “the device is configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container closed by the lid, and wherein (i) the device is configured to enclose an internal atmosphere in the distal container closed by the lid, the internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device, and (ii) the device is configured to operatively couple to, or be a portion of, the three-dimensional printing system; and optionally wherein a printing atmosphere (A) comprises at least one reactive agent at a concentration that is lower than that in the ambient atmosphere and/or (B) is at a pressure above ambient pressure of the ambient atmosphere”. It is noted that debris, the filtering container, the distal container, three-dimensional printing system and at least one reactive agent are not elements of the claimed device.
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, 2, 4, 6, 8-10, 47, 49, 52 and 54-57 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.
Claim 1 recites “the device being configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how or what structural element achieves the functional language of “facilitate a flow of the debris”. Claim 1 recites “[A] device…comprising…a distal container….” It is unclear how a device comprising a container achieves the functional language of facilitating the flow of debris. Claims 8-10, 47 and 57 are deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claims 2, 4, 6, 49, 52 and 54-56 are also rejected by virtue of the claim dependency.
Claim 1 recites “the device being configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device”. Claim 1 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear how or what structural element achieves the functional language of “to enclose an internal atmosphere”. It is unclear how a device comprising a container achieves the functional language of enclosing. Claim 10 is deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claim 47 recites “[A] device … comprising a lid… the device being configured to close an opening of the distal container configured accommodate the debris filtered at a filtering container”. Claim 47 also recites “the lid being configured to close the distal container”. Claim 47 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if the claimed lid achieves 1) both functional limitations associated with the a) closing of an opening of the distal container, which the claimed device is configured to, and b) the closing of the distal container or if 2) there is an unclear or unknown relationship between the claimed device and the unclaimed distal container and/or filtering container limitation(s). Claim 57 is deemed indefinite for similar reasoning.
Claim 54 recites “the second outlet is operatively coupled with an overfill prevention pipe, the at least one outlet port being for a quelling material comprising (i) a passivator or (ii) an insulator”. 1) Claim 54 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if an overfill prevention pipe is a structural limitation of the claimed device. For the sake of compact prosecution, an overfill prevention pipe is understood as not being an element of the claimed device. 2) Claim 54 is deemed indefinite because it is unclear if “the at least one outlet port” is a new limitation, which is separate and distinct from the claimed second outlet, which is configured for expelling the quelling material, or is further defining another limitation of the claimed device. For the sake of compact prosecution, claim 54 understood as being open to any interpretation. 3) If ““the at least one outlet port” is a new limitation, it is noted that there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 55 is deemed indefinite because it is further defining a limitation of an unclaimed structural limitation.
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.
(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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) or (a)(2) as being anticipated by WO 2021/151938 (hereinafter WO 938) (WO 938 was filed on January 27, 2021 and was published on August 5, 2021. WO 938 is available as prior art under either 102(a)(1) or 102(a)(2).) (US 2023/0142672 is herein cited as the English language translation of WO 938 (hereinafter US 672)).
Regarding claim 1, US 672 discloses a device for filtering debris generated by three-dimensional printing (see US 672 figures 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10 and 14 – passivation device and claims 1 and 19), the device comprising: a distal container (see US 672 figures 1, 2, 4-6, 8-10 and 14 – reaction chamber or collecting container) configured accommodate the debris filtered at a filtering container, the distal container being configured to reversibly engage and disengage with the filtering container during the filtering of the debris at the filtering container, the device being configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container, and (i) the device being configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device, (ii) the device being configured to operatively couple with, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system configured for the three dimensional printing, and (iii) the debris being a byproduct of the three-dimensional printing.
As discussed above, “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Thus, the corresponding functional language of the claimed distal container does not further distinguish the claimed device from the corresponding structural limitation of the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, US 672 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 672 discloses the debris is prone to harmfully react with one or more reactive agents present in the ambient atmosphere, when the debris is exposed to the ambient atmosphere without further treatment comprising passivation or insulation; and wherein the debris comprises an elemental metal, or a metal alloy (see US 672 paragraphs 0003, 0006, 0017).
