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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 04/08/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-6, 8-9, 12, 14-20 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 01/08/2026.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claim limitation(s) being interpreted under 35 USC 112(f) is/are:
“means for creating a weld pool using electric power and an electrode wire that has an electrode end;” in claim 18 interpreted as welding torch as described in Fig. 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“a means for producing a workpiece by moving the weld pool along a predetermined path at a travel speed” in claim 18 interpreted as controller as described in Fig. 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“a means for feeding the electrode wire at a first feed rate” in claim 18 interpreted as feeder as described in Fig. 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“a means for feeding a second wire at a second feed rate” in claim 18 interpreted as feeder as described in Fig. 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“a means for dynamically controlling the second feed rate” in claim 18 interpreted as controller as described in Fig. 1 of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
“a means for maximizing a material deposition rate without introducing a deposition defect” in claim 20 interpreted as controlling second feed rate as described in paragraph [10 ] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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, 6, 8, 12, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters et al., US 20200215635 (hereafter Peters) and further in view of Peters et al., US 20130043219 (hereafter Peters-219), and Gandy et al., US 6884959 (hereafter Gandy).
Regarding claim 1,
“A system for additive manufacturing using an electrode wire and a second wire, the system comprising:” (Fig. 8 and Fig. 14)
PNG
media_image1.png
548
603
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 teaches system 800
PNG
media_image2.png
648
823
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 14 teaches metal deposition apparatus
“an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to a weld pool on a workpiece;” (Paragraph [63] teaches “The power source 1410 and the first wire feeder 1420 are configured to provide energy via the consumable wire electrode 1450 (forming an electric arc 1460 between the electrode 1450 and the base or part 1040) to melt the filler wire 1435 and the consumable wire electrode 1450 (and possibly part of the base or part 1040) during an additive manufacturing process.”)
“an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool;” (Paragraph [63] teaches “The power source 1410 and the first wire feeder 1420 are configured to provide energy via the consumable wire electrode 1450 (forming an electric arc 1460 between the electrode 1450 and the base or part 1040) to melt the filler wire 1435 and the consumable wire electrode 1450 (and possibly part of the base or part 1040) during an additive manufacturing process.” It is implied that first wire feeder feeds the electrode at a first feed rate. )
…“a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while an end of the second wire melts into the weld pool;” (Paragraph [63] teaches “The second wire feeder 1430 is configured to feed a filler wire 1435 of a metal material toward a base or part 1040.” It is implied that second wire feeder has a second feed rate.)
“a print controller configured to dynamically control the electrode wire feeder and the second wire feeder” (Paragraph [47] teaches “the dynamic increasing and decreasing of the weave parameters and the travel speed are determined ahead of time, as part of path planning development, and are not dynamically determined on-the-fly in real time, in accordance with one embodiment. However, there may be other embodiments in which on-the-fly, real time dynamic adjustments are performed.” Paragraph [48] teaches “the WFS may also be dynamically varied.” Here WFS is wire feed speed. It is understood from paragraphs [47-48] that controller 810 controls wire feeders so the wire feed speed, travel speed, and weave parameters are dynamically adjusted.)
“ while the electrode wire feeder and the second wire feeder move relative to the workpiece.” (Paragraph [26] teaches “some embodiments of a metal deposition apparatus may include, for example, kinematic control elements (e.g., robotics) or other types of control elements (e.g., optical control elements) to move a laser beam, a plasma beam, an electric arc, an electron beam, or a consumable metal wire with respect to a 3D part being additively manufactured on a base or a substrate.”)
a first motion control actuator configured to move the electrode wire feeder relative to the workpiece; (Paragraph [26] teaches “some embodiments of a metal deposition apparatus may include, for example, kinematic control elements (e.g., robotics) or other types of control elements (e.g., optical control elements) to move a laser beam, a plasma beam, an electric arc, an electron beam, or a consumable metal wire with respect to a 3D part being additively manufactured on a base or a substrate.”)
a second motion control actuator configured to move the second wire feeder relative to the workpiece (Paragraph [26] teaches “some embodiments of a metal deposition apparatus may include, for example, kinematic control elements (e.g., robotics) or other types of control elements (e.g., optical control elements) to move a laser beam, a plasma beam, an electric arc, an electron beam, or a consumable metal wire with respect to a 3D part being additively manufactured on a base or a substrate.”)
Peters is silent about and independently of the electrode wire feeder; wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece.
Peters-219 teaches and independently of the electrode wire feeder; ( Peters-219 teaches welding with GMAW torches and hot wire 140. Paragraph [175] teaches “the hot wire 140 trails the arc welding operation and can be positioned on the center-line of the weld bead WB behind the arc welding operations. However, it is not necessary that the hot wire 140 remain in the centerline as the hot wire can be oscillated or moved relative to the puddle during the welding operation.” It is implied that the hot wire is moved independently of GMAW torch because GMAW torch maintains the puddle.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the wire feeders independently as taught in Peters-219 in the system taught in Peters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “use a combination filler wire feed and energy source system for any of brazing, cladding, building up, filling, hard-facing overlaying, joining and welding applications” as taught in paragraph 2 of Peters-219.
Primary combination of references is silent about wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece.
Gandy teaches wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, (Gandy teaches in column 6, lines 30-42 “Step 50 is to determine the target weld compositions for specific locations on a workpiece or component. As discussed with respect to FIGS. 1, 2, and 3, the target compositions can vary according to location on the workpiece, depending upon the material properties desired for that location, and in three dimensions. Step 52 is to choose the filler or fillers necessary for the weld to achieve the target compositions of step 50. One of skill in the art will know to select fillers from those commercially available or fabricated fillers that contain the elements and materials needed to achieve the target composition, if the selected fillers are added in the appropriate amounts.” It is implied that depending on target composition the filler material is different than the electrode wire.)
and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; (Column 6, lines 44-50 in Gandy teaches “Step 54 is to set the rate of addition for each filler for specific locations so that the combined fillers and weld puddle leave a weld of the desired target compositions at those locations, again also considering the desired total weld deposition rate.”)
wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece. (Column 6, lines 33-36 teaches “the target compositions can vary according to location on the workpiece, depending upon the material properties desired for that location, and in three dimensions.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the material and feed rate of the electrode and wire as taught in Gandy in the system taught in Peters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Such compositional variation could be needed due to the need for different locations on the workpiece to have different material properties such as, for example, corrosion resistance, strength, or hardness” as taught in column 5, lines 40-45 in Gandy.
Regarding claim 6,
“ The system of claim 1, wherein moving the second wire feeder relative to the workpiece (The claim is interpreted as second wire moves relative to the workpiece. Paragraph [26] in Peters teaches “a metal deposition apparatus may include, for example, kinematic control elements (e.g., robotics) or other types of control elements (e.g., optical control elements) to move a laser beam, a plasma beam, an electric arc, an electron beam, or a consumable metal wire with respect to a 3D part being additively manufactured on a base or a substrate.”)
controls the cooling profile of the weld pool (This limitation describes what happens when second wire is moved relative to workpiece. MPEP 2114 sets forth that “When the cited prior art teaches all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990), and (2) a claim containing 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" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987).” )
Regarding claim 8,
“The system of claim 1, further comprising a defect detector wherein the print controller can change the input electric power based on receiving a defect detection signal from the defect detector.(Paragraph [139] in Peters-219 teaches “the sensor 1420 can be coupled directly to the laser power supply 130. Feedback from the sensor 1420 is used to control output from laser power supply 130/laser 120. That is, the energy density of the laser beam 110 can be modified to ensure that the desired weld puddle temperature is achieved.” Here sensor corresponds to defect detector.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the input power of the electrode arc system in Peters based on sensor and feedback as taught in Peters 219. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the sensor 1420 can monitor the workpiece temperature and reduce the energy density of the beam 110 based on the sensed temperature. Such a configuration would ensure that the heat input adjacent the weld bead would not exceed a desired threshold. Such an embodiment can be utilized in precision welding operations where heat input into the workpiece is critical” as taught in paragraph [140] in Peters-219.)
Regarding claim 12,
“A method comprising:” (Fig. 7 in Peters teaches a method)
“providing an input electric power through an electrode wire to a weld pool;”(Paragraph [5] teaches “The power source is configured to provide energy to melt at least the consumable wire electrode and the filler wire during the deposition of the beaded weave pattern by forming an arc between the consumable wire electrode and the 3D part.”)
“using an electrode wire feeder to feed the electrode wire at a first feed rate into the weld pool” (Fig. 14 teaches electrode wire feeder 1420. It is implied that wire feeder 1420 feeds the electrode at a first feed rate.)
“on a workpiece while an end of the electrode wire melts input into the weld pool;” (Paragraph [5] teaches “The power source is configured to provide energy to melt at least the consumable wire electrode and the filler wire during the deposition of the beaded weave pattern by forming an arc between the consumable wire electrode and the 3D part.” It is implied that arc between electrode and 3D part creates a weld pool.)
“moving the electrode wire feeder relative to the workpiece;” (Paragraph [26] teaches “a metal deposition apparatus may include, for example, kinematic control elements (e.g., robotics) or other types of control elements (e.g., optical control elements) to move a laser beam, a plasma beam, an electric arc, an electron beam, or a consumable metal wire with respect to a 3D part being additively manufactured on a base or a substrate.”)
“using a second wire feeder to feed a second wire at a second feed rate into the weld pool while an end of the second wire melts into the weld pool;” (Fig. 14 teaches second wire feeder 1430. It is implied that second wire feeder has a feed rate.
Paragraph [5] teaches “The power source is configured to provide energy to melt at least the consumable wire electrode and the filler wire during the deposition of the beaded weave pattern by forming an arc between the consumable wire electrode and the 3D part.” Here filler wire is the second wire.)
“moving the second wire feeder relative to the workpiece” (Paragraph [51] teaches “In one embodiment, the robot arm 835 is coupled to the metal deposition apparatus 810 (or to at least a portion of the metal deposition apparatus 810 such as a deposition tool) such that the robot 830 can move the metal deposition apparatus 810 in space, via the arm 835, relative to a base or substrate under control of the computer control apparatus 820.” Fig. 14 teaches that second wire feeder 1430 is part of deposition apparatus 810. It is understood that when robot 830 moves deposition apparatus 810, wire feeder 1430 is also moved. )
“dynamically controlling the electrode wire feeder and the second wire feeder,” (Paragraph [48] teaches “the WFS may also be dynamically varied.” Here WFS is wire feed speed. It is implied in Fig. 14 that controller 810 controls wire feeders so the wire feed speed is dynamically adjusted.)
“while the electrode wire feeder and the second wire feeder move relative to the workpiece.” (The claim is interpreted as electrode wire and second wire move relative to the workpiece. Paragraph [26] teaches “a metal deposition apparatus may include, for example, kinematic control elements (e.g., robotics) or other types of control elements (e.g., optical control elements) to move a laser beam, a plasma beam, an electric arc, an electron beam, or a consumable metal wire with respect to a 3D part being additively manufactured on a base or a substrate.”)
Peters is silent about and independently of the electrode wire feeder; wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece.
Peters-219 teaches and independently of the electrode wire feeder; ( Peters-219 teaches welding with GMAW torches and hot wire 140. Paragraph [175] teaches “the hot wire 140 trails the arc welding operation and can be positioned on the center-line of the weld bead WB behind the arc welding operations. However, it is not necessary that the hot wire 140 remain in the centerline as the hot wire can be oscillated or moved relative to the puddle during the welding operation.” It is implied that the hot wire is moved independently of GMAW torch because GMAW torch maintains the puddle.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the wire feeders independently as taught in Peters-219 in the system taught in Peters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “use a combination filler wire feed and energy source system for any of brazing, cladding, building up, filling, hard-facing overlaying, joining and welding applications” as taught in paragraph 2 of Peters-219.
Primary combination of references is silent about wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece.
Gandy teaches wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, (Gandy teaches in column 6, lines 30-42 “Step 50 is to determine the target weld compositions for specific locations on a workpiece or component. As discussed with respect to FIGS. 1, 2, and 3, the target compositions can vary according to location on the workpiece, depending upon the material properties desired for that location, and in three dimensions. Step 52 is to choose the filler or fillers necessary for the weld to achieve the target compositions of step 50. One of skill in the art will know to select fillers from those commercially available or fabricated fillers that contain the elements and materials needed to achieve the target composition, if the selected fillers are added in the appropriate amounts.” It is implied that depending on target composition the filler material is different than the electrode wire.)
and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; (Column 6, lines 44-50 in Gandy teaches “Step 54 is to set the rate of addition for each filler for specific locations so that the combined fillers and weld puddle leave a weld of the desired target compositions at those locations, again also considering the desired total weld deposition rate.”)
wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece. (Column 6, lines 33-36 teaches “the target compositions can vary according to location on the workpiece, depending upon the material properties desired for that location, and in three dimensions.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the material and feed rate of the electrode and wire as taught in Gandy in the system taught in Peters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Such compositional variation could be needed due to the need for different locations on the workpiece to have different material properties such as, for example, corrosion resistance, strength, or hardness” as taught in column 5, lines 40-45 in Gandy.
Regarding claim 18,
“A system comprising:” (Fig. 8 in Peters teaches system 800.)
“a means for creating a weld pool using electric power and an electrode wire;” (Fig. 14 teaches metal deposition apparatus 810 comprising power source, welding torch 1425, and electrode 1450.)
“a means for producing a workpiece by moving the weld pool along a predetermined path at a travel speed;” (Paragraph [25] teaches “a travel speed of the metal deposition apparatus along the length dimension, are dynamically adjusted during deposition of the beaded weave pattern as the width varies along the length dimension. The dynamic adjustment is under the control of the computer control apparatus in accordance with the planned build pattern, resulting in a dynamically varying bead width of the beaded weave pattern. The planned build pattern and, therefore, the planned path and the dynamic adjustments are generated ahead of time as part of path planning development using path planning software.”)
“a means for feeding the electrode wire at a first feed rate into the weld pool” (Fig. 14 teaches wire feeder 1420 for feeding the electrode wire at a first feed rate.)
“while an end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool;”(Paragraph [5] teaches “The power source is configured to provide energy to melt at least the consumable wire electrode and the filler wire during the deposition of the beaded weave pattern by forming an arc between the consumable wire electrode and the 3D part.”)
“a means for feeding a second wire at a second feed rate into the weld pool while n end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and” (Fig. 14 teaches wire feeder 1430. It is implied that the wire feeder has a feed rate.
Paragraph [5] teaches “The power source is configured to provide energy to melt at least the consumable wire electrode and the filler wire during the deposition of the beaded weave pattern by forming an arc between the consumable wire electrode and the 3D part.”)
“a means for dynamically controlling the second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool.” (Paragraph [48] teaches “the WFS may also be dynamically varied.” Here WFS is wire feed speed. It is understood that controller 810 controls wire feeders so the wire feed speed is dynamically adjusted.)
Peters is silent about a means for moving the means for feeding the second wire relative to the workpiece independently from moving the means for feeding the electrode wire relative to the workpiece; wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece.
Peters-219 teaches a means for moving the means for feeding the second wire relative to the workpiece independently from moving the means for feeding the electrode wire relative to the workpiece; (Peters-219 teaches welding with GMAW torches and hot wire 140. Paragraph [175] teaches “the hot wire 140 trails the arc welding operation and can be positioned on the center-line of the weld bead WB behind the arc welding operations. However, it is not necessary that the hot wire 140 remain in the centerline as the hot wire can be oscillated or moved relative to the puddle during the welding operation.” It is implied that the hot wire is moved independently of GMAW torch because GMAW torch maintains the puddle.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the wire feeders independently as taught in Peters-219 in the system taught in Peters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so in order to “use a combination filler wire feed and energy source system for any of brazing, cladding, building up, filling, hard-facing overlaying, joining and welding applications” as taught in paragraph 2 of Peters-219.
Primary combination of references is silent about wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece.
Gandy teaches wherein the electrode wire is a first material, the second wire is a second material, (Gandy teaches in column 6, lines 30-42 “Step 50 is to determine the target weld compositions for specific locations on a workpiece or component. As discussed with respect to FIGS. 1, 2, and 3, the target compositions can vary according to location on the workpiece, depending upon the material properties desired for that location, and in three dimensions. Step 52 is to choose the filler or fillers necessary for the weld to achieve the target compositions of step 50. One of skill in the art will know to select fillers from those commercially available or fabricated fillers that contain the elements and materials needed to achieve the target composition, if the selected fillers are added in the appropriate amounts.” It is implied that depending on target composition the filler material is different than the electrode wire.)
and the first feed rate and the second feed rate are controlled to produce a desired alloy of the first material and the second material; (Column 6, lines 44-50 in Gandy teaches “Step 54 is to set the rate of addition for each filler for specific locations so that the combined fillers and weld puddle leave a weld of the desired target compositions at those locations, again also considering the desired total weld deposition rate.”)
wherein the desired alloy varies based on a weld pool location in relation to the workpiece. (Column 6, lines 33-36 teaches “the target compositions can vary according to location on the workpiece, depending upon the material properties desired for that location, and in three dimensions.”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the material and feed rate of the electrode and wire as taught in Gandy in the system taught in Peters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Such compositional variation could be needed due to the need for different locations on the workpiece to have different material properties such as, for example, corrosion resistance, strength, or hardness” as taught in column 5, lines 40-45 in Gandy.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, Peters-219, and Gandy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Wroth et al., US 3163743 (hereafter Wroth).
“The system of claim 1, wherein the second wire feeder is positioned such that the end of the second wire is fed into a leading edge of the weld pool.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Wroth teaches in column 1, lines 38-42 “ add the filler wire into the leading edge of the puddle with respect to the direction of travel.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to feed the second wire into the leading edge of the weld pool as taught in Wroth in the system of Peters. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “To deposit the filler metal uniformly in the joint, it was necessary to add it in close proximity -to the arc so that the arc itself could provide the heat to melt the wire. In practice, the wire was added at the leading edge of the puddle” as taught in column 5, lines 35-41 in Wroth.)
Claim(s) 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, Peters-219, and Gandy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Raudsepp et al., US 20150202709 (hereafter Raudsepp).
Regarding claim 3,
“The system of claim 1, wherein: a power value is an amount of electric power in the input electric power; a travel speed value indicates the travel speed; a Q value is determined using the power value and the travel speed value; and the second feed rate is determined using the Q value.” (Peters is silent about this limitation.
Paragraph [52] in Raudsepp teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
311
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, voltage times current corresponds to input electric power, and welding speed corresponds to travel speed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the feed rate of second wire feeder in Peters based on input power and travel speed as taught in Raudsepp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the cold wire feed speed is made dependent on one or more active welding parameters, which are adjusted to better suit the current welding conditions” as taught in paragraph [37] in Raudsepp.)
Regarding claim 4,
“The system of claim 3 wherein the second feed rate maximizes a material deposition rate.” (Peters is silent about this limitation.
The claim is interpreted as second feed rate is calculated to increase material deposition rate as described in paragraph [37] in the original disclosure
PNG
media_image4.png
219
1005
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Raudsepp teaches adjusting cold wire feed speed based on active welding parameter values in paragraph [35]. Paragraph [13] teaches “feeding of cold wire material into the weld puddle may lead to an increase of productivity of up to 100% with optimized welding parameters. In other words, a cold wire allows for higher deposition rates without increasing the heat input.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the feed rate of second wire feeder in Peters to maximize material deposition rate as taught in Raudsepp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “adjusting the cold wire feed speed in dependence on at least first active welding parameter variations, to maintain high welding stability and high weld quality”” as taught in paragraph [31] in Raudsepp.)
Regarding claim 5,
“The system of claim 1, wherein: the print controller is configured to control the second wire feeder by providing a second feed rate control signal for feeding the second wire at the second feed rate, (Paragraph [47] in Peters teaches “the dynamic increasing and decreasing of the weave parameters and the travel speed are determined ahead of time, as part of path planning development, and are not dynamically determined on-the-fly in real time, in accordance with one embodiment. However, there may be other embodiments in which on-the-fly, real time dynamic adjustments are performed.” Paragraph [48] teaches “the WFS may also be dynamically varied.” Here WFS is wire feed speed. It is understood from paragraphs [47-48] that controller 810 controls wire feeders so the wire feed speed, travel speed, and weave parameters are dynamically adjusted. It is understood that the controller controls the WFS by sending control signals.)
the second feed rate being determined using the input electric power, a travel speed at which the weld pool moves, and the first feed rate.” (Peters is silent about this limitation.
Paragraph [47] in Raudsepp teaches “adjusting the cold wire feed speed in dependence on changes in hot wire feed speed and/or arc voltage when the hot wire feed speed and/or the arc voltage are active hot wire welding parameters.” Here hot wire feed speed corresponds to the first feed rate, cold wire feed speed corresponds to second feed rate.
Paragraph [52] in Raudsepp teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
311
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, voltage times current corresponds to input electric power, and welding speed corresponds to travel speed.
Paragraph [51] teaches “In some embodiments, the cold wire feed speed is dependent on a plurality of active welding parameters related to the same hot wire.” Thus, second feed rate depends on first feed rate, input electric power, and travel speed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the feed rate of second wire feeder in Peters based on power, travel speed, and first speed rate as taught in Raudsepp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the cold wire feed speed is made dependent on one or more active welding parameters, which are adjusted to better suit the current welding conditions” as taught in paragraph [37] in Raudsepp.)
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, Petrs-219, and Gandy as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Peters et al., US 20150209889 (hereafter Peters-889).
“The system of claim 1, further including an edge sensor configured to determine a weld pool edge location,” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Paragraph [89] in Peters-889 teaches “the sensor 1120 can be either a heat sensor or a visual sensor and used to monitor an edge of the puddle to monitor the size and/or position of the puddle.”)
“ wherein the weld pool edge location and a desired edge location are used to adjust the first feed rate, a travel speed of the electrode wire feeder, the second feed rate, or a travel speed of the second wire feeder. (Paragraph [89] in Peters-889 teaches “the sensor 1120 can be either a heat sensor or a visual sensor and used to monitor an edge of the puddle to monitor the size and/or position of the puddle. The controller 195 then uses the detected puddle information to control the operation of the system as described above.” Paragraph [53] teaches “the sensing and current controller 195 is operatively connected to the wire feeder 150 in order to command the wire feeder 150 to start and stop.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the second feed rate in Peters based on edge pool location as taught in Peters-889. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the sensor 1120 can be either a heat sensor or a visual sensor and used to monitor an edge of the puddle to monitor the size and/or position of the puddle. The controller 195 then uses the detected puddle information to control the operation of the system as described above” as taught in paragraph [89] in Peters-889.)
Claim(s) 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, Peters-219, and Gandy as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Raudsepp et al., US 20150202709 (hereafter Raudsepp).
Regarding claim 14,
“The method of claim 12, wherein: a power value is an amount of electric power in the input electric power; a travel speed value indicates the first travel speed; and the second feed rate is determined using the power value, the travel speed value, and the first feed rate.” (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Paragraph [47] in Raudsepp teaches “adjusting the cold wire feed speed in dependence on changes in hot wire feed speed and/or arc voltage when the hot wire feed speed and/or the arc voltage are active hot wire welding parameters.” Here hot wire feed speed corresponds to the first feed rate, cold wire feed speed corresponds to second feed rate.
Paragraph [52] in Raudsepp teaches
PNG
media_image3.png
311
527
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Here, voltage times current corresponds to input electric power, and welding speed corresponds to travel speed.
Paragraph [51] teaches “In some embodiments, the cold wire feed speed is dependent on a plurality of active welding parameters related to the same hot wire.” Thus, second feed rate depends on first feed rate, input electric power, and travel speed.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the feed rate of second wire feeder in Peters based on power, travel speed, and first speed rate as taught in Raudsepp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the cold wire feed speed is made dependent on one or more active welding parameters, which are adjusted to better suit the current welding conditions” as taught in paragraph [37] in Raudsepp.)
Regarding claim 15,
“ The method of claim 14 wherein the second feed rate maximizes a material deposition rate (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
The claim is interpreted as second feed rate is calculated to increase material deposition rate as described in paragraph [37] in the original disclosure
PNG
media_image4.png
219
1005
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Raudsepp teaches adjusting cold wire feed speed based on active welding parameter values in paragraph [35]. Paragraph [13] teaches “feeding of cold wire material into the weld puddle may lead to an increase of productivity of up to 100% with optimized welding parameters. In other words, a cold wire allows for higher deposition rates without increasing the heat input.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the feed rate of second wire feeder in Peters to maximize material deposition rate as taught in Raudsepp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “adjusting the cold wire feed speed in dependence on at least first active welding parameter variations, to maintain high welding stability and high weld quality”” as taught in paragraph [31] in Raudsepp.)
that is a function of the power value that is the amount of electric power in the input electric power.” (Peters is silent about this limitation.
Paragraph [49] in Raudsepp teaches “The cold wire feed speed can also be dependent on the welding power. The welding power can be defined as: P=U x I (2), where P(kJ) is welding power, U(V) is arc voltage and I(A) is welding current.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the feed rate of second wire feeder in Peters based on input power as taught in Raudsepp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the cold wire feed speed is made dependent on one or more active welding parameters, which are adjusted to better suit the current welding conditions” as taught in paragraph [37] in Raudsepp.)
Regarding claim 16,
“The method of claim 15, …second wire cross-section area determine the material deposition rate. (Peters 219 teaches “second wire cross-section area determine the material deposition rate”. Paragraph [111] teaches that for the second wire “it is understood that the respective melting temperatures and desired operational temperatures will varying on at least the alloy, composition, diameter and feed rate of the filler wire.” It is implied that the material deposition rate depends on the desired temperature of the filler wire which depends on the diameter of the filler wire. Here filler wire corresponds to second wire.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the deposition rate in Peters based on second wire cross-section area as taught in Peters 219. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “By maintaining the filler wire 140 at a temperature close to or at its melting temperature the wire 140 is easily melted into or consumed into the weld puddle created by the heat source/laser 120. That is, the wire 140 is of a temperature which does not result in significantly quenching the weld puddle when the wire 140 makes contact with the puddle” as taught in paragraph [111] in Peters-219.
Primary combination of references is silent about wherein the first feed rate, an electrode wire cross-section area, the second feed rate, ….determine the material deposition rate.
Raudsepp teaches wherein the first feed rate, an electrode wire cross-section area, the second feed rate, ….determine the material deposition rate (Paragraph [13] in Raudsepp teaches “feeding of cold wire material into the weld puddle may lead to an increase of productivity of up to 100% with optimized welding parameters. In other words, a cold wire allows for higher deposition rates without increasing the heat input.” It is implied that material deposition rate depends on cold wire speed, hence second feed rate.
Raudsepp teaches adjusting cold wire feed speed based on active welding parameter values in paragraph [35]. Paragraph [45] teaches hot wire speed is an active welding parameter. Thus, material deposition rate depends on hot wire feed speed, hence first feed rate.
Paragraph [88] teaches “The use of more than one hot wire allows for a reduction in electrode diameter, which in turn increases the current density for each hot wire. The increased current density allows for increased pre-heating of the electrode, hence a higher deposition rate can be maintained at less heat transfer to the weld puddle.” Thus, material deposition rate depends on diameter of electrode hence electrode cross-section area.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the deposition rate in Peters based on first feed rate, electrode wire cross-section area, and second feed rate as taught in Raudsepp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the cold wire feed speed is made dependent on one or more active welding parameters, which are adjusted to better suit the current welding conditions” as taught in paragraph [37] in Raudsepp.)
Regarding claim 17,
“The method of claim 14, wherein a deposition defect indicates that the power value has exceeded a power value threshold;” ( Peters is silent about this.
The claim is interpreted as power value needs to be controlled to obtain defect free welding. Paragraph [139] tin Peters-219 teaches “the energy density of the laser beam 110 can be modified to ensure that the desired weld puddle temperature is achieved.”)
“a defect detector is used to determine the power value threshold; and the power value is set based on the power value threshold.” (Paragraph [139] in Peters-219 teaches “the sensor 1420 can be coupled directly to the laser power supply 130. Feedback from the sensor 1420 is used to control output from laser power supply 130/laser 120. That is, the energy density of the laser beam 110 can be modified to ensure that the desired weld puddle temperature is achieved.” Here sensor corresponds to defect detector.
Paragraph [5] teaches “The high intensity energy source may include at least one of a laser device, a plasma arc welding (PAW) device, a gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) device, a gas metal arc welding (GMAW) device, a flux cored arc welding (FCAW) device, and a submerged arc welding (SAW) device.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the input power of the electrode arc system in Peters based on sensor and feedback as taught in Peters 219. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the sensor 1420 can monitor the workpiece temperature and reduce the energy density of the beam 110 based on the sensed temperature. Such a configuration would ensure that the heat input adjacent the weld bead would not exceed a desired threshold. Such an embodiment can be utilized in precision welding operations where heat input into the workpiece is critical” as taught in paragraph [140] in Peters-219.)
Claim(s) 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Peters, Peters-219, Gandy as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Raudsepp et al., US 20150202709 (hereafter Raudsepp).
Regarding claim 19,
“The system of claim 18, wherein:
a power value is an amount of electric power; a travel speed value indicates the travel speed; and the second feed rate is determined using the power value, the travel speed value, and the first feed rate.” (Similar scope to claim 14 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 20,
“The system of claim 18 further including a means for maximizing a material deposition rate without introducing a deposition defect.” (Please see claim interpretation for this limitation.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Raudsepp teaches adjusting cold wire feed speed based on active welding parameter values in paragraph [35]. Paragraph [13] teaches “feeding of cold wire material into the weld puddle may lead to an increase of productivity of up to 100% with optimized welding parameters. In other words, a cold wire allows for higher deposition rates without increasing the heat input.”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the feed rate of second wire feeder in Peters to maximize material deposition rate as taught in Raudsepp. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “adjusting the cold wire feed speed in dependence on at least first active welding parameter variations, to maintain high welding stability and high weld quality” as taught in paragraph [31] in Raudsepp.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 04/08/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8-9, 12, 14-20 have been considered but are not persuasive.
The applicant amended the independent claims 1, 12, 18 and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
The applicant’s arguments against Suzuki is moot because Suzuki is not relied upon in the current office action.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights