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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 31, 40, and 60 are amended. Claims 32-39 and 61-62 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 31-40 and 60-62 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 16, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 11-15, filed 10/16/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 31-40 and 60-62 under U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of applicant’s amendment regarding the addition of a media driver that uses the rotational energy of the spindle and newly found prior art regarding those features.
Regarding applicant’s argument that Kandasamy does not use the rotational energy of the spindle through the friction stir tool, it is the Examiner’s position that this argument is persuasive. However, the friction stir tool indirectly uses the spindle’s rotational energy in order to deliver media onto the workpiece, where the spindle’s relative rotation allows for the media to contact the friction stir tool.
Claim 31 currently does not distinguish whether the rotational energy of the spindle is directly or indirectly applied to the media driver and it is for this reason that the Examiner believes that Kandasamy still meets the newly added limitations.
However, in the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner presents Coates et al. (WO 2015189600 A2), which includes a media driver directly in contact with the spindle’s rotational energy. It is the Examiner’s position that this reference is past the one year grace period and thus qualifies as prior art.
Examiner acknowledges the Affidavit filed on 03/03/2025 that disqualifies the Coates reference from 2017 as being prior art.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. GB1704565.9, filed on 03/22/2017.
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.
Claims 31-32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt et al. (WO 2015127271 A1, hereinafter Hyatt) in view of Endo et al. (KR 20030031844 A, hereinafter Endo) and Kandasamy et al. (US 20160175982 A1, hereinafter Kandasamy) and Coates et al. (WO 2015189600 A2, hereinafter Coates).
Regarding claim 31, Hyatt discloses a machine tool comprising (Claim 11, “A machine tool for use with a feed powder/propellant supply and a fabrication energy supply…”):
a processing head to perform additive manufacturing through delivery of (Para. 0062, “…a processing head assembly 219 having an upper processing head 219a and a lower processing head 219b….”, and Para. 0070, “With the processing head assembly 219 having the upper processing head 219a configured to selectively couple with any one of several lower processing heads 219b, the computer numerically controlled machine 100 may be quickly and easily reconfigured for different additive manufacturing techniques.”) a processable media onto a workpiece (Para. 0062, “…lower processing head 291b may be…different shapes and/or densities of the fabrication energy beam 202 and/or feed power/propellant gas mixture 212…”, where the lower processing head is part of the material deposition assembly and allows for the fabrication energy beam to pass onto the workpiece; where processable media is also supplied to the processing head, Para. 0066, “The powder/propellant chamber 274 fluidly communicates with the feed powder/propellant interface 252 at one end and terminates at an opposite end in a nozzle exit orifice 276.”);
a machine tool body comprising:
a spindle (Para. 0070, “the tool changer 143 may be used to quickly and easily change the particular deposition head coupled to the spindle 144.”);
a clamping mechanism configured to temporarily receive the processing head (Para. 0065, “The base 242 is configured to closely fit inside the socket 232 to permit releasable engagement between the lower processing head 219b and the upper processing head 219a.”) and enable the spindle to engage with the processing head (Fig. 14, where the clamping mechanism of the socket 232 allows the head 242 to be inserted into the spindle 144); and
a stop block comprising: a first manifold arranged to deliver the processable media to the processing head, (Para. 0064, “…feed powder/propellant port 220, shield gas port 222, and coolant port 224 are disposed adjacent the socket 232.”, where in Fig. 14, the three ports are contained on a black outlined box structure that is construed as the stop block), wherein the processing head can use rotational energy of the spindle to deliver the processable media onto the workpiece (Para. 0058, “tool retainer 106 may be rotated about a B-axis of the spindle 144 upon which it is supported, while the spindle 144 itself may be movable along an X-axis, a Y-axis and a Z-axis.”, where the spindle is capable of rotating, where movement of the spindle occurs when delivery processable media onto the workpiece),
wherein the processing head comprises: an internal chamber (Para. 0067, “As best shown in FIG. 16, the inner nozzle wall 272 defines a central chamber 280 having a fabrication energy outlet 282”);
a second manifold arranged to engage with the first manifold when the processing head is connected (Para. 0065, “The lower processing head 219b may further include a feed powder/propellant interface 252, a shield gas interface 254, and a coolant interface 256 configured to operatively couple with the feed powder/propellant port 220, shield gas port 222, and coolant port 224, respectively.”, where the three piping system 252, 254, and 256 are considered a manifold that connects the processing head to the stop block, where the definition of a manifold is, “a pipe or chamber branching into several openings”, https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/manifold),
wherein the processing head is to receive the processable media from the machine tool body through the second manifold when engaged with the first manifold (Processable media is also supplied to the processing head, Para. 0066, “The powder/propellant chamber 274 fluidly communicates with the feed powder/propellant interface 252 at one end and terminates at an opposite end in a nozzle exit orifice 276.”, where the processable media/energy is supplied via the first manifold, Para. 0063, “…the upper processing head 219a may include the spindle 144. A plurality of ports may be coupled to the spindle 144 and are configured to interface with the lower processing head 219b when connected.”, where the processable media like the feed powder comes from the first manifold port 220 and enters the second manifold port 252 when the two manifolds are coupled together as stated above, where the spindle ports connect to the lower processing head) and direct the processable media into the internal chamber (Para. 0067, “As best shown in FIG. 16, the inner nozzle wall 272 defines a central chamber 280 having a fabrication energy outlet 282 aligned with the optic chamber 244 and the optional focusing optic 250. Accordingly, the nozzle 246 permits the beam of fabrication energy to pass through the nozzle 246 to exit the lower processing head 219b.”).
Hyatt does not disclose:
an anti-rotation arm, wherein the anti-rotation arm extends outward from the processing head and is configured to connected to the stop block and prevent rotation of a portion of the processing head; and
a second manifold appended to the anti-rotation arm to connect the first manifold when the anti-rotation arm is connected to the stop block;
wherein the processing head comprises: a media driver within the internal chamber, wherein the media driver is to use rotational energy of the spindle to deliver the processable media onto the workpiece, where processable media is directed into the chamber while the rotational energy of the spindle is applied to the media driver.
However, Endo discloses, in the similar field of machine tools (Page 13, last Para., “…a machine tool…”), discloses where a side arm attached to a processing head can be an anti-rotation arm (Page 8, Para. 2-3, “On the outer circumference of the case member 66, a rotation preventing portion 85 is provided. The anti-rotation part 85 is fitted to the non-rotation part 47, such as the ram 45, by the mounting part 62 on the inclined sleeve 46a of the main shaft 46. The tip 85a is inserted into the hole 47a.”), where the anti-rotation arm similarly contains conduit channels that carry coolant (Page 12, Para. 2, “…the case member 66 is connectable to the flow path 103 formed in the rotation preventing portion 85, the flow path 104 is formed in the center direction of the tool 601 is formed, the case member 68 It is connected to the cooling groove 107.”, and Page 12, Para. 7, “…the coolant 101 flowing from the non-rotating portion 47 flows through the flow paths 102 and 103 of the fitted anti-rotation part 85 and passes through the flow path 104 of the case member 66, thereby preventing the coolant 101 from flowing through the case member 68. Flows to the cooling groove 107 formed on the outside to cool the outside of the generator (70).”), where there is a second manifold within the anti-rotation arm that connects to a first manifold for delivering the coolant when the anti-rotation arm is connected to the stop block (Fig. 4, the second manifold is 103 in the anti-rotation arm, where the first manifold is 101 in the non-rotation part 47 of the machine tool, where 47 would be the stop block; when the anti-rotation arm is connected to the stop block, the two manifolds are aligned to allow for media to flow). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the side arm carrying laser energy in Hyatt to be an anti-rotation arm that similarly carries a substance as taught by Endo.
Examiner notes that Hyatt shows that both energy delivery and coolant supplies can be located together on a side surface, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that similar placement of the embedded conduit channels of Endo could be combined to include the three conduit channels from Hyatt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of ensuring that the processing head is aligned properly with the main body, where anti-rotation can prevent improper positioning, as stated by Endo, Page 4, Para. 3, “…holding the mounting portion to be freely rotated, is provided in this case standing fitted in non-rotary part in the vicinity of the spindle anti-rotation for regulating the rotation and wherein the align unit.”.
Further, Kandasamy discloses, in the similar field of spindles that deliver processable media (Para. 0006, “coating material, such as a metal alloy, is fed through a rotating spindle or tool to the substrate surface.”), where the processing device includes a media driver within an internal chamber, where the media driver uses the rotational energy of the spindle to deliver processable media onto the a workpiece (Par. 0060, “In such an embodiment, the spindle is spinning at a desired rotational velocity and the auger screw is driven at a different rotational speed in the same rotational direction which acts to force material out of the spindle…What is important is that there is relative rotation between the spindle and auger to cause filler material to be forced through the throat of the tool.”, where the media driver is the auger, where the relative motion between the spindle and auger causes the processable media to be delivered, where the auger indirect uses the energy from the spindle), where processable media is directed into the chamber when the rotational energy of the spindle is applied to the media driver (Para. 0051, “using a "push" method, where a rotating-plunging tool, e.g., auger, pushes the filler material through the rotating tool, such as a spindle. Feed material can be introduced to the tool in various ways, including by providing an infinite amount of filler material into the tool body from a refillable container in operable communication with the tool.”, where the chamber receives more processable media when the spindle is rotating as media would be stuck within the chamber and not flow without the rotational energy of the spindle being applied to the auger). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the spindle in modified Hyatt to include the spindle rotation interacting with an auger in being able to deliver processable media as taught by Kandasamy.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage a rotating spindle allowing for frictional heating to be imparted to the feed powder, which can assist creating a bond between the substrate and feed powder, as stated by Kandasamy, Para. 0058, “The filler material (for example, powder or solid feedstock) can be fed through the rotating spindle where frictional heating occurs at the filler/substrate interface due to the rotational motion of the filler and the downward force applied. The frictional and adiabatic heating that occurs at the interface acts to plasticize the substrate and filler material at the interface resulting in a metallurgical bond between the substrate and filler.”.
Additionally, Coates discloses, in the similar field of processing heads with spindles (Page 10, Para. 2 from end, “Typically a processing head may be connected to a spindle on the machine tool.”), where a media driver is located within an internal chamber of the processing head (Page 33, Para. 2 from end, “A screw 4412 connected to the tool holder 4402 rotates within a bore 4414 of the head to move injection moulding pellets 4416 from the media feed 4418 towards the nozzle.”, where the screw is the media driver), where the media driver uses the rotational energy of the spindle in order to deliver the processable media onto the workpiece (Page 30, last Para., “Some embodiments may use the spindle rotation (of the machine tool) to directly control the amount of material extruded. For example in the processing-head 1200 of the Figure being described which uses a syringe-based deposition, the plunger or other means for causing displacement in the syringe 1202 is coupled to the spindle with the tool holder and thereby commands to control the spindle motion changes the displacement which controls the deposition rate.”, and Page 31, Para. 1, “The energy to rotate the screws may come directly from the spindle rotation.”), where the processable media is directed into the chamber while the rotational energy of the spindle is applied to the media driver (Page 31, Para. 2, “In one embodiment, the processing head is arranged to sense the spindle speed of the machine tool to which it is attached and to use that spindle speed to control the mechanical means within the head. For example a transition from a first speed of rotation to a second speed of rotation may indicate that flow should start.”, where flow starts when rotational energy is applied, meaning that processable media can be delivered into the chamber as flow starts). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the auger in modified Hyatt to be directly rotated by the spindle as taught by Coates.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to deliver media that has been plasticized, which can be desired by a user depending on their design needs, as stated by Coates, Page 31, Para. 1, “one or two Archimedes screws which are arranged to interact to plasticise a material (typically by shearing the material after the manner known in injection moulding), typically a polymer, within the processing head. The energy to rotate the screws may come directly from the spindle rotation.”.
Regarding claim 32, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above, discloses wherein the machine tool is a multi-axis machine tool (Hyatt, Para. 0036, lines 2-4 from end, “Alternatively, DMG/Mori Seiki's DMU-65 (a five-axis, vertical machine tool) machine tool, or other machine tools having different orientations or numbers of axes, may be used…”).
Regarding claim 34, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above, discloses wherein the stop block is fixed to the machine tool (Hyatt, Fig. 14, where the three ports 220, 222, and 224 are located on a black outlined box that is construed as the stop block, where the stop block is connected to the portion of the apparatus for receiving the processing head).
Regarding claim 35, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above, discloses wherein the first manifold comprises a first set of connectors for delivery of the processable media (Hyatt, Fig. 14, where the three ports 220, 222, and 224 are located on a black outlined box that is construed as the stop block, where the stop block is connected to the portion of the apparatus for receiving the processing head).
Modified Hyatt does not disclose:
the second manifold comprises a second set of connectors, wherein the first set of connectors are aligned with the second set of connectors when the first manifold is connected to the second manifold.
However, Endo discloses where a side arm attached to a processing head can be an anti-rotation arm (Page 8, Para. 2-3, “On the outer circumference of the case member 66, a rotation preventing portion 85 is provided. The anti-rotation part 85 is fitted to the non-rotation part 47, such as the ram 45, by the mounting part 62 on the inclined sleeve 46a of the main shaft 46. The tip 85a is inserted into the hole 47a.”), where the anti-rotation arm similarly contains conduit channels that carry coolant (Page 12, Para. 2, “…the case member 66 is connectable to the flow path 103 formed in the rotation preventing portion 85, the flow path 104 is formed in the center direction of the tool 601 is formed, the case member 68 It is connected to the cooling groove 107.”, and Page 12, Para. 7, “…the coolant 101 flowing from the non-rotating portion 47 flows through the flow paths 102 and 103 of the fitted anti-rotation part 85 and passes through the flow path 104 of the case member 66, thereby preventing the coolant 101 from flowing through the case member 68. Flows to the cooling groove 107 formed on the outside to cool the outside of the generator (70).”), where there is a second manifold within the anti-rotation arm that connects and is aligned to a first manifold for delivering the coolant (The second manifold is 103 in the anti-rotation arm, where the first manifold is 101 in the non-rotation part 47 of the machine tool body, where the conduit channels are aligned together). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the side arm carrying laser energy in modified Hyatt to have the aligned connection channels between a first and second manifold as taught by Endo.
Examiner notes that Hyatt shows that both energy delivery and coolant supplies can be located together on a side surface, where one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that similar placement of the embedded conduit channels of Endo could be combined to include the three conduit channels from Hyatt.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of ensuring that the processing head is aligned properly with the main body, where anti-rotation can prevent improper positioning, as stated by Endo, Page 4, Para. 3, “…holding the mounting portion to be freely rotated, is provided in this case standing fitted in non-rotary part in the vicinity of the spindle anti-rotation for regulating the rotation and wherein the align unit.”.
Claim 39 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt et al. (WO 2015127271 A1, hereinafter Hyatt) in view of Endo et al. (KR 20030031844 A, hereinafter Endo) and Kandasamy et al. (US 20160175982 A1, hereinafter Kandasamy) and Coates et al. (WO 2015189600 A2, hereinafter Coates) in further view of Yamazaki et al. (EP 1602440 A1, hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 39, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above.
Modified Hyatt does not disclose:
wherein the processing head comprises a second anti-rotation arm, and the machine tool comprises a second stop block arranged to engage the second anti-rotation arm.
However, Yamazaki discloses a processing head with a secondary anti-rotation arm that engages with another stop block (Modified Fig. 9, where the secondary arm system is shown). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing head from modified Hyatt to include a secondary arm as taught by Yamazaki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of additional degrees of freedom for the processing head and to allow the processing head to move between two different positions of being opened or closed with the laser beam hardening tool, as stated by Yamazaki, Para. 0052, lines 55-61, “In a state of 311 A, an opening end 31 a of the second beam guide portion 31 is opened so as to connect the laser beam hardening tool. In a state of 311 C moved from 311 B, the opening end 31 is closed so as to prevent foreign object from being attached to the opening end 31 a or entering therein.”.
PNG
media_image1.png
772
897
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 9, Yamazaki
Claims 36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt et al. (WO 2015127271 A1, hereinafter Hyatt) in view of Endo et al. (KR 20030031844 A, hereinafter Endo) and Kandasamy et al. (US 20160175982 A1, hereinafter Kandasamy) and Coates et al. (WO 2015189600 A2, hereinafter Coates) in further view of Adair et al. (WO 2015175937 A1, hereinafter Adair).
Regarding claim 36, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above.
Modified Hyatt does not disclose:
wherein the anti-rotation arm further comprises an orientation collar arranged to at least partially encircle the processing head.
However, Adair discloses, in the similar field of processing heads, a rotary coupling or collar that encircles the processing head (Para. 0035, lines 1-3, “…holder 140 is shown with a rotary coupling 170 coupled to holder 140 at lower portion 144. Coupling 170 is generally circular with an oblong protruding portion 171.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing head of modified Hyatt to include the rotary coupling as taught by Adair.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of another reinforcement to prevent rotation in the processing head, as stated by Adair, Para. 0035, lines 3 from end, “…support bracket 172 and an anti rotate key 174. Anti rotate key 174 is generally cylindrical and is coupled within a bore (not shown) in support bracket 172.”.
Regarding claim 38, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above.
Modified Hyatt does not disclose:
wherein a cradle is arranged to preheat a processing head.
However, Adair discloses a heater unit that heats the material that enters the processing head (Para. 0044, line 3, “Heater 204 provides heat to the filament…”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing head in modified Hyatt to include the heater as taught by Adair.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a heater system to preheat filament in order to make the filament malleable and flowable so that it can have different cross sectional shapes, as stated by Adair, Para. 0044, lines 3-5, “Heater 204 provides heat to the filament to make the filament malleable and flowable so that it will exit through feeder 218, which can have cross sections of differing shapes and diameters.”.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt et al. (WO 2015127271 A1, hereinafter Hyatt) in view of Endo et al. (KR 20030031844 A, hereinafter Endo) and Kandasamy et al. (US 20160175982 A1, hereinafter Kandasamy) and Coates et al. (WO 2015189600 A2, hereinafter Coates) in further view of Adair et al. (WO 2015175937 A1, hereinafter Adair) and Yamazaki et al. (EP 1602440 A1, hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 37, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 36, as set forth above.
Modified Hyatt does not disclose:
wherein the orientation collar comprises a cooling mechanism.
However, Yamazaki discloses cooling pipes that are within the surfaces surrounding the processing head (Para. 0043, lines 1-2, “Preferably, cooling paths 106, 116 in which fluid
flows are formed near the beam guide paths 102, 112.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the rotary collar in modified Hyatt to include the cooling paths as taught by Yamazaki.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of restricting the amount of heat generated in the processing head and to possibly improve the surface of the workpiece through removing foreign objects, avoiding oxidization, and cooling, as stated by Yamazaki, Para. 0043, lines 3-9, “…heat generated due to passage of laser beam can be restricted. Fluid may be liquid (such as water) or gas. If the cooling path 106, 116 is opened at a position facing the workpiece W and gas is injected on the workpiece W, it is possible to remove foreign objects on a surface of the workpiece, to avoid oxidizing the workpiece, and to cool.”.
Claims 33, 40, and 60-62 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyatt et al. (WO 2015127271 A1, hereinafter Hyatt) in view of Endo et al. (KR 20030031844 A, hereinafter Endo) and Kandasamy et al. (US 20160175982 A1, hereinafter Kandasamy) and Coates et al. (WO 2015189600 A2, hereinafter Coates) in further view of Jones et al. (WO 2014013247 A3, hereinafter Jones).
Regarding claim 60, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above, further comprising: a second processing head (Hyatt, Para. 0070, “With the processing head assembly 219 having the upper processing head 219a configured to selectively couple with any one of several lower processing heads 219b”, where the spindle can accept multiple processing heads).
Modified Hyatt does not disclose:
a second processing head to deliver energy onto the workpiece for at least one of material addition, inspection, or data collection, wherein the second processing head comprises:
a second anti-rotation arm, wherein the second anti-rotation arm extends outward from the second processing head and is configured to connect to the stop block and prevent rotation of a portion of the second processing head; and
a third manifold appended to the second anti-rotation arm and arranged to engage with the first manifold when the second anti-rotation arm is connected to the stop block, wherein the second processing head is to receive energy from the machine tool body via the first manifold.
However, Jones discloses another processing head with an arm that can contain conduits for supplying processable media (Page 21, lines 23-24, “The supply-unit 214 also comprises a supply of various media 224 which connects through the manifold to the processing-head 200 when the supply-unit 214 is connected thereto.”) and energy (Page 29, lines 37-39, “Further, the connection of the guiding mechanism 520 allows electricity to be passed from the electrical supply 516, to the processing head 200, through the electrode 508, across a gap to the work-piece 104 and finally on to ground 1600.”, Fig. 16, where there are conduits for processable media and energy). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the anti-rotation arm in modified Hyatt to have the channels contain processable media and energy as taught by Jones.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing for the entire processing head to be changed, as the energy and processable media conduits are connected through to the first manifold and could easily be detached, as stated by Jones, Page 28, lines 21-23, “A power supply 1304 is connected to the processing head through a manifold connectable to the processing head. In this embodiment the entire processing head can be automatically changed when the media is used up.”.
Regarding the anti-rotation arm of another processing head connecting to the stop block in Hyatt to connect the third manifold to the first manifold, it is the Examiner’s position that such a modification would be a duplication of parts from the teaching of Endo. It has been held that mere duplication of parts would be an obvious modification to make. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). By having a similar anti-rotation arm be detachable to a first manifold, no new and unexpected results would occur as the processing head would still be capable of performing additive manufacturing while being exchangeable, which was disclosed by Hyatt and Endo.
Regarding claim 61, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 31, as set forth above.
Modified Hyatt does not disclose:
energy is to be delivered from the machine tool body through the first manifold to the processing head via the second manifold.
However, Jones discloses an arm that can contain conduits for supplying processable media (Page 21, lines 23-24, “The supply-unit 214 also comprises a supply of various media 224 which connects through the manifold to the processing-head 200 when the supply-unit 214 is connected thereto.”) and energy (Page 29, lines 37-39, “Further, the connection of the guiding mechanism 520 allows electricity to be passed from the electrical supply 516, to the processing head 200, through the electrode 508, across a gap to the work-piece 104 and finally on to ground 1600.”, Fig. 16, where there are conduits for processable media and energy). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the anti-rotation arm in modified Hyatt to have the channels contain processable media and energy as taught by Jones.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing for the entire processing head to be changed, as the energy and processable media conduits are connected through to the first manifold and could easily be detached, as stated by Jones, Page 28, lines 21-23, “A power supply 1304 is connected to the processing head through a manifold connectable to the processing head. In this embodiment the entire processing head can be automatically changed when the media is used up.”.
Regarding claim 62, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 61, as set forth above.
Modified Hyatt does not disclose:
wherein the energy is to be used by the processing head to perform the additive manufacturing, the portion of the processing head comprises a body of the processing head, and the processing head further comprises heating elements mounted to the body of the processing head to heat the processable media within the processing head using the energy delivered to the processing head via the second manifold.
However, Jones discloses where the processing head has energy that is used for additive manufacturing (Page 11, lines 20-23, “The machine tool may be arranged to process a work-piece. Alternatively, or in addition the machine tool may be arranged to deposit the material on a work piece or to build a work piece, which may be building the work piece up from scratch. Such an operation may be additive deposition including additive manufacturing”), where the processing head includes a body (Fig. 13, where the body is 1150), where the processing head includes heating elements within the body to heat up processable media (Page 28, lines 19-21, “An energy source (not shown) provides energy to the first and second chambers to heat the filaments as they pass through the first and second chambers 1168 and 1170.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the processing head in modified Hyatt to have the heating element features as taught by Jones.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to gain access to another type of processing head for specifically extruding material to a workpiece, where the heating elements would allow for such an additive manufacturing method to be performed, as stated by Jones, Page 27, lines 1-4, “The processing head is one example representing "material extrusion" devices as defined by the ASTM F2792 standard. Thus, the deposition heads 1154 and 1156 are arranged to extrude material to a work piece. The processing head also comprises a first and a second media supply 1158 and 1160.”.
Regarding claim 33, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 61, as set forth above, discloses wherein the processable media or the energy is from a source in the machine tool body (Hyatt, Para. 0065, lines 4 from end, “The lower processing head 219b may further include a feed powder/propellant interface 252…configured to operatively couple with the feed powder/propellant port 220…”, where the media transferred from the processing head manifold or the piping 252 to the processing head is the feed powder/propellant).
Regarding claim 40, modified Hyatt teaches the apparatus according to claim 61, as set forth above, discloses wherein the energy or the media is provided onto the workpiece for at least one of material addition, inspection, or data collection (Hyatt, Para. 0066, lines 1-2, “The nozzle 246 may be configured to direct feed powder/propellant toward the desired target area.”).
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 KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00 am - 5:00 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
12/15/2025
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761