US 672 discloses a debris comprises an elemental metal, or a metal alloy that will necessarily result in the debris is prone to harmfully react with one or more reactive agents present in the ambient atmosphere, when the debris is exposed to the ambient atmosphere without further treatment comprising passivation or insulation. The material of US 672 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 4, US 672 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 672 discloses the distal container includes a lid that comprises (a) gas inlet port, (b) gas outlet port, (c) one or more vents, (d) at least one inlet port for a quelling material, or (e) at least one outlet port for the quelling material and any quelling reaction product; wherein, the quelling material comprises (i) a passivating material or (ii) an insulating material; wherein the passivating material is configured to passivate the debris from reacting with a reactive agent present in the ambient atmosphere; and wherein the insulating material is configured to insulate the debris at least in part from contacting a reactive agent present in the ambient atmosphere (see US 672 figures 8-10 and paragraphs 0010, 0024, 0052, 0072, 0179, 0208, 0216, 0220).
In US 672, it is understood that the reaction chamber is a lid. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, a lid is understood to be a cover for another element, such as a container. Herein, the reaction chamber covers the collecting container and therefore US 672 is deemed to disclose a lid. The reaction chamber comprises at least one inlet, at least on outlet and a valve system.
Regarding claim 6, US 672 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 672 discloses the distal container is configured to operatively couple to at least one sensor configured to sense (i) an amount of debris accumulating in the distal container and/or (ii) status of accumulation of material in the distal container, the material comprising the debris (see rejection of claim 1). It is noted that no structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language, i.e. sensor.
Regarding claim 8, US 672 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 672 discloses the device is configured to facilitate connection and disconnection of the distal container from the filtering container during debris filtering at least in part by the distal container remaining coupled with a channel during its connecting to the filtering container and during its disconnecting from the filtering container; wherein the channel is disposed between the distal container and the filtering container; and optionally wherein the connection and/or disconnection is reversible (see rejection of claim 1). It is noted that no structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 9, US 672 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 672 discloses the device is configured to facilitate reversible connection and disconnection of the distal container from the filtering container during debris filtering at the filtering container and during accumulation of the debris and any dilutive media: (i) in the filtering container and/or (ii) in a collection container that is part of, or is operatively coupled with, the filtering container (see rejection of claim 1). It is noted that no structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 10, US 672 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 672 discloses the device is configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container; and wherein (i) the device is configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device, (ii) the device is configured to operatively couple to, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system printing in an atmosphere that (A) comprises at least one reactive agent at a concentration lower than in the ambient atmosphere and (B) is at a pressure above ambient pressure of the ambient atmosphere external to the three-dimensional printer (see rejection of claim 1). It is noted that no corresponding structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 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 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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 6, 8-10, 47, 49, 52 and 54-57 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2018/0111319 (hereinafter US 319) in view of WO 2021/151681 (hereinafter WO 681) (US 2023/0079987 is herein cited as the English language translation of WO 681 (hereinafter US 987)).
Regarding claim 1, US 319 discloses a device for filtering debris generated by three-dimensional printing (see US 319 figures 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 26A-28 3D printing system with a recycling system; abstract, claim 13; paragraphs 0008-0011, 0224, 0228, 0242, 0263, 0267).
US 319 does not disclose a distal container configured accommodate the debris filtered at a filtering container, the distal container being configured to reversibly engage and disengage with the filtering container during the filtering of the debris at the filtering container, the device being configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container, and (i) the device being configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device, (ii) the device being configured to operatively couple with, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system configured for the three dimensional printing, and (iii) the debris being a byproduct of the three-dimensional printing.
US 987 discloses a system and method for the dry filtration of a gas flow carrying foreign objects in a filter device for cleaning off waste gas produced in additive manufacturing technologies (see US 987 abstract, claims 28, 38 and figures 1-4, 6-15, 19 & 20). US 987 discloses the system comprises a filter element/filter unit, a rection section/channel and a collecting container with a lid/docking plate (see US 987 claims 33 and 45; figures 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 19 & 20 and paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0006, 0007, 0009,0105-0110, 0117-0127). US 987 discloses the system comprises the collecting region/collecting container that is downstream of filtration system and that is capable of storing filtered material (see US 987 claims 33 and 45; figures 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 19 & 20 and paragraphs 0012, 0014-0017, 0038, 0048, 0069, 0079, 0080, 0108, 0115, 0117-0126). US 987 discloses the rection section comprises a valve system and inlet/outlet system (see US 987 figures 2, 6-10, 13, 15-20 and paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0076, 0130-0136, 0138, 0142, 0154). US 987 discloses the collecting container with a lid/docking plate, a valve system, has an inlet/outlet system for materials, i.e. feed, gas, air and an oxidant, a sensor system, and a lift/lowering device (see US 987 figures 4, 6-14 and paragraphs 0117-0126, 0133).
