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, see page 8-11, filed September 16, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim 54 and 67 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with the prior art of Bobeczko et al. in view of Miyamoto 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 Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn.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 Kensrue US 6568578 B1 in view of Spiesberger US 2008/0067161 A1 and Miyamoto US 20110240788 A1.
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.
Claims 54, 61, 67, and 70 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensrue US 6568578 B1 in view of Spiesberger US 2008/0067161 A1 and Miyamoto US 20110240788 A1.
Regarding claim 54, Kensrue discloses a system for feeding a wire (Fig. 1A, Ref. 10), comprising: a wire source configured to hold a wire (Fig. 1A, Ref. 18); a driver roller rotatable about a first axis (Fig. 3, Ref. 44) and configured to direct said wire towards a wire receiver (Fig. 1A, Ref. 170), a preload roller rotatable about a second axis (Fig. 3, Ref. 46), and disposed such that the preload roller is subjected to rotation about said second axis by contact with said wire at a position adjacent to said driver roller wherein said preload roller and said driver roller are separated by a gap (Fig. 1A, Ref 18 rolls through rollers 44 and 46 within the wire feed apparatus Ref. 20); a driver actuator coupled to said driver roller and configured to subject said driver roller to rotation about said first axis (Col. 2, Lines 65-66); a gap adjusting actuator (Col. 3, Lines 21-30; Fig. 6A, Ref. 160) coupled to said preload roller via a shaft coaxial with said gap adjusting axis and configured to subject said preload roller to rotation about said gap adjusting axis via said shaft, thereby adjusting a relative position of said driver roller and said preload roller and adjusting a feed condition at said gap when said wire is in contact with said driver roller and said preload roller (Col. 3, Lines 25-30).
Kensrue does not disclose wherein the second roller is mounted eccentrically with respect to a gap adjusting axis, an encoder coupled to the driver roller, wherein the encoder is configured to monitor rotation of the driver roller; and an auxiliary encoder coupled to the preload roller, wherein the auxiliary encoder is configured to monitor rotation of the preload roller.
However to transport welding wire (Spiesberger Para. 1), Spiesberger teaches an oscillating movement by an eccentric mounting of the rollers (Para. 101) to reduce the application force of the pressure roller.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding wire feed mechanism of Kensrue with the welding wire transportation device rollers of Spiesberger to reduce the application force of the pressure roller (Spiesberger Para. 101)
However to perform a similar function of conveying a material to be further processed similar to the welding wire of Kensrue, Miyamoto teaches an encoder coupled to the driver roller, wherein the encoder is configured to monitor rotation of the driver roller (Paras. 77 and 78; Fig. 12, Ref. 81); and an auxiliary encoder coupled to the preload roller, wherein the auxiliary encoder is configured to monitor rotation of the preload roller (Para. 77 and 79; Fig. 12, Ref 82).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kensrue with the encoders of Miyamoto to identify material slippage (Miyamoto Para. 67).
Regarding claim 61, , Kensrue discloses said actuator is configured to adjust a stress on said wire based on a property of said wire selected from the group consisting of thickness, stiffness, and material (Col. 2, Lines 26-31 wherein the engagement pressure is changed for wire size).
Regarding claim 67, Kensrue discloses a method for feeding a wire (ABSTRCT discloses how to the mechanism operates; Fig. 1A, Ref. 10) comprising: activating a wire feeding system, comprising: a wire source configured to hold a wire (Fig. 1A, Ref. 18); a driver roller rotatable about a first axis (Fig. 3, Ref. 44) and configured to direct said wire towards a wire receiver (Fig. 1A, Ref. 170), a preload roller rotatable about a second axis (Fig. 3, Ref. 46), and disposed such that the preload roller is subjected to rotation about said second axis by contact with said wire at a position adjacent to said driver roller wherein said preload roller and said driver roller are separated by a gap (Fig. 1A, Ref 18 rolls through rollers 44 and 46 within the wire feed apparatus Ref. 20); a driver actuator coupled to said driver roller and configured to subject said driver roller to rotation about said first axis (Col. 2, Lines 65-66); a gap adjusting actuator (Col. 3, Lines 21-30; Fig. 6A, Ref. 160) coupled to said preload roller via a shaft coaxial with said gap adjusting axis and configured to subject said preload roller to rotation about said gap adjusting axis via said shaft, thereby adjusting a relative position of said driver roller and said preload roller and adjusting a feed condition at said gap when said wire is in contact with said driver roller and said preload roller (Col. 3, Lines 25-30).
Kensrue does not disclose wherein the second roller is mounted eccentrically with respect to a gap adjusting axis, an encoder coupled to the driver roller, wherein the encoder is configured to monitor rotation of the driver roller; and an auxiliary encoder coupled to the preload roller, wherein the auxiliary encoder is configured to monitor rotation of the preload roller.
However to transport welding wire (Spiesberger Para. 1), Spiesberger teaches an oscillating movement by an eccentric mounting of the rollers (Para. 101) to reduce the application force of the pressure roller.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the welding wire feed mechanism of Kensrue with the welding wire transportation device rollers of Spiesberger to reduce the application force of the pressure roller (Spiesberger Para. 101)
However to perform a similar function of conveying a material to be further processed similar to the welding wire of Kensrue, Miyamoto teaches an encoder coupled to the driver roller, wherein the encoder is configured to monitor rotation of the driver roller (Paras. 77 and 78; Fig. 12, Ref. 81); and an auxiliary encoder coupled to the preload roller, wherein the auxiliary encoder is configured to monitor rotation of the preload roller (Para. 77 and 79; Fig. 12, ref 82).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kensrue with the encoders of Miyamoto to identify material slippage (Miyamoto Para. 67).
Regarding claim 70, Kensrue discloses said actuator is configured to adjust a stress on said wire based on a property of said wire selected from the group consisting of thickness, stiffness, and material (Col. 2, Lines 26-31 wherein the engagement pressure is changed for wire size).
Claim 57 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensrue US 6568578 B1 in view of Spiesberger US 2008/0067161 A1, Miyamoto US 20110240788 A1 and Kim et al. KR 101610636 B1.
Regarding claim 57, Kensrue does not specifically disclose wherein said gap adjusting actuator comprises a sensor to detect a change in an angular position of said gap adjusting actuator.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kim teaches wherein said gap adjusting actuator comprises a sensor to detect a change in an angular position of said gap adjusting actuator (Para. 14).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kensrue with the gap size adjustment mechanism of Kim to increase automatization of feeding materials.
Claims 58, 59, 74, and 75 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensrue US 6568578 B1 in view of Spiesberger US 2008/0067161 A1, Miyamoto US 20110240788 A1, Kim et al. KR 101610636 B1, and Lahti et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2017/0136567 A1.
Regarding claim 58, Kensrue does not disclose wherein said gap adjusting actuator comprises a current sensor to measure an operating current of said gap adjusting actuator to monitor a force exerted to said wire by at least one of said driver roller and said preload roller.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lahti teaches said actuator comprises a current sensor (Para. 66) to measure an operating current of said gap adjusting actuator to monitor a force (Para. 66, torque) exerted to said wire by at least one said driver roller and said preload roller,
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kensrue with the current sensor of Lahti to manage the torque applied on the wire feeding wheels to prevent coiling or bunching up of the wire.
Regarding claim 59, Kensrue does not disclose a controller operatively coupled to said gap adjusting actuator; wherein said controller controls said gap adjusting actuator to adjust said feed condition.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lahti teaches a controller (Para. 63) operatively coupled to said gap adjusting actuator; wherein said controller controls said gap adjusting actuator to adjust said feed condition (Para. 66).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kensrue with the invention of Lahti to manage the torque applied on the wire feeding wheels to prevent coiling or bunching up of the wire.
Regarding claim 74, Kensrue does not disclose wherein said gap adjusting actuator is configured to adjust said feed condition at said gap by exerting a force to drive at least one said driver roller and said preload roller.
Lahti teaches wherein said actuator is configured to adjust said feed condition at said gap by exerting a force to drive at least one said driver roller and said preload roller (Para. 77).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kensrue with the invention of Lahti to manage the torque applied on the wire feeding wheels to prevent coiling or bunching up of the wire.
Regarding claim 75, Kensrue does not disclose wherein said operating current is configured to generate heat from within said wire to melt said wire when said wire is in contact with a support.
Lahti discloses wherein said operating current is configured to generate heat from within said wire to melt said wire when said wire is in contact with a support (Para. 56).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kensrue with the invention of Lahti to manage the torque applied on the wire feeding wheels to prevent coiling or bunching up of the wire.
Claims 60 and 69 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensrue US 6568578 B1 in view of Spiesberger US 2008/0067161 A1, Miyamoto US 20110240788 A1, Kim et al. KR 101610636 B1, Lahti et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2017/0136567 A1, and Ott US 2011/0309063 A1.
Regarding claim 60, Kensrue does not disclose wherein said controller is configured to provide a real-time closed-loop feedback communication between (i) at least one of said driver roller and said preload roller and (ii) said gap adjusting actuator to dynamically control said feed condition comprising said angular position and said operating current.
Lahti discloses said controller is configured to provide a real-time closed-loop feedback communication (Lahti Para. 60 “sensed feedback”; Para. 67) between (i) at least one of said driver roller (Fig. 5a, Ref. 424a on left) and said preload roller and (ii) said actuator (Para. 67) to dynamically control said feed condition comprising said operating current (Para. 66).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the invention of Kensrue with the invention of Lahti to manage the torque applied on the wire feeding wheels to prevent coiling or bunching up of the wire.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ott teaches controlling based on the angular position (Para. 31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kensrue with Ott to inform the wire feed speed value with enhanced data resolution.
Regarding claim 69, Kensrue does not specifically disclose using real-time closed-loop feedback to dynamically control said feed condition comprising an angular position of said gap adjusting actuator and an operating current of said gap adjusting actuator.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ott teaches using real-time closed-loop feedback (Para. 21) to dynamically control said feed condition comprising an angular position (Para. 31) of said gap adjusting actuator and an operating current (Para. 22) of said gap adjusting actuator.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kensrue with Ott to inform the wire feed speed value with enhanced data resolution.
Claims 65, 66, 71, and 72 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensrue US 6568578 B1 in view of Spiesberger US 2008/0067161 A1, Miyamoto US 20110240788 A1, and Lahti et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2017/0136567 A1.
Regarding claim 65, Kensrue does not specifically disclose herein said wire receiver is a nozzle of a welding unit for wire welding.
Lahti teaches said wire receiver is a nozzle of a welding unit for wire welding (ABSTRACT).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the invention of Kensrue to be used with the invention of Lahti to improve wire feeding to a nozzle.
Regarding claim 66, Kensrue does not disclose wherein said wire receiver is a nozzle of a printing head in a device for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, wherein said wire is usable for said printing said 3D object.
Lahti teaches said wire receiver is a nozzle of a printing head in a device for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, wherein said wire is usable for said printing said 3D object (Para. 7, “wire feeders can be used in additive manufacturing”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the invention of Kensrue to be used with the invention of Lahti to improve wire feeding for4 3D printing.
Regarding claim 71, Kensrue does not specifically disclose herein said wire receiver is a nozzle of a welding unit for wire welding.
Lahti teaches said wire receiver is a nozzle of a welding unit for wire welding (ABSTRACT).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the invention of Kensrue to be used with the invention of Lahti to improve wire feeding to a nozzle.
Regarding claim 72, Kensrue does not disclose wherein said wire receiver is a nozzle of a printing head in a device for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, wherein said wire is usable for said printing said 3D object.
Lahti teaches said wire receiver is a nozzle of a printing head in a device for printing a three-dimensional (3D) object, wherein said wire is usable for said printing said 3D object (Para. 7, “wire feeders can be used in additive manufacturing”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the invention of Kensrue to be used with the invention of Lahti to improve wire feeding for 3D printing.
Claims 73 and 76 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kensrue US 6568578 B1 in view of Spiesberger US 2008/0067161 A1, Miyamoto US 20110240788 A1, and Lahti et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2017/0136567 A1 and in further view of Wang et al. U.S. Patent Application Publication US 2018/0154586 A1.
Regarding claim 73, Kensrue does not disclose supplying electrical current from said nozzle of said printing head through said wire and to a support, or vice versa, under conditions sufficient to melt said wire when said wire is in contact with said support wherein said support is configured to hold at least said portion of said 3D object.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lahti teaches supplying electrical current from said nozzle of said printing head through said wire and to a support, or vice versa, under conditions sufficient to melt said wire when said wire is in contact with said support (Para. 56).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the invention of Kensrue to be used with the invention of Lahti to improve wire feeding for 3D printing.
However in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches when said wire is in contact with said support or a portion of said 3D object, wherein said support is configured to hold at least said portion of said 3D object (Para. 2)
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the invention of Kensrue with application of 3D printing in Wang to include a rapid prototyping technology of using a thread-like plastic or metal material.
Regarding claim 76, Kensrue does not specifically disclose wherein said wire is melted with heat within the wire.
However in the same field of endeavor, Wang teaches wherein said wire is melted with heat within the wire (Para. 49).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify the invention of Kensrue with application of 3D printing in Wang to heat the wire at the appropriate time to mold the filament as desired.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Vigdal et al. US9821399 discloses a continuous wire feeding mechanism for welding and adjustments
Gardner et al US 20170129171 A1 discloses devices and methods for additive manufacturing
Mark US 20170120519 A1 discloses 3D printing filament device
Bobeczko et al. US-6557742-B1 discloses a wire feeding mechanism
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761