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 Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 12/03/2025. Claims 1-7, 9-18 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1 and 12 have been amended; claim 8 cancelled.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/22/2025.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/22/2025.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/22/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation is maintained in this Office Action, see details below in the Claim Interpretation section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 12/03/2025 have changed the scope of the claims; therefore, the claims interpretation has changed. Thus, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed on 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments because the previously cited prior art Fujiya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0050268 A1) is no longer applied in the rejections of the independent claim 1 and the independent claim 12 in this Office Action. See the detailed rejections in the 35 U.S.C. 102 & 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections sections below.
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“radiation unit configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in a directed manner onto a workpiece surface of a workpiece along a beam axis extending in a beam direction” in claim 1 (lines 2-3). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to emit electromagnetic radiation in a directed manner onto a workpiece surface of a workpiece along a beam axis extending in a beam direction” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “radiation unit” will be interpreted as “laser” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0017: “The radiation unit, in particular laser unit, is configured to direct electromagnetic radiation, in particular a laser beam, onto a workpiece along a beam axis extending in a beam direction”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 12-16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the plurality of second powder jets is focused directly from the plurality of first powder-outlet openings toward a second material focal zone” in lines 15-16. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how the plurality of second powder jets is focused directly from the plurality of first powder-outlet openings. Specifically, claim 12 recites “the plurality of second powder jets is discharged from a plurality of second powder-outlet openings” previously in lines 11-12; therefore, the plurality of second powder jets is supposed to be focused directly from the plurality of second powder-outlet openings, not the first powder-outlet openings. Thus, it is unclear how the plurality of second powder jets is focused directly from the plurality of first powder-outlet openings as required by claim 12 (lines 15-16). For examination purposes, the limitation “the plurality of second powder jets is focused directly from the plurality of first powder-outlet openings toward a second material focal zone” as recited in claim 12 (lines 15-16) will be interpreted as “the plurality of second powder jets is focused directly from the plurality of [[first]] second powder-outlet openings toward a second material focal zone”.
Claim 13-16 and 18 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7, 11-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gasser et al. (DE 102005058172 A1, published in 2007, see the Translation of the Description of this prior art Gasser et al. in the attachment).
Regarding claim 1, Gasser discloses a material deposition unit (as shown in Gasser Fig.5), comprising:
a radiation unit (“laser source”, Gasser Translated Par.0028; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0028 discloses: “laser source (not shown in detail)”) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation (laser beam, Gasser Fig.5, it is well known that laser emits electromagnetic radiation) in a directed manner onto a workpiece surface of a workpiece (surface of the “base material”, Gasser Translated Par.0002; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0002 discloses: “Such a device is well known and is used, among other things, for laser beam cladding. Laser beam cladding with powdered filler materials is used for repair, wear and corrosion protection in the areas of tool, mold, engine and mechanical engineering. The filler material is fed in powder form into the interaction zone of the laser beam with the material to be processed, melted and bonded to the base material.”; therefore, Gasser discloses the laser beam cladding system as shown in Fig.5 is configured to generate a laser beam, wherein the laser beam is configured to process the powder in order to melt and bond the powder to the base material) along a beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) (it is noted that Fig.5 of Gasser was annotated into 2 parts – Part 1 and Part 2 as shown below for clarity purposes) extending in a beam direction (beam direction, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below), and
a powder discharge device (“nozzle head”, Gasser Translated Par.0001, having powder outlets bores 1 with first powder-outlet openings and powder outlets bores 2 with second powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below because Gasser Translated Par.0001 discloses: “wherein the nozzle head has an axially arranged beam outlet opening for the laser radiation and for a protective gas and powder outlet bores with powder outlet openings”) having multiple powder discharge units (powder outlets bores 1 with first powder-outlet openings and powder outlets bores 2 with second powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) configured to discharge powder (Gasser Translated Par.0001 discloses: “wherein the nozzle head has an axially arranged beam outlet opening for the laser radiation and for a protective gas and powder outlet bores with powder outlet openings, wherein the axes of the powder outlet bores intersect the axis of the beam outlet opening and wherein a powder focus is formed in the region of the intersection point(s)”) in a directed form onto the workpiece (“base material”, Gasser Translated Par.0002; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0002 discloses: “Such a device is well known and is used, among other things, for laser beam cladding. Laser beam cladding with powdered filler materials is used for repair, wear and corrosion protection in the areas of tool, mold, engine and mechanical engineering. The filler material is fed in powder form into the interaction zone of the laser beam with the material to be processed, melted and bonded to the base material.”, and Gasser Translated Par.0001 discloses: “wherein the nozzle head has an axially arranged beam outlet opening for the laser radiation and for a protective gas and powder outlet bores with powder outlet openings, wherein the axes of the powder outlet bores intersect the axis of the beam outlet opening and wherein a powder focus is formed in the region of the intersection point(s)”; therefore, Gasser discloses the plurality of powder outlet openings configured to discharge powder in a directed form onto the base material),
