FINISHING OF ADDITIVELY MANUFACTURED PARTS WITH SMOOTHING AND COLOR

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 . Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1-2 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abstreiter et al. (US 2021/0114304 A1). As to claim 1, Abstrieter teaches an apparatus for finishing a part produced by an additive manufacturing process (abstract), the apparatus comprising: a tank for holding solid media and into which the part can be smoothed to a desired smoothness by abrasion by the solid media (120 in Fig 2); a motor connected to the tank, wherein said motor is operable to impart motion to the tank and agitate the solid media therein (104/118/103 in Fig 2); and a source of colorant connected to the tank for dispensing the colorant to the solid media in the tank as the part is being smoothed. Abstrieter teaches treating the article with a functionalizing agent. This functionalizing agent can include powders/particles (solid media) in paras 0047 and 0148. The functionalizing agent can also include dyes and colorants in paras 0047 and 0146. The fan is connected to a motor that imparts motion to any solid media therein as shown in Figure 2. Abstrieter modifies the materials in its functionalizing agent in order to create different surfaces as desired (para 0146). Therefore, it would have been obvious to use the various functionalizing materials together, such as the particles and colorant, in Abstrieter as Abstrieter teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such and the selection is based on the desired aesthetic results. As to claim 2, the colorant composition is claimed. This constitutes an intended use of the apparatus, as it the composition of the colorant has no bearing on the structure of the apparatus. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). As to claims 7-8, in addition to what is taught above, the fan as shown will create a liquid vortex with the fan in Figure 2. The functionalizing agents may be in liquid form (abstract, para 0148). Claim(s) 3-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Abstreiter et al. (US 2021/0114304 A1) in view of Gibson (US 2019/0375009). Asbstreiter teaches the limitations of claims 3-6 as discussed above, including having sources of the functionalizing material above and below the platform with the object (Fig 1) and pumps (8, 112) and recirculating means (8, 104, para 0192- treatment agent is collected and reused). Abstreiter does not specifically teach that the dispensers 8 in Figure 1 are nozzles. Gibson teaches an apparatus for finishing a part produced by an additive manufacturing process (Figs 1,3-5 for example), the apparatus comprising: a chamber in which the part can be smoothed to a desired smoothness by a spray (para 0057, 0091 applied by nozzle 0091) of solid particles from nozzles located above the part (310 in Fig. 3); and a source of colorant connected to the chamber for dispensing the colorant to the part in the chamber (greater than one nozzle in paras 0089-0096, may include depositing an interface layer that includes color in para 0196). Thus, Gibson teaches using nozzles for its functional material. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Abstrieter to include nozzles as taught by Gibson as Gibson teaches the art recognized suitability and utility of such. Abstrieter teaches combinations of materials, which could broadly include entraining, or mixing them, and Gibson teaches the nozzles. However, using a liquid over a gas media has no bearing on the structure of the apparatus that requires a nozzle. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. It has been held that 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 satisfying the claimed structural limitations. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (1987). Conclusion Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 KELLY M GAMBETTA whose telephone number is (571)272-2668. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-5:30. 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, Gordon Baldwin can be reached at 571-272-5166. 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. KELLY M. GAMBETTA Primary Examiner Art Unit 1718 /KELLY M GAMBETTA/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1718