US 987 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. 3D printing system and/or filtration of used material from a 3D printing system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 319 by incorporating into the system the reaction section and a collecting container, as disclosed in US 987, to work in concert with the filtering element of US 319, because it would assist with preventing or suppressing fires due to the flammable foreign objects in the waste gas/debris formed from the additive manufacturing technologies/3D printing (see US 987 paragraphs 0003-0006); and/or because it would assist with filtering debris and/or waste gas produced in additive manufacturing technologies/3D printing, as disclosed in US 319 and US 987.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 319 by incorporating into the system the reaction section and a collecting container, as disclosed in US 987, to work in concert with the filtering element of US 319, because US 319 discloses a recycling system comprising a container and/or reservoir (see US 319 paragraphs 0242 and 0263) without clarifying the structural connections between the container/reservoir and the filter/funnel within the recycling system of US 319 and US 987 provides details about a filtering system comprising a collecting container. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the system of US 987 as a component of the recycling system of US 319. US 319 and US 987 share several features in common and US 987 provides further details about the structural components of said filtering system of the recycling system of US 319.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 319 by incorporating into the system the reaction section and a collecting container, as disclosed in US 987, to work in concert with the filtering element of US 319, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filter and/or store material.
Hence, US 319 in view of US 987 is deemed to disclose a device for filtering debris generated by three-dimensional printing, the device comprising: a distal container configured accommodate the debris filtered at a filtering container, the distal container being configured to reversibly engage and disengage with the filtering container during the filtering of the debris at the filtering container, the device being configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container, and (i) the device being configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device, (ii) the device being configured to operatively couple with, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system configured for the three dimensional printing, and (iii) the debris being a byproduct of the three-dimensional printing.
As discussed above, “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Thus, the corresponding functional language of the claimed distal container does not further distinguish the claimed device from the corresponding structural limitation of the prior art.
Regarding claim 2, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the debris is prone to harmfully react with one or more reactive agents present in the ambient atmosphere, when the debris is exposed to the ambient atmosphere without further treatment comprising passivation or insulation; and wherein the debris comprises an elemental metal, or a metal alloy (see US 319 paragraphs 0003, 0005, 0093, 0170, 0172-0173, 0175-0177).
US 319 in view of US 987 discloses a debris comprises an elemental metal, or a metal alloy that will necessarily result in the debris is prone to harmfully react with one or more reactive agents present in the ambient atmosphere, when the debris is exposed to the ambient atmosphere without further treatment comprising passivation or insulation. The material of US 319 in view of US 987 appears to be substantially identical to the claimed material and thus inherently would possess the claimed functional properties—unless these properties arise from features not yet claimed. “There is no requirement that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized the inherent disclosure at the time of invention, but only that the subject matter is in fact inherent in the prior art reference.” See MPEP 2112, II.
Regarding claim 4, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the distal container includes a lid that comprises (a) gas inlet port, (b) gas outlet port, (c) one or more vents, (d) at least one inlet port for a quelling material, or (e) at least one outlet port for the quelling material and any quelling reaction product; wherein, the quelling material comprises (i) a passivating material or (ii) an insulating material; wherein the passivating material is configured to passivate the debris from reacting with a reactive agent present in the ambient atmosphere; and wherein the insulating material is configured to insulate the debris at least in part from contacting a reactive agent present in the ambient atmosphere (see rejection of claim 1; see US 987 figures 4, 6-14 collecting container with a lid/docking plate an inlet/outlet system for a feed line, a gas supply line , an air supply line and an oxidant line, a valve system, a sensor system for sensing filling level and pressure, and a lift/lowering device (see US 987 figures 4, 6-14 and paragraphs 0117-0126, 0133). It is noted that no structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language, i.e. passivating material or insulating material.
Regarding claim 6, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the distal container is configured to operatively couple to at least one sensor configured to sense (i) an amount of debris accumulating in the distal container and/or (ii) status of accumulation of material in the distal container, the material comprising the debris (see rejection of claim 1). It is noted that no structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language, i.e. sensor.
Regarding claim 8, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the device is configured to facilitate connection and disconnection of the distal container from the filtering container during debris filtering at least in part by the distal container remaining coupled with a channel during its connecting to the filtering container and during its disconnecting from the filtering container; wherein the channel is disposed between the distal container and the filtering container; and optionally wherein the connection and/or disconnection is reversible (see rejection of claim 1). It is noted that no structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 9, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 672 discloses the device is configured to facilitate reversible connection and disconnection of the distal container from the filtering container during debris filtering at the filtering container and during accumulation of the debris and any dilutive media: (i) in the filtering container and/or (ii) in a collection container that is part of, or is operatively coupled with, the filtering container (see rejection of claim 1). It is noted that no structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 10, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the device is configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container; and wherein (i) the device is configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device, (ii) the device is configured to operatively couple to, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system printing in an atmosphere that (A) comprises at least one reactive agent at a concentration lower than in the ambient atmosphere and (B) is at a pressure above ambient pressure of the ambient atmosphere external to the three-dimensional printer (see rejection of claim 1). It is noted that no corresponding structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 47, US 319 discloses a device for filtering debris generated by three-dimensional printing (see US 319 figures 11, 13, 15, 17, 24, 26A-28 3D printing system with a recycling system; abstract, claim 13; paragraphs 0008-0011, 0224, 0228, 0242, 0263, 0267).
US 319 does not disclose a lid comprising: a first surface configured to being exposed to an ambient environment, the first surface comprising: a first inlet configured for receiving gas; a second inlet configured for receiving a quelling material comprising passivating material or an insulating material; a first outlet configured for expelling the gas; a second outlet configured for expelling the quelling material; and a third inlet configured for receiving the debris and any dilutive media, the device being configured to close an opening of the distal container configured accommodate the debris filtered at a filtering container, the lid being configured to reversibly engage and disengage with the filtering container during the filtering of the debris at the filtering container, the device being configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container, and wherein (i) the lid being configured to close the distal container such that the distal container closed by the lid is configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the distal container when closed by the lid, (ii) the lid being configured to operatively couple with, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system configured for the three dimensional printing, and (iii) the debris is a byproduct of the three-dimensional printing.
US 987 discloses a system and method for the dry filtration of a gas flow carrying foreign objects in a filter device for cleaning off waste gas produced in additive manufacturing technologies (see US 987 abstract, claims 28, 38 and figures 1-4, 6-15, 19 & 20). US 987 discloses the system comprises a filter element/filter unit, a rection section/channel and a collecting container with a lid/docking plate (see US 987 claims 33 and 45; figures 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 19 & 20 and paragraphs 0003, 0004, 0006, 0007, 0009,0105-0110, 0117-0127). US 987 discloses the system comprises the collecting region/collecting container that is downstream of filtration system and that is capable of storing filtered material (see US 987 claims 33 and 45; figures 1, 2, 4, 6-15, 19 & 20 and paragraphs 0012, 0014-0017, 0038, 0048, 0069, 0079, 0080, 0108, 0115, 0117-0126). US 987 discloses the rection section comprises a valve system and inlet/outlet system (see US 987 figures 2, 6-10, 13, 15-20 and paragraphs 0037, 0038, 0076, 0130-0136, 0138, 0142, 0154). US 987 discloses the collecting container with a lid/docking plate, a valve system, has an inlet/outlet system for materials, i.e. feed, gas, air and an oxidant, a sensor system, and a lift/lowering device (see US 987 figures 4, 6-14 and paragraphs 0117-0126, 0133).
US 987 is considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because it is in the same field of endeavor, i.e. 3D printing system and/or filtration of used material from a 3D printing system.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 319 by incorporating into the system the reaction section and a collecting container, as disclosed in US 987, to work in concert with the filtering element of US 319, because it would assist with preventing or suppressing fires due to the flammable foreign objects in the waste gas/debris formed from the additive manufacturing technologies/3D printing (see US 987 paragraphs 0003-0006); and/or because it would assist with filtering debris and/or waste gas produced in additive manufacturing technologies/3D printing, as disclosed in US 319 and US 987.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 319 by incorporating into the system the reaction section and a collecting container, as disclosed in US 987, to work in concert with the filtering element of US 319, because US 319 discloses a recycling system comprising a container and/or reservoir (see US 319 paragraphs 0242 and 0263) without clarifying the structural connections between the container/reservoir and the filter/funnel within the recycling system of US 319 and US 987 provides details about a filtering system comprising a collecting container. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the system of US 987 as a component of the recycling system of US 319. US 319 and US 987 share several features in common and US 987 provides further details about the structural components of said filtering system of the recycling system of US 319.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the system of US 319 by incorporating into the system the reaction section and a collecting container, as disclosed in US 987, to work in concert with the filtering element of US 319, and reasonably expect the resulting apparatus to work as the prior art intended, i.e. filter and/or store material.
Hence, US 319 in view of US 987 is deemed to disclose a device for filtering debris generated by three-dimensional printing, the device comprising a lid comprising: a first surface configured to being exposed to an ambient environment, the first surface comprising: a first inlet configured for receiving gas; a second inlet configured for receiving a quelling material comprising passivating material or an insulating material; a first outlet configured for expelling the gas; a second outlet configured for expelling the quelling material; and a third inlet configured for receiving the debris and any dilutive media, the device being configured to close an opening of the distal container configured accommodate the debris filtered at a filtering container, the lid being configured to reversibly engage and disengage with the filtering container during the filtering of the debris at the filtering container, the device being configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container, and wherein (i) the lid being configured to close the distal container such that the distal container closed by the lid is configured to enclose an internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the distal container when closed by the lid, (ii) the lid being configured to operatively couple with, or be a portion of, a three- dimensional printing system configured for the three dimensional printing, and (iii) the debris is a byproduct of the three-dimensional printing.
As discussed above, “it is noted that neither the manner of operating a disclosed device nor material or article worked upon further limit an apparatus claim. Said limitations do not differentiate apparatus claims from prior art. See MPEP § 2114 and 2115. See Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App & Inter. 1987) that states a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.” Thus, the corresponding functional language of the claimed distal container does not further distinguish the claimed device from the corresponding structural limitation of the prior art.
Regarding claim 49, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the lid is configured to engage with a channel having a proximal end and an opposing distal end, the proximal end of the channel being configured to couple with the filtering container, and the distal end of the channel being configured to couple with the distal container (see rejection of claim 47). It is noted that no corresponding structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 52, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the lid is configured to reversibly engage and disengage with a channel disposed between (i) the distal container and (ii) the lid of the filtering container closed by the lid (see rejection of claim 47). It is noted that no corresponding structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 54, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the second outlet is operatively coupled with an overfill prevention pipe, the at least one outlet port being for a quelling material comprising (i) a passivator or (ii) an insulator (see rejection of claim 47). It is noted that no corresponding structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 55, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the filtering container is configured to filter the debris by using (a) at least one filter disposed in the filtering container, (b) dilutive media disposed in the filtering container, and (c) gas flow in a first direction towards the filter during the filtering of the debris (see rejection of claim 47). It is noted that no corresponding structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 56, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the lid is configured to operatively couple with, or include, at least one sensor indicative of (i) an amount of debris accumulating in the distal container and/or (ii) status of accumulation of material in the distal container, the material comprising the debris; and optionally wherein the lid is configured to operatively couple to at least one sensor indicating that (i) a volume of any free volume in the distal container, (ii) an amount of any material in the distal container, which material in the distal container comprises the debris and/or (iii) a weight of the distal container with any of the material (see rejection of claim 47). It is noted that no corresponding structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Regarding claim 57, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the invention as discussed above in claim 1. Further, US 319 in view of US 987 discloses the device is configured to facilitate a flow of the debris from the filtering container to the distal container closed by the lid, and wherein (i) the device is configured to enclose an internal atmosphere in the distal container closed by the lid, the internal atmosphere having at least one characteristic different from an ambient atmosphere external to the device, and (ii) the device is configured to operatively couple to, or be a portion of, the three-dimensional printing system; and optionally wherein a printing atmosphere (A) comprises at least one reactive agent at a concentration that is lower than that in the ambient atmosphere and/or (B) is at a pressure above ambient pressure of the ambient atmosphere (see rejection of claim 47). It is noted that no corresponding structure has been claimed to operate the corresponding functional language.
Other Applicable Prior Art
All other art cited not detailed above in a rejection is considered relevant to at least some portion or feature of the current application and is cited for possible future use for reference. Applicant may find it useful to be familiar with all cited art for possible future rejections or discussion.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BERNADETTE K MCGANN whose telephone number is (571)272-5367. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:00 am -3:30 pm (EST).
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, Ben Lebron can be reached on 571-272-0475. 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.
/BERNADETTE KAREN MCGANN/Examiner, Art Unit 1773
/JOSEPH W DRODGE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1773
Prosecution Insights