DETAILED ACTION
Response to Arguments
Regarding the remarks directed to the “Response to Arguments” on page 5 of the Remarks filed 03/06/2026, Applicant is correct that ‘the Non-Final Office Action meant to state “a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Catania (U.S. Patent No. 5,477,597).”’.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC 103, applicant's arguments filed 03/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive because the combination of Torii, Catania, and Church renders claims 1 and 10 obvious as amended. In particular, Church teaches a heat exchanger coupled to the radiation source (heat sink 12/32 is coupled to heater and nozzle holder 38 via heat break 34, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Col. 5, lines 20-52, Col. 6, lines 34-36). Although the heat break does create space between the heater and nozzle holder 38 and the heat sink 32, there is still a demonstrated connection between these components, as seen in Fig. 6. Consequently, the heat sink (interpreted heat exchanger) is shown to be coupled to the heater (radiation source).
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 .
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.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, 9-10, 12-18, 20, 22 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii, et. al. (US 5185512 A), hereinafter Torii, in view of Catania, et. al. (US 5477597 A), hereinafter Catania, and Church, et. al. (US 10500830 B2), hereinafter Church.
Regarding claim 1, Torii teaches an apparatus (laser robot, Col. 2, lines 22-26), comprising: a chassis (drive motor Mv and support structures of the drive motor Mv, including housing 24 which encloses a joint joining the output shaft of the drive motor, Col. 4, lines 23-43, Figs. 3 and 4); a transmission mechanism coupled to the chassis (transmission mechanism (including ball screw shaft 30, screw nut 32, and linkage 34), connects to output shaft of drive motor via joint, see Fig. 3 where 30 connects to 24, Col. 4, lines 23-43); and a radiation head coupled to the transmission mechanism (end part including laser beam projecting unit 20 is coupled to transmission mechanism (30, 32, 34) via robot wrist 18, robot arm 16 swivel post 14, Fig. 3, Col. 4, lines 44-56) and comprising:
a radiation source emitting radiation in a direction (laser beam projecting unit 20 emits laser in direction, see arrow showing direction of laser beam in Fig. 3);
wherein the radiation head is moveable with respect to the chassis (motion “V” shown by arrows in Fig. 3 is relative to housing 24 and support structures of the drive motor Mv, Col. 3, lines 41-49).
Although Torii teaches a transmission mechanism (30,32, 34), Torii does not teach a gearbox. Further, Torii does not teach a heat exchanger coupled to the radiation source.
Catania teaches a gearbox (gearbox 358, Figs. 16, 18, and 19, Col. 13 line 48-Col. 14 line 17. The gearbox 358 has an output shaft and couples to head means 314 via arm means 310).
Catania modifies Torii by suggesting a gearbox.
Since both inventions are directed to apparatuses for additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Catania because the gearbox, in conjunction with the drive motor and the capstan allows for arcuate motion of the head means within the contour of the inner surface of a workpiece (Col. 13 line 48-Col. 14 line 17).
Church teaches a heat exchanger coupled to the radiation source (heat sink 12/32 is coupled to heater and nozzle holder 38 via heat break 34, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Col. 5, lines 20-52, Col. 6, lines 34-36).
Church modifies the combination by suggesting a heat exchanger coupled to the radiation source.
Since both inventions are directed to apparatuses for additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Catania because the heat sink coupled to the heater via the heat break allows for heat to be dissipated on the cold end of the apparatus adjacent to the heater (Church, Col. 5, Fig. 1, Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 2, Torii teaches wherein the radiation head is moveable in an angular movement that changes the direction of a radiation emitting from the radiation head (motion “V” shown by arrows in Fig. 3, Col. 3, lines 41-49).
Regarding claim 3, Torii teaches wherein the chassis comprises a motor (drive motor Mv, Col. 4, lines 23-43, Figs. 3 and 4).
Regarding claim 5, Torii teaches further comprising a mounting arm coupled between the transmission mechanism and the radiation head (robot arm 16 with robot wrist 18, Col. 3, lines 41-49 and Col. 4, lines 44-56, Fig. 3).
Although Torii teaches a transmission mechanism (30,32, 34), Torii does not teach a gearbox.
Catania teaches a gearbox (gearbox 358, Figs. 16, 18, and 19, Col. 13 line 48-Col. 14 line 17. The gearbox 358 has an output shaft and couples to head means 314 via arm means 310).
Catania modifies Torii by suggesting a gearbox.
Since both inventions are directed to apparatuses for additive manfacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Catania because the gearbox, in conjunction with the drive motor and the capstan allows for arcuate motion of the head means within the contour of the inner surface of a workpiece (Col. 13 line 48-Col. 14 line 17).
Regarding claim 6, Torii in view of Catania does not teach wherein the radiation head comprises a fan.
