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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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.
Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hübinger (EP-3321003) in view of Beckers (EP-1600819), using the applicant provided original documents.
Regarding claim 1, Hübinger teaches:
A device for additive manufacture of a workpiece, the device comprising:
a process chamber for constructing the workpiece ([0042]; Fig. 1, #10);
a gas inlet for introducing an inert gas into the process chamber ([0042] – [0049]; Fig. 1, #26, #30, and #36); and
a gas outlet from the process chamber for discharging the inert gas ([0048] and [0058]; Fig. 1, #34 and #48); wherein the gas inlet has a fluidizing cushion ([0050] – [0056]; Fig. 3, #56),
wherein the fluidizing cushion is arranged in order to achieve a uniform gas flow ([0014], [0050], and [0062]).
Hübinger does not teach:
wherein the fluidizing cushion comprises a plate with a plurality of grilles arranged one behind the other in a flow direction.
However, Beckers, in a similar field of endeavor, a device for additive manufacturing of a workpiece using gas, teaches:
wherein the fluidizing cushion comprises a plate with a plurality of grilles arranged one behind the other in a flow direction ([0001] – [0002], [0020] – [0022], [0028] – [0031], [0047], [0055], and [0066]; Figs. 5-7 and 12D).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the fluidizing cushion of Hübinger to incorporate the teachings of Beckers and make it include a plate with a plurality of grilles arranged one behind the other. The purpose, as stated by Beckers, being for homogenising the velocity of the gas flow over an inner cross section of the gas outlet ([0055]).
Regarding claim 2, Hübinger in view of Beckers teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
wherein the gas inlet is Y-shaped, wherein a trunk of the Y-shape opens directly or indirectly into the process chamber, and wherein the fluidizing cushion is arranged on a first branch of the Y-shape, so that a flow of the inert gas is capable of being introduced into the process chamber via the trunk of the Y-shape ([0046] – [0048], [0056], and [0061] – [0062]); Fig. 3, #30, #46, and #56).
Regarding claim 3, Hübinger in view of Beckers teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
further comprising a pump, wherein a second branch of the Y-shape is connected to the pump, wherein the pump is connected at another end to the gas outlet of the process chamber, so that the inert gas is capable of being sucked out of the gas outlet and the flow of the inert gas is capable of being introduced into the process chamber via the pump and the trunk of the Y-shape. While Hübinger does not explicitly mention a pump in the other branch of the Y-shape (Fig. 3, #34), it does describe the same use of sucking out the inert gas and introducing it into the process chamber due to the Y-shape ([0048]). It is implied that a pump would have to be used in order to move the inert gas throughout this process as described by Hübinger. Therefore, Hübinger teaches the limitation of this claim in the absence of a persuasive argument showing otherwise by the applicant.
Regarding claim 4, Hübinger in view of Beckers teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 4 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
wherein the gas inlet and the gas outlet are arranged opposite one another, and wherein the additive manufacture of the workpiece takes place between the gas inlet and the gas outlet (Figs. 1 and 3).
Regarding claim 5, Hübinger in view of Beckers teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 5 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
further comprising a further fluidizing cushion for introducing a flow of the inert gas into the process chamber, wherein the further fluidizing cushion is arranged on a first chamber wall of the process chamber, wherein the further fluidizing cushion comprises a second plate with a plurality of grilles arranged one behind the other in a second flow direction; and
a further gas outlet arranged in the process chamber opposite the further fluidizing cushion, so that the inert gas is capable of flowing from the further fluidizing cushion through the process chamber and out of the further gas outlet.
While Hübinger does not explicitly describe the exact limitations of this claim, it does state a similar layout with the same purpose ([0024]) and that “the gas inlet may further comprise portions which may be arranged in a region of further side walls and/or the top wall of the process chamber in order to still further increase the gas inlet area.” Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a further fluidizing cushion and further gas outlet as described in the claim limitations when looking at Hübinger using a duplication of parts, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
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.
