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 Group I (claims 1-9) and Species A1 in the reply filed on August 17, 2026 is acknowledged. It is noted that claims 3 and 4 are directed to unelected Species A2 and claims 5 and 6 are directed to unelected Species A3.
Claims 3-6 and 10-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 17, 2026.
Claims 1, 2 and 7-9 will be examined on the merits.
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, 7 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by WO2019/206951A1 to Koscsak et al. (see translation provided by espacenet).
As to claim 1, Koscsak discloses a de-powdering system comprising: one or more sidewalls defining a support chamber configured to contain an additive manufacturing build, wherein the additive manufacturing build includes one or more objects disposed within a powder build material (see Koscsak Fig. 2 disclosing support chamber 24 that is configured to contain build 56); and a fluidization mechanism fluidically couplable to a fluid source and wherein the fluidization mechanism includes one or more flow channels fluidically coupled to the support chamber, and wherein the fluid source is actuatable to provide a fluid from the fluid source to the support chamber and inject the fluid into the support chamber via the one or more flow channels, the one or more flow channels oriented to introduce a swirling flow of the fluid into the support chamber to fluidize at least a portion of the powder build material within the support chamber (see Koscsak Fig. 2 disclosing a plurality of nozzles 112, 114 and corresponding lances 102, 104 that provide flow channels to provide fluid from a fluid source 130, 134 and said flow channels are oriented to introduce a swirling flow into the chamber – see Koscsak paragraphs [0080]-[0085]).
As to claim 7, Koscsak discloses that the one or more flow channels can comprise a plurality of concentrically located low channels (see Koscsak Figs. 7 and 8; paragraphs [0025]-[0026], [0032]).
As to claim 8, Koscsak discloses that at least one of the one or more flow channels comprise an inlet disposed in fluid communication with the fluid source; an outlet disposed in fluid communication with the support chamber and located downstream of the inlet; and a transition portion extending from the inlet to the outlet, wherein the transition portion changes an angular direction of a flow of the fluid through the at least one of the one or more flow channels (see Koscsak Figs. 2, 8 and 8 disclosing the inlet located at 130/132/134, the outlet 132, 114 located in the support chamber where the lance and nozzle has a transition portion that changes the angular direction of the fluid flow through the flow channels).
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/206951A1 to Koscsak et al. (see translation provided by espacenet) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2015/0258744 to Muller et al. and/or U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2004/0084814 to Boyd et al.
Koscsak is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 1.
As to claim 2, Koscsak does not explicitly disclose that the support chamber can include a wall defining a lower boundary of the support chamber and wherein the one or more flow channels extend through the wall. Both Muller and Boyd disclose that it is known in the art that a de-powdering chamber can include one or more flow channels that extend through a lower boundary of the support chamber (see Muller Figs. 1a, 1b and paragraph [0091] disclosing fluid injection nozzles 15 on the bottom wall of the support chamber; Boyd Figs. 5, 6A, 6B and paragraphs [0040]-[0042] disclosing air vents on the bottom wall of the support chamber). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to include one or more flow channels in a wall defining a lower boundary of the support chamber wherein the one or more flow channels extend through the wall as disclosed by Muller and/or Boyd in order to improve the air flow and removal of powder from the bottom of the build (see also MPEP 2144/04(VI)(C) where rearrangement of parts is prima facie obvious).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over WO2019/206951A1 to Koscsak et al. (see translation provided by espacenet) as applied to claim 8 above.
Koscsak is relied upon as discussed above with respect to the rejection of claim 8.
As to claim 9, Koscsak discloses that the outlet nozzle can both oscillate horizontally and pivot about the vertical axis (see Koscsak Figs. 8 and 10; paragraphs [0096]-[0100]). While Koscsak does not explicitly disclose that the outlet can be disposed between 5-15 degrees with respect to a side of a wall facing the support chamber, since the nozzle is movable both in the horizontal and vertical directions, it is reasonably expected that said nozzle is capable of being disposed between 5-15 degrees with respect to the side wall. Furthermore, selection of the angle is considered an obvious design choice to optimize fluid flow within the chamber.
Relevant Prior Art
The following is considered relevant prior art:
U.S. Patent App. Pub. No. 2021/0016508 to Parvin et al. Parvin discloses a de-powdering system comprising one or more sidewalls defining a support chamber and a fluidization mechanism fluidly coupled to a fluid source and wherein the fluidization mechanism includes one or more flow channels fluidically coupled to the support chamber and the fluid source is actuatable to provide a fluid from the fluid source to the support chamber via the flow channels (see Parvin Fig. 3 and 4 and paragraphs [0027]-[0032]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DOUGLAS LEE whose telephone number is (571)270-3296. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30-4:30pm.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at 571-272-1344. 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.
/DOUGLAS LEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1714
Prosecution Insights