Church teaches wherein the radiation head comprises a fan (fan 28 in assembly 10, Fig. 6, Col. 6, lines 32-33).
Church modifies the combination by suggesting the radiation head comprises a fan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Church because a fan is used for cooling (Church, Col. 6, line 33).
Regarding claim 7, Torii in view of Catania does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is coupled to the fan.
Church teaches the heat exchanger is coupled to the fan (heat sink 32 in assembly 10, Fig. 6, Col. 6, lines 32-34).
Church modifies the combination by suggesting a heat exchanger coupled to the fan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Church because the heat sink functions with forced air cooling provided by the fan to prevent heat from building up in the cold end of the melt tube (Church, Col. 5, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 9, Torii teaches further comprising a change tool (support bracket 22, Fig. 3) coupled to the chassis (support bracket couples to housing 24 which supports drive motor Mv, Fig. 3), for coupling the apparatus to an arm of a robot (22 couples interpreted apparatus (drive motor Mv, housing 24, transmission mechanism 30, 32, 34, and laser beam projecting unit 20) to robot swivel post 14, the interpreted robot arm).
Regarding claim 10, Torii teaches an apparatus (laser robot, Col. 2, lines 22-26), comprising: a chassis including a motor having a shaft (drive motor Mv, support structures of the drive motor Mv, including housing 24 which encloses a joint joining the output shaft of the drive motor, Col. 4, lines 23-43, Figs. 3 and 4); a change tool coupled to the chassis (support bracket 22 couples to drive motor Mv and housing 24 and acts as a connecting piece between Mv, 24 and the robot swivel post 14, Col. 4, lines 23-43, Fig. 3); a mounting arm (robot arm 16 with robot wrist 18, Col. 3, lines 41-49 and Col. 4, lines 44-56, Fig. 3); a transmission mechanism coupled to the shaft and the mounting arm, for translating rotation of the shaft into movement of the mounting arm (transmission mechanism (including ball screw shaft 30, screw nut 32, and linkage 34), Col. 4, lines 44-56); and a radiation head coupled to the mounting arm, and comprising: a radiation source emitting radiation in a direction (laser beam projecting unit 20, see arrow showing direction of laser beam in Fig. 3), wherein a movement of the mounting arm changes the direction of emission of a radiation from the radiation head (Fig. 3).
Torii does not teach a gearbox coupled to the shaft and the mounting arm, for translating rotation of the shaft into movement of the mounting arm. Further, Torii does not teach a heat exchanger coupled to the radiation source.
Catania teaches a gearbox (gearbox 358) coupled to the shaft and the mounting arm, for translating rotation of the shaft into movement of the mounting arm (gearbox 358 is coupled to output shaft and arm means 310. Rotation of output shaft translates into movement of the arm means 310 via capstan 362, Col. 13 line 48-Col. 14 line 17).
Catania modifies Torii by suggesting a gearbox coupled to the shaft and the mounting arm for translating rotation of the shaft into movement of the mounting arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Catania because the gearbox, in conjunction with the drive motor, the output shaft, and the capstan allows for arcuate motion of the arm means and head means within the contour of the inner surface of a workpiece (Col. 13 line 48-Col. 14 line 17).
Church teaches a heat exchanger coupled to the radiation source (heat sink 12/32 is coupled to heater and nozzle holder 38 via heat break 34, Fig. 1, Fig. 6, Col. 5, lines 20-52, Col. 6, lines 34-36).
Church modifies the combination by suggesting a heat exchanger coupled to the radiation source.
Since both inventions are directed to apparatuses for additive manufacturing, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Catania because the heat sink coupled to the heater via the heat break allows for heat to be dissipated on the cold end of the apparatus adjacent to the heater (Church, Col. 5, Fig. 1, Fig. 6)
Regarding claim 12, Torii teaches wherein the movement of the mounting arm is normal to the direction of emission of radiation (Figure 3 shows motion “V” as being normal to the direction of the laser beam).
Regarding claim 13, Torii teaches wherein the movement of the mounting arm moves the radiation head in an arc (Col. 3, lines 41-49, “swing motion” is arc-shaped shown by “V” in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 14, Torii teaches wherein the movement of the mounting arm includes moving the radiation head about a nominal position (robot arm 16 produces swing motion “V” about the horizontal position shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 15, Torii teaches wherein the arc extends from the nominal position in a first direction and a second direction opposite that of the first direction (robot arm 16 produces swing motion “V”, where the motion is upward and downward from the horizontal position, as shown in Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, Torii teaches wherein the movement of the mounting arm includes at least one stop location (a location where the robot arm is stopped i.e., to direct the laser beam projecting unit toward the desired position, Col. 1, lines 29-40, or inherently when the apparatus is off and the mounting arm is in a stationary position.).
Regarding claim 17, Torii in view of Catania does not teach wherein the radiation head comprises a fan.
Church teaches wherein the radiation head comprises a fan (fan 28 in assembly 10, Fig. 6, Col. 6, lines 32-33).
Church modifies the combination by suggesting the radiation head comprises a fan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Church because a fan is used for cooling (Church, Col. 6, line 33).
Regarding claim 18, Torii in view of Catania does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is coupled to the fan.
Church teaches the heat exchanger is coupled to the fan (heat sink 32 in assembly 10, Fig. 6, Col. 6, lines 32-34).
Church modifies the combination by suggesting a heat exchanger is coupled to the fan.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Church because the heat sink functions with forced air cooling provided by the fan to prevent heat from building up in the cold end of the met tube (Church, Col. 5, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 20, Torii teaches wherein the change tool (support bracket 22, Fig. 3) couples the apparatus to an arm of a robot (22 couples interpreted apparatus (drive motor Mv, housing 24, transmission mechanism 30, 32, 34, robot arm 16 and robot wrist 18, and laser beam projecting unit 20) to robot swivel post 14, the interpreted robot arm).
Regarding claim 22, Although Torii teaches a radiation head (end part including laser projecting unit 20, Fig. 3) and a mounting arm (robot wrist 18, robot arm 16 swivel post 14, Fig. 3), Torii does not teach wherein the radiation head comprises a fan, and wherein the fan is coupled to the mounting arm.
Church teaches the radiation head comprises a fan (apparatus 10 including heater 18/heater and nozzle holder 38 (interpreted radiation head) has fan 28, Fig. 1, Fig. 8), wherein the fan is coupled to the mounting arm (fan 28 is coupled to tractor feed assembly 26, which is interpreted as a mounting arm because I has length, like an arm, and the apparatus 10 is mounted to it).
Church modifies the combination by suggesting a radiation comprising a fan coupled to the mounting arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Church because the heat sink functions with forced air cooling provided by the fan to prevent heat from building up in the cold end (Church, Col. 5, lines 21-24).
Regarding claim 24, Although Torii teaches a radiation head (end part including laser projecting unit 20, Fig. 3) and a mounting arm (robot wrist 18, robot arm 16 swivel post 14, Fig. 3), Torii does not teach wherein the radiation head comprises a fan, and wherein the fan is coupled to the mounting arm.
Church teaches the radiation head comprises a fan (apparatus 10 including heater 18/heater and nozzle holder 38 (interpreted radiation head) has fan 28, Fig. 1, Fig. 8), wherein the fan is coupled to the mounting arm (fan 28 is coupled to tractor feed assembly 26, which is interpreted as a mounting arm because I has length, like an arm, and the apparatus 10 is mounted to it).
Church modifies the combination by suggesting a radiation comprising a fan coupled to the mounting arm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Church because the heat sink functions with forced air cooling provided by the fan to prevent heat from building up in the cold end (Church, Col. 5, lines 21-24).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii (US 5185512 A), in view of Catania (US 5477597 A), in view of Church (US 10500830 B2), further in view of Sehata, et. al. (JP 2001206221 A), hereinafter Sehata.
Regarding claim 4, Although Torii teaches a shaft between the motor and the transmission mechanism (output shaft of drive motor couples with transmission mechanism, Col. 4, lines 25-58, Fig. 3), Torii does not teach a shaft coupling coupled between the motor and the gearbox.
Catania teaches a shaft between the motor and the gearbox (output shaft of the motor and gearbox 358, Col. 13 line 48-Col. 14 line 17).
Sehata teaches a shaft coupling between a motor and the gearbox (shaft coupling 70 coupling output shaft 31d of electric motor 31 and input shaft 32d speed reducer 32).
Catania modifies Torii by suggesting a gearbox, and a shaft coupled between the motor and the gearbox. Sehata suggests the shaft is coupled between the motor and gearbox by a shaft coupling.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Catania because the gearbox, in conjunction with the drive motor, the output shaft, and the capstan allows for arcuate motion of the arm means and head means within the contour of the inner surface of a workpiece (Col. 13 line 48-Col. 14 line 17). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Sehata because a shaft coupling provide support and a means for connection of two parts, (Sehata, [0016]-[0017]).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii, et. al. (US 5185512 A), in view of Catania (US 5477597 A), in view of Church (US 10500830 B2), further in view of Adair, et. al. (US 20190204811 A1), hereinafter Adair.
Regarding claim 11, Although Torii teaches control for selectively rotating the shaft of the motor to move the mounting arm (Col. 1, lines 35-44 implies a controller coupled to the motor for selectively rotating the shaft of the motor to move the mounting arm since it teaches that movement of the robot arm is controlled and that the motor is employed for driving and causing the motion.), Torii in view of Catania does not explicitly teach a controller coupled to the motor.
Adair teaches a controller coupled to the motor ([0079] and Claim 23).
Adair modifies the combination by suggesting a controller coupled to the motor.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Adair because the controller allows for the benefit of automation and control of the motor as desired, (Adair, [0079]).
Claims 8 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii (US 5185512 A), in view of Catania (US 5477597 A), in view of Church (US 10500830 B2), further in view of Roberge (US 20200173365 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Torii in view of Catania in view of Church teaches a heat exchanger (Church, heat sink 32, Fig. 6, Col. 6, lines 32-34).
Torii in view of Catania in view of Church does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is additively manufactured.
Roberge teaches wherein the heat exchanger is additively manufactured ([0027], Fig. 3).
Roberge modifies the combination by suggesting the heat exchanger is additively manufactured.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Roberge because use of additive manufacturing allows local tailoring improved structural strength, increased wetted area, enhanced cooling effectiveness and weight reduction, (Roberge, [0050]).
Regarding claim 19, Torii in view of Catania in view of Church teaches a heat exchanger (Church, heat sink 32, Fig. 6, Col. 6, lines 32-34).
Torii in view of Catania in view of Church does not teach wherein the heat exchanger is additively manufactured.
Roberge teaches wherein the heat exchanger is additively manufactured ([0027], Fig. 3).
Roberge modifies the combination by suggesting the heat exchanger is additively manufactured.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Roberge because use of additive manufacturing allows local tailoring improved structural strength, increased wetted area, enhanced cooling effectiveness and weight reduction, (Roberge, [0050]).
Claims 21 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii (US 5185512 A), in view of Catania (US 5477597 A), and Church (US 10500830 B2), further in view of Krajca, et. al. (US 20180085860 A1), hereinafter Krajca.
Regarding claim 21, although Torii teaches a radiation source (laser beam projecting unit 20, Fig. 3), Torii in view of Catania and Church does not teach further comprising a shroud coupled to the radiation source.
Krajca teaches a shroud coupled to the radiation source (shroud 110, [0024], Fig. 1).
Krajca modifies the combination by suggesting a shroud coupled to the radiation source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krajca because utilizing a flexible and portable laser shroud system provides an effective and safe laser protective shield for laser operations by confining the laser light energy to the work surface, (Krajca, [0022], Abstract).
Regarding claim 23, although Torii teaches a radiation source (laser beam projecting unit 20, Fig. 3), Torii in view of Catania and Church does not teach further comprising a shroud coupled to the radiation source.
Krajca teaches a shroud coupled to the radiation source (shroud 110, [0024], Fig. 1).
Krajca modifies the combination by suggesting a shroud coupled to the radiation source.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Krajca because utilizing a flexible and portable laser shroud system provides an effective and safe laser protective shield for laser operations by confining the laser light energy to the work surface, (Krajca, [0022], Abstract).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chapiro, et. al. (US 20190299522 A1), hererinafter Chapiro.
Claims 9 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Torii (US 5185512 A) in view of Chapiro, et. al. (US 20190299522 A1), hererinafter Chapiro.
Regarding claim 9, Torii does not teach further comprising a change tool coupled to the chassis, for coupling the apparatus to an arm of a robot.
Chapiro teaches further comprising a change tool (joint 89 connecting container 12 to robotic arm 84, [01115]) coupled to the chassis (container 12 contains motors, [0089]) for coupling the apparatus (nozzle assembly 20, nozzle 10, container 12, [0093]) to an arm of a robot ([0114]-[0115], Fig. 8).
The combination of Chapiro with Torii suggests that the apparatus of Torii can be connected to a robotic arm, as in Chapiro.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chapiro because robotic arms can move container/nozzle as desired, (Chapiro, [0091]), and robotic arms are known in the art and therefore it can be easier to implement instead of designing something from the ground up (Chapiro, [0116]).
Regarding claim 20, Torii does not teach wherein the change tool couples the apparatus to an arm of a robot.
Chapiro teaches wherein the change tool couples the apparatus to an arm of a robot (joint 89 connecting nozzle assembly, nozzle 10, and container 12 to robotic arm 84, [0114]-[0115], Fig. 8).
The combination of Chapiro with Torii suggests that the apparatus of Torii can be connected to a robotic arm, as in Chapiro.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the teachings of Chapiro because robotic arms can move container/nozzle as desired, (Chapiro, [0091]), and robotic arms are known in the art and therefore it can be easier to implement instead of designing something from the ground up (Chapiro, [0116]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAURA E TANDY whose telephone number is (703)756-1720. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Robert Kim can be reached at 5712722293. 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.
LAURA E TANDY
Examiner
Art Unit 2881
/DAVID E SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 2881
Prosecution Insights