Regarding claim 6, Hübinger in view of Beckers teaches the limitations of claim 5, which claim 6 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
wherein the further fluidizing cushion covers the first chamber wall. See the rejection of claim 5 above ([0024] – [0025]).
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.
Regarding claim 7, Hübinger in view of Beckers teaches the limitations of claim 5, which claim 7 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
wherein a plurality of further fluidizing cushions is provided, wherein each of the plurality of further fluidizing cushions comprises a respective second plate with a plurality of grilles arranged one behind the other in the second flow direction, wherein the plates cover the first chamber wall. See the rejection of claim 5 above ([0024] – [0025]).
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.
Regarding claim 8, Hübinger in view of Beckers teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 8 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
wherein the device is configured for the additive manufacturing of the workpiece in a powder bed ([0014] and [0027]).
Claims 9-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hübinger (EP-3321003) in view of Beckers (EP-1600819) and Neuner (EP-3766604), using the applicant provided original documents.
Regarding claim 9, Hübinger in view of Beckers teaches:
A method for rendering inert a device according to claim 1, see the rejection of claim 1 above.
Neuner, in a similar field of endeavor, a method of additive manufacturing a workpiece using gas, teaches:
the method comprising:
A1) introducing a flow of the inert gas into the process chamber via the fluidizing cushion, and discharging the inert gas from the process chamber via the gas outlet, while no additive manufacture of the workpiece takes place ([0014] – [0021], [0028] – [0034], and [0042] – [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Hübinger in view of Beckers to incorporate the teachings of Neuner and include a step of introducing a flow of the inert gas into the process chamber via the fluidizing cushion, and discharging the inert gas from the process chamber via the gas outlet. The purpose, as stated by Neuner, being the flow rate shall be adjusted in a way that a laminar flow is generated and turbulences are avoided ([0034]).
Regarding claim 10, Hübinger in view of Beckers and Neuner teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 10 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
wherein the device further comprises a pump, the method further comprising:
B) switching on the pump and starting the additive manufacture of the workpiece ([0046]).
Regarding claim 11, Hübinger in view of Beckers and Neuner teaches the limitations of claim 10, which claim 11 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
wherein in step B, no introduction of the flow of the inert gas via the fluidizing cushion takes place ([0046] – [0050]).
Regarding claim 12, Hübinger in view of Beckers and Neuner teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 12 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
further fluidizing cushion for introducing a flow of the inert gas into the process chamber, wherein the further fluidizing cushion is arranged on a first chamber wall of the process chamber, wherein the further fluidizing cushion comprises a second plate with a plurality of grilles arranged one behind the other in a second flow direction; and
a further gas outlet arranged in the process chamber opposite the further fluidizing cushion, so that the inert gas is capable of flowing from the further fluidizing cushion through the process chamber and out of the further gas outlet;
While Hübinger does not explicitly describe the exact limitations of this claim, it does state a similar layout with the same purpose ([0024]) and that “the gas inlet may further comprise portions which may be arranged in a region of further side walls and/or the top wall of the process chamber in order to still further increase the gas inlet area.” Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing the invention to include a further fluidizing cushion and further gas outlet as described in the claim limitations when looking at Hübinger using a duplication of parts, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results or criticality.
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.
Neuner further teaches:
A2) introducing a second flow of the inert gas into the process chamber via the further fluidizing cushion, and discharging the inert gas from the process chamber via the further gas outlet, while no introduction of the flow of the inert gas via the fluidizing cushion and no additive manufacture of the workpiece take place, wherein step A2 is carried out before or after step A1 ([0014] – [0021], [0028] – [0034], and [0042] – [0045]). This limitation would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when considering the modification of Hübinger above and further in view of Neuner.
Regarding claim 13, Hübinger in view of Beckers and Neuner teaches the limitations of claim 9, which claim 13 depends on. Hübinger further teaches:
wherein the insert gas comprises a noble gas and/or nitrogen ([0011]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights