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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Claims 1-8 in the reply filed on 2/11/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
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)(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.
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Gibson (US 2019/0375009).
As to claim 1, Gibson teaches an apparatus for finishing a part produced by an additive manufacturing process (Figs 1,3-5 for example), the apparatus comprising: a tank into which the part can be smoothed to a desired smoothness by abrasion by solid media (para 0057, 0091 applied by nozzle 0091); and a source of colorant connected to the tank for dispensing the colorant to the solid media in the tank (greater than one nozzle in paras 0089-0096, may include depositing an interface layer that includes color in para 0196). In addition to it being a matter of anticipation for the nozzles to be used in the claimed manner, it is also obvious to combine the nozzles and functions of nozzles as taught by Gibson.
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 claim 3, 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). In addition to it being a matter of anticipation for the nozzles to be used in the claimed manner, it is also obvious to combine the nozzles and functions of nozzles as taught by Gibson.
Gibson teaches that its abrasive media is dry ice particles in a gaseous fluid, not a liquid fluid (para 0057). However, using a liquid over a gas media has no bearing on the structure of the apparatus that requires a nozzle, which Gibson includes (para 0093, for example). 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 claim 4, 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).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 2019/0375009).
As to claim 5, 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) 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). In addition to it being a matter of anticipation for the nozzles to be used in the claimed manner, it is also obvious to combine the nozzles and functions of nozzles as taught by Gibson.
Further, Gibson teaches that its nozzles may be moved by computer to wherever is suitable, including above or below the part in para 0098, 0104 for example. Thus, it would be obvious to move the location of the nozzle to where it is desired in Gibson for optimal processing. It has been held that rearranging parts of an invention only involves routine skill in the art. In re Japikse, 86 USPQ 70.
Gibson does not teach that its abrasive material is a liquid (para 0057). However, using a liquid over a gas media has no bearing on the structure of the apparatus that requires a nozzle (para 0093, for example), which Gibson includes. 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 claim 6, 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).
Claim(s) 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gibson (US 2019/0375009) in view of Hocker (US 2017/0259507 A1)
As to claim 7, Gibson teaches an apparatus for finishing a part produced by an additive manufacturing process (Figs 1,3-5 for example), the apparatus comprising: a tank into which the part can be smoothed to a desired smoothness by abrasion by solid media (para 0057, 0091 applied by nozzle 0091); and a source of colorant connected to the tank for dispensing the colorant to the solid media in the tank (greater than one nozzle in paras 0089-0096, may include depositing an interface layer that includes color in para 0196). In addition to it being a matter of anticipation for the nozzles to be used in the claimed manner, it is also obvious to combine the nozzles and functions of nozzles as taught by Gibson.
Gibson does not teach that the smoothness is achieved via a liquid vortex. Hocker teaches that nozzles or baths are used to disperse material used to treat the part in paras 0034, 0082-0088 and as shown in Fig. 7A-7B. These materials include high pressure particles that will abrade among other uses in this section. The tank used also may be considered a vortex in para 0083 as it may be liquid, and agitated to optimize contact between the material and the part, thus the type of agitation and its shape (vortex) is result effective. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify Gibson to include a liquid vortex apparatus as taught by Hocker in order to optimize contact between the part and the abrasive media.
As to claim 8, 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).
Conclusion
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