wherein the powder discharge device (“nozzle head”, Gasser Translated Par.0001, having powder outlets bores 1 with first powder-outlet openings and powder outlets bores 2 with second powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below because Gasser Translated Par.0001 discloses: “wherein the nozzle head has an axially arranged beam outlet opening for the laser radiation and for a protective gas and powder outlet bores with powder outlet openings”) comprises at least:
a first powder discharge unit (powder outlets bores 1 with first powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) having a plurality of first powder-outlet openings (first powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) and a second powder discharge unit (powder outlets bores 2 with second powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) having a plurality of second powder-outlet openings (second powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below),
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (first powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) has a first powder feed angle (first powder feed angle, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) with respect to the beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) and is configured to discharge a plurality of first powder jets (first powder jets, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) at the first powder feed angle (first powder feed angle, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) directly in a direction of a first material focal zone (working position 1, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below), and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings (second powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) has a second powder feed angle (second powder feed angle, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) with respect to the beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) and is configured to discharge a plurality of second powder jets (second powder jets, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) at the second powder feed angle (second powder feed angle, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) directly in a direction of a second material focal zone (working position 2, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below),
the first material focal zone (working position 1, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) and the second material focal zone (working position 2, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) being spaced apart from one another in the beam direction (beam direction, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) (Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below shows that the working position 1 and the working position 2 being spaced apart from one another in the beam direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
801
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Gasser discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (first powder-outlet openings, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below) and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings (second powder-outlet openings, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below) each comprises a same number of powder-outlet openings (Gasser annotated Fig.5 below shows there are two of the first powder-outlet openings and there are two of the second powder-outlet openings; thus, each comprises a same number of powder outlet openings).
PNG
media_image3.png
702
890
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Gasser discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (first powder-outlet openings, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below) lies in a first plane (first plane, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below) running orthogonally to the beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below), and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings (second powder-outlet openings, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below) lies in a second plane (second plane, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below), running orthogonally to the beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below) and being spaced apart from the first plane (first plane, Gasser annotated Fig.5 below) in the beam direction (direction of the laser beam, Gasser Fig.5).
PNG
media_image4.png
702
890
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Gasser discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein the radiation unit (“laser source”, Gasser Translated Par.0028; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0028 discloses: “laser source (not shown in detail)”) comprises a laser (“laser source”, Gasser Translated Par.0028; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0028 discloses: “laser source (not shown in detail)”, or “Laser” as shown in Gasser Fig.5) configured to emit a laser beam (laser beam, Gasser Fig.5) onto the workpiece (“base material”, Gasser Translated Par.0002; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0002 discloses: “Such a device is well known and is used, among other things, for laser beam cladding. Laser beam cladding with powdered filler materials is used for repair, wear and corrosion protection in the areas of tool, mold, engine and mechanical engineering. The filler material is fed in powder form into the interaction zone of the laser beam with the material to be processed, melted and bonded to the base material.”; therefore, Gasser discloses laser beam is emitted on the base material in order to bond the powder to the base material).
Regarding claim 12, Gasser discloses a method for laser build-up welding (as shown in Gasser Fig.5), the method comprising:
directing, using a laser (“laser source”, Gasser Translated Par.0028; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0028 discloses: “laser source (not shown in detail)”), a laser beam (laser beam, Gasser Fig.5, it is well known that laser emits electromagnetic radiation) onto a workpiece surface (surface of the “base material”, Gasser Translated Par.0002; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0002 discloses: “Such a device is well known and is used, among other things, for laser beam cladding. Laser beam cladding with powdered filler materials is used for repair, wear and corrosion protection in the areas of tool, mold, engine and mechanical engineering. The filler material is fed in powder form into the interaction zone of the laser beam with the material to be processed, melted and bonded to the base material.”; therefore, Gasser discloses the laser beam cladding system as shown in Fig.5 is configured to generate a laser beam, wherein the laser beam is configured to process the powder in order to melt and bond the powder to the base material) along a beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) (it is noted that the Fig.5 of Gasser was annotated into 2 parts – Part 1 and Part 2 as shown below for clarity purposes) extending in a beam direction (beam direction, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below);
feeding a powder material to a process zone (process zone includes the working positions 1 & 2, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Parts 1-2 below) via a plurality first powder jets (first powder jets, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) and a plurality of second powder jets (second powder jets, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below), wherein the plurality of first powder jets (first powder jets, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) is discharged from a plurality of first powder-outlet openings (first powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below), the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (first powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) having a first powder feed angle (first powder feed angle, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) relative to the beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below), wherein the plurality of first powder jets (first powder jets, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) is focused directly from the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (first powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) toward a first material focal zone (working position 1, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below), and the plurality of second powder jets (second powder jets, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) is discharged from a plurality of second powder-outlet openings (second powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below), the plurality of second powder-outlet openings (second powder-outlet openings, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) having a second powder feed angle (second powder feed angle, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) relative to the beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below), wherein the plurality of second powder jets (second powder jets, see Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) is focused directly from the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejection section above for the rejection of the limitation “the plurality of second powder jets is focused directly from the plurality of first powder-outlet openings toward a second material focal zone”; in this case, the limitation “the plurality of first powder-outlet openings” will be interpreted as the plurality of second powder-outlet openings, see second powder-outlet openings in Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 1 below) toward a second material focal zone (working position 2, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below), the first material focal zone (working position 1, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) and the second material focal zone (working position 2, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) being spaced apart from each other along the beam axis (beam axis, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below) (Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Part 2 below shows that the working position 1 and the working position 2 being spaced apart from each other along the beam axis).
PNG
media_image1.png
714
889
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
801
888
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 13, Gasser discloses the method as set forth in claim 12, and also discloses:
wherein the laser beam (laser beam, Gasser Fig.5) is focused onto the workpiece surface (surface of the “base material”, Gasser Translated Par.0002; specifically, Gasser Translated Par.0002 discloses: “Such a device is well known and is used, among other things, for laser beam cladding. Laser beam cladding with powdered filler materials is used for repair, wear and corrosion protection in the areas of tool, mold, engine and mechanical engineering. The filler material is fed in powder form into the interaction zone of the laser beam with the material to be processed, melted and bonded to the base material.”; therefore, Gasser discloses the laser beam cladding system as shown in Fig.5 is configured to generate a laser beam, wherein the laser beam is configured to process the powder in order to melt and bond the powder to the base material), in order to heat or melt [it is noted that the limitation “heat or melt” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination] a base material in the process zone (process zone includes the working position 1 and the working position 2, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Parts 1-2 in the rejection of claim 12 above) (Gasser Translated Par.0002 discloses: “Such a device is well known and is used, among other things, for laser beam cladding. Laser beam cladding with powdered filler materials is used for repair, wear and corrosion protection in the areas of tool, mold, engine and mechanical engineering. The filler material is fed in powder form into the interaction zone of the laser beam with the material to be processed, melted and bonded to the base material.”; therefore, Gasser discloses the laser beam cladding system as shown in Fig.5 is configured to generate a laser beam, wherein the laser beam is configured to process the powder in order to melt the powder).
Regarding claim 14, Gasser discloses the method as set forth in claim 13, and also discloses:
wherein the process zone (process zone includes the working position 1 and the working position 2, Gasser annotated Fig.5 – Parts 1-2 in the rejection of claim 12 above) comprises a melt pool (Gasser Translated Par.0040 discloses: “The gas flow rates used must not be too high so that the molten pool is not deformed during laser beam deposition welding.”; therefore, the process zone comprises a melt pool).
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 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 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasser et al. (DE 102005058172 A1) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 102554471 B).
Regarding claim 3, Gasser discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first powder feed angle and the second powder feed angle are different.
Zhang teaches a material deposition unit (Zhang Figs.1-2):
wherein the first powder feed angle (first powder feed angle, Zhang annotated Fig.2 below) and the second powder feed angle (second powder feed angle, Zhang annotated Fig.2 below) are different (Zhang annotated Fig.2 below shows that the first powder feed angle and the second powder feed angle are different)
PNG
media_image5.png
611
785
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by making the first powder feed angle and the second powder feed angle are different, as taught by Zhang, in order to achieve optimal convergence angle for each powder material because different powder materials have different composition, density and grain sizes, thus, different powder materials have different optimal convergence angle, which requires adjustment of the feeding angle to achieve melt pool stability, as recognized by Zhang [Zhang, Translated Pars.0003 & 0011].
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasser et al. (DE 102005058172 A1) in view of Miyagi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0145683 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Gasser discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the first powder feed angle and the second powder feed angle are identical.
Miyagi teaches a material deposition unit (Miyagi Fig.1):
wherein the first powder feed angle (first powder feed angle, Miyagi annotated Fig.1 below) and the second powder feed angle (second powder feed angle, Miyagi annotated Fig.1 below) are identical (Miyagi Par.0033 teaches: “The lower ends of the powder supply nozzles 111 are supported by a holder 110, which is arranged near the tip of the laser emission unit 13 in such a manner that the powder supply nozzles 111 are inclined at an identical angle from the optical axis of the laser light.”; therefore, Miyagi teaches the first powder feed angle and the second powder feed angle are identical).
PNG
media_image6.png
843
901
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by making the first powder feed angle and the second powder feed angle are identical, as taught by Miyagi, in order to ensure uniform powder distribution around the melt pool, balanced momentum of incoming powder particles and stable melt pool formation. Thus, the modification would improve the process stability and powder utilization efficiency.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasser et al. (DE 102005058172 A1) in view of Jeantette et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,046,426 A).
Regarding claim 5, Gasser discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings is arranged at a first spacing from the beam axis as seen in a viewing plane running orthogonally to the beam axis, and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings is arranged in the viewing plane at a second spacing, which is different than the first spacing, from the beam axis, with the plurality of first powder-outlet openings and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings lying in the viewing plane as seen in the beam direction.
Jeantette teaches a material deposition unit:
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (holes 17, Jeantette Fig.3A) is arranged at a first spacing (first spacing, Jeantette annotated Fig.3A below) from the beam axis as seen in a viewing plane running orthogonally to the beam axis (Jeantette Fig.3A shows the viewing plane running orthogonally to the beam axis), and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings (holes 21, Jeantette Fig.3A) is arranged in the viewing plane at a second spacing (second spacing, Jeantette annotated Fig.3A below), which is different than the first spacing (first spacing, Jeantette annotated Fig.3A below), from the beam axis, with the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (holes 17, Jeantette Fig.3A) and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings (holes 21, Jeantette Fig.3A) lying in the viewing plane as seen in the beam direction (Jeantette annotated Fig.3A below shows holes 21 arranged in the viewing plane at second spacing, which is different than the first spacing, from the beam axis, with holes 17 and holes 21 lying in the viewing plane as seen in the beam direction) (Jeantette Col.5 lines 32-35 discloses: “Holes 17, 19, and 21 are not radially aligned, but rather, are offset one from another, to ensure uniform flow of powdered material M”).
PNG
media_image7.png
801
777
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by making the plurality of first powder-outlet openings is arranged at a first spacing from the beam axis as seen in a viewing plane running orthogonally to the beam axis, and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings is arranged in the viewing plane at a second spacing, which is different than the first spacing, from the beam axis, with the plurality of first powder-outlet openings and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings lying in the viewing plane as seen in the beam direction, as taught by Jeantette, in order to ensure uniform flow of feed powdered material, as recognized by Jeantette [Jeantette, Col.5 lines 32-35]. Specifically, when the flow rate of feed powdered material is high, the modification would help to ensure uniform flow of feed powdered material since there are some spaces between the first powder-outlet openings and the second powder-outlet openings (offset from the center of the beam axis in the viewing plane that is orthogonal to the beam axis), thus, the powder flow from one outlet opening will not interrupt the powder flow from the other outlet openings when the powder exit the outlet openings; therefore, ensure uniform flow of feed powdered material.
Claims 6, 9-10, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasser et al. (DE 102005058172 A1) in view of Fujiya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0050268 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Gasser discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of first powder-outlet openings and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings is arranged at a same spacing as seen in a viewing plane running orthogonally to the beam axis, with the plurality of first powder-outlet openings and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings lying in the viewing plane as seen in the beam direction
Fujiya teaches a material deposition unit comprising a powder discharge device (processing nozzle 100, Fujiya Figs.1-2):
wherein each of the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (each of the first powder-outlet openings, Fujiya annotated Fig.5 below; it is noted that first powder-outlet openings are the openings of the powder supply paths 121) and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings (each of the second powder-outlet openings, Fujiya annotated Fig.5 below; it is noted that second powder-outlet openings are the openings of the powder supply paths 122) is arranged at a same spacing as seen in a viewing plane (viewing plane, Fujiya annotated Fig.5 below) running orthogonally to the beam axis (beam axis, Fujiya annotated Fig.5 below) (Fujiya Fig.1 shows each of the first powder-outlet openings and the second powder-outlet openings being arranged at a same spacing as seen in a viewing plane running orthogonally to the beam axis; it is noted that Fujiya Par.0039 discloses: “The processing nozzle 500 according to this embodiment is different from the first embodiment in that flappers 501 and 502 are provided. The rest of the components and operations is the same as in the first embodiment.”; therefore, the locations of the outlet openings of the powder supply paths 121 and 122 are the same for Fujiya Fig.1 and Fujiya Fig.5), with the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (first powder-outlet openings, Fujiya annotated Fig.5 below) and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings first powder-outlet openings, Fujiya annotated Fig.5 below) lying in the viewing plane (viewing plane, Fujiya annotated Fig.5 below) as seen in the beam direction (direction of beam 110, Fujiya Fig.5).
PNG
media_image8.png
946
943
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by making each of the plurality of first powder-outlet openings and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings is arranged at a same spacing as seen in a viewing plane running orthogonally to the beam axis, with the plurality of first powder-outlet openings and the plurality of second powder-outlet openings lying in the viewing plane as seen in the beam direction, as taught by Fujiya, in order to ensure consistent, high-quality material layer formation by maintaining a uniform powder and material flow, thus, provide even material distribution into the melt pool.
Regarding claim 9, Gasser discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings is arranged uniformly distributed about the beam axis in a circumferential direction, and/or the plurality of second powder-outlet openings is arranged uniformly distributed about the beam axis in the circumferential direction.
Fujiya teaches a material deposition unit comprising a powder discharge device (processing nozzle 100, Fujiya Figs.1-2):
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (openings 221 of the powder supply paths 121, Fujiya Fig.2 & Par.0026) is arranged uniformly distributed about the beam axis (axis of the beam 110, Fujiya Fig.1) in a circumferential direction (Fujiya Figs.1-2 show the openings 221 of the powder supply paths 121 being arranged uniformly distributed about the beam axis in the circumferential direction), and/or the plurality of second powder- outlet openings (openings 222 of the powder supply paths 122, Fujiya Fig.2 & Par.0026) is arranged uniformly distributed about the beam axis (axis of the beam 110, Fujiya Fig.1) in the circumferential direction (Fujiya Figs.1-2 show the openings 222 of the powder supply paths 122 being arranged uniformly distributed about the beam axis in the circumferential direction).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by making the plurality of first powder-outlet openings is arranged uniformly distributed about the beam axis in a circumferential direction, and/or the plurality of second powder-outlet openings is arranged uniformly distributed about the beam axis in the circumferential direction, as taught by Fujiya, in order to ensure consistent, high-quality material layer formation by maintaining a uniform powder and material flow, thus, provide even material distribution into the melt pool.
Regarding claim 10, Gasser discloses the method as set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings is connected to a different powder source than the plurality of second powder-outlet openings.
Fujiya teaches a material deposition unit comprising a powder discharge device (processing nozzle 100, Fujiya Figs.1-2):
wherein the plurality of first powder-outlet openings (openings 221 of the powder supply paths 121, Fujiya Fig.2 & Par.0026) is connected to a different powder source than the plurality of second powder-outlet openings (openings 222 of the powder supply paths 122, Fujiya Fig.2 & Par.0026) (Fujiya Par.0032 teaches: “When stacking a plurality of different materials as well, the different materials can be stacked using different supply paths for the respective materials.”; therefore, Fujiya teaches the plurality of first powder-outlet openings being connected to a different powder source than the plurality of second powder-outlet openings).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by adding the teaching of the plurality of first powder-outlet openings is connected to a different powder source than the plurality of second powder-outlet openings, as taught by Fujiya, in order to allow for the creation of multi-material parts with graded properties, such as high hardness in specific areas, thus, improve thermal conductivity, and/or tailor corrosion resistance.
Regarding claim 15, Gasser discloses the method as set forth in claim 12, Gasser does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a first material is fed to the process zone, via the plurality of first powder jets, and a second material different than the first material is fed to the process zone via the plurality of second powder jets.
Fujiya teaches a method for laser build-up welding (Fujiya Par.0033 discloses: “The optical machining apparatus 400 is an apparatus that produces a three-dimensional shaped object (or overlay welding)”), comprising:
wherein a first material is fed to the process zone (powder spot 511, Fujiya Fig.5), via the plurality of first powder jets (three powder supply paths 121, Fujiya Fig.5), and a second material different than the first material (Fujiya Par.0032 discloses: “When stacking a plurality of different materials as well, the different materials can be stacked using different supply paths for the respective materials.”; therefore, Fujiya discloses the second material different than the first material) is fed to the process zone (powder spot 512, Fujiya Fig.5) via the plurality of second powder jets (three powder supply paths 122, Fujiya Fig.5).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by adding the teaching of a first material is fed to the process zone, via the plurality of first powder jets, and a second material different than the first material is fed to the process zone via the plurality of second powder jets, as taught by Fujiya, in order to allow for the creation of multi-material parts with graded properties, such as high hardness in specific areas, thus, improve thermal conductivity, and/or tailor corrosion resistance.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasser et al. (DE 102005058172 A1) in view of Fujiya et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0050268 A1), and further in view of Liu (U.S. Pub. No. 2007/0034048 A1).
Regarding claim 16, Gasser in view of Fujiya teaches the method as set forth in claim 15, but does not disclose:
wherein the first material comprises a matrix material, and the second material comprises a hard material.
Liu teaches (Liu Par.0013):
wherein the first material (“second, different material”, Liu Par.0013) comprises a matrix material, and the second material (“first material”, Liu Par.0013) comprises a hard material (Liu Par.0013 teaches: “The hard metal materials described below include materials comprising hard particles having a first material, and a binder matrix having a second, different material.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Gasser in view of Fujiya first powder material with the Liu hard material, and substitute the Gasser in view of Fujiya second powder material with the Liu matrix material, because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would have yield a predictable result of producing a three-dimensional shaped object (or overlay welding) by first and second powder materials. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gasser et al. (DE 102005058172 A1) in view of Colin et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0298259 A1).
Regarding claim 17, Gasser discloses the apparatus as set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone lies downstream of the workpiece surface in a transport direction of the plurality of first powder jets and the plurality of the second powder jets.
Colin teaches a material deposition unit (Colin Fig.1):
wherein at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone (it is noted that the limitation “at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination; in this case, the Colin focal point FP as shown in Fig.1 is interpreted to be least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone, see Colin annotated Fig.1 below) lies downstream of the workpiece surface (surface of workpiece 80, Colin annotated Fig.1 below) in a transport direction of the plurality of first powder jets and the plurality of the second powder jets (as shown in Colin annotated Fig.1 below; and in combination, by making at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone lies downstream of the workpiece surface as taught by Colin, the combination of Gasser in view of Colin teaches at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone lies downstream of the workpiece surface in a transport direction of the plurality of first powder jets and the plurality of the second powder jets).
PNG
media_image9.png
589
903
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by making at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone lies downstream of the workpiece surface in a transport direction of the plurality of first powder jets and the plurality of the second powder jets, as taught by Colin, in order to avoid the powder beam crossing the high energy beam between the outlet from the nozzle and the working plane because an advantage of this absence of interaction between the laser and the powder upstream from the pool is to avoid any change of shape, to avoid agglomerates forming, and to avoid harmful oxidation of the powder particles, as recognized by Colin [Colin, Pars.0067, 0082].
Regarding claim 18, Gasser discloses the method as set forth in claim 12, but does not disclose:
wherein at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone lies downstream of the workpiece surface in a transport direction of the plurality of first powder jets and the plurality of the second powder jets.
Colin teaches a material deposition method (Colin Fig.1):
wherein at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone (it is noted that the limitation “at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was given patentable weight during examination; in this case, the Colin focal point FP as shown in Fig.1 is interpreted to be least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone, see Colin annotated Fig.1 below) lies downstream of the workpiece surface (surface of workpiece 80, Colin annotated Fig.1 below) in a transport direction of the plurality of first powder jets and the plurality of the second powder jets (as shown in Colin annotated Fig.1 below; and in combination, by making at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone lies downstream of the workpiece surface as taught by Colin, the combination of Fujiya in view of Colin teaches at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone lies downstream of the workpiece surface in a transport direction of the plurality of first powder jets and the plurality of the second powder jets).
PNG
media_image9.png
589
903
media_image9.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Gasser, by making at least one the first material focal zone and the second material focal zone lies downstream of the workpiece surface in a transport direction of the plurality of first powder jets and the plurality of the second powder jets, as taught by Colin, in order to avoid the powder beam crossing the high energy beam between the outlet from the nozzle and the working plane because an advantage of this absence of interaction between the laser and the powder upstream from the pool is to avoid any change of shape, to avoid agglomerates forming, and to avoid harmful oxidation of the powder particles, as recognized by Colin [Colin, Pars.0067, 0082].
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Daum et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0207108 A1) discloses a material deposition head including a ring configured to rotate about a first body portion and cause axial translation of the first body portion relative to a second body portion, where one or more nozzles are coupled to the first body portion.
McGregor et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,504,127 B1) discloses a laser consolidation methodology and apparatus for manufacturing precise three-dimensional structures. In the disclosed process, a plurality of beams of laser energy are arranged to impinge a circular area on a substrate, at an angle in the range of 25 degrees to 30 degrees to the normal to the substrate, melting a hemispherical region of the substrate.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/14/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761