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 .
Accelerated Examination
A determination was made that an interview was unlikely to result in the instant application to be placed in a condition for allowance as a result of the issues identified in the present Office action (referencing MPEP 708.02a.III).
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 26 June 2026 has been entered.
The Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawing, Specification, and Claim objections. The previous Drawing, Specification, and Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have voided interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) and have overcome the 35 USC 112 rejections that were based on this interpretation.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection and the 35 US 112 rejection for claim 18. These rejections for claim 18 have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for a new Claim objection and for new 35 USC 112 rejections.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 26 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 26 June 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 11 and 18 have been amended. Claim 19 has been canceled.
Claims 11-18 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: in line 6, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the . Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 11 recites: “a single laser head, located on the perimeter of the delivery system feed nozzle.” However, a single laser head that is located on the perimeter of a feed nozzle is not disclosed in the original Specification or in the original set of Claims. Instead, the Specification discloses “a laser head 104 located on the perimeter of the delivery system 102,” which is shown in fig. 1 of the drawings. There is no mention of a laser head located on the perimeter of a feed nozzle in the Specification. As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
This is a new rejection based on the amended portion of the claims. Claims 12-18 are rejected based on their dependence on claim 11.
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 11-18 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 11 recites: “a single focused laser beam circulating around the feed nozzle.” It is unclear what is meant by reciting a single focused laser beam that circulates around a feed nozzle. Does this limitation mean that the beam is rotating around the nozzle? Or does this limitation mean instead that beam circulates around the nozzle by going around the nozzle?
The Specification discloses that “the laser beam 105, emitted by the laser head 104, circulates through the air, up to its focal point, all around the feed nozzle 103. Thus, the feed nozzle is conical in shape to minimally impede the flow of the laser beam.” This description from the Specification could be describing a rotating beam, but this description could also be describing a beam that simply goes around the nozzle. However, if the beam is rotating, then it is not clear from the Specification how the beam rotates or why it rotates.
Because it is the broader of the two possible meanings, for the purpose of the examination, the limitations will be interpreted based on the latter definition, i.e., “a single focused laser beamtransmitting around the feed nozzle.”
The examiner notes that this same rejection was previously provided on pages 3-4 of the Office action filed 8 July 2025.
This is a new rejection based on the amended portion of the claims. Claims 12-18 are rejected based on their dependency to claim 11.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 11, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews et al. (US-20180318929-A1, effective filing date of 2 May 2017) in view of Limem et al. (US-20190375149-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Matthews teaches a laser metal deposition system (“direct-metal deposition additive manufacturing (AM) print head,” abstract) comprising:
a feed nozzle (deposition housing 180, fig. 7; annotated below), the feed nozzle comprising an inlet orifice, an outlet orifice (annotated in fig. 7 below), and a tubular wall (wire feed guide tube 135, fig. 7) defining a cylindrical duct passing through the feed nozzle (the tube 135 is construed as having a cylindrical duct inside its interior) along a longitudinal axis (vertical axis through tube 135, fig 7), between the inlet orifice and an outlet orifice (annotated in fig. 7 below), and
a single laser head (laser light assemblies 115 and lens assembly casements 195, which is the “deposition head housing,” annotated in fig. 7 below; the combined assemblies are collectively construed as being a “single laser head,” which is defined as being the optics assembly for a laser system), located on the perimeter of the delivery system feed nozzle (the casements 195 are located on the outer perimeter of the housing 180, fig. 7), and configured to generate the melting (“melt pool,” para 0049) of a metal wire (“wire residing in the central axis wire feed guide tube,” para 0038) positioned at the outlet orifice of the feed nozzle (the wire 125 melts when it arrives at the “focal point” with the laser, para 0045, fig. 7) with a single focused laser beam transmitting around the feed nozzle (the right light beam 120 transmits around the housing 180 and is focused on the circle at the bottom of fig. 7; the beam is annotated in fig. 7 below),
wherein said tubular wall (wire feed guide tube 135, fig. 7) of the feed nozzle further comprising a plurality of external fins (annotated in fig. 7 below).
Matthews fig. 7 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
1034
1310
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Matthews does not explicitly disclose a plurality of fins configured to allow heat dissipation by heat exchange with the immediate environment of the feed nozzle, wherein said external fins are annular in shape, each having a thickness, along the longitudinal axis, of between 0.7 and 1.3 millimeters and/or being spaced apart, along the longitudinal axis, by a distance of between 0.7 and 1.3 millimeters.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Limem teaches a plurality of fins (annotated in fig. 2 below) configured to allow heat dissipation by heat exchange with the immediate environment of the feed nozzle (“dissipate heat,” para 0096), wherein said external fins are annular in shape (“inner diameter,” para 0096; the fins are construed as being circular or annular with diameters), each external fin (fins in the heat sink shown in fig. 2) having a thickness, along the longitudinal axis (vertical axis of the filament, fig. 2), of between 0.7 and 1.3 millimeters (“a fin thickness of 1-2 mm,” para 0096) and/or being spaced apart, along the longitudinal axis, by a distance of between 0.7 and 1.3 millimeters (the fins are spaced apart by an undisclosed amount).
Limem, fig. 2 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
902
1138
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matthews, in view of the teachings of Limem, by using a thickness of between 1-2 mm, as taught by Limem, for the five fins annotated in fig. 7 above, as taught by Matthews, because a 1-2 mm thickness was found to be an optimal thickness for a heat sink that is used to keep a desired temperature profile of filament (Limem, paras 0094-0096) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 16, Matthews teaches wherein the number of annular external fins is less than or equal to six (five are shown, annotated fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 18, Matthews teaches a method for additive manufacturing by laser metal deposition by means of a laser metal deposition system (para 0003) according to claim 11 (please see claim 11 rejection above) comprising a step of depositing a layer of metal (“layer-by-layer build-up of a metal construct,” para 0049) on a substrate (“work-piece,” para 0008).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews et al. (US-20180318929-A1, effective filing date of 2 May 2017) in view of Limem et al. (US-20190375149-A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Womer (US-20170291364-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Matthews teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the diameter of the external annular fins decreases from the inlet orifice of the feed nozzle towards the outlet orifice of the feed nozzle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Womer teaches wherein the diameter of the external annular fins (fins 29, fig. 6A) decreases (the width or diameter of the fins 29 decrease in size from top to bottom of the chamber 20’) from the inlet orifice of the feed nozzle (top of feed chamber 20’, fig. 6A) towards the outlet orifice of the feed nozzle (bottom of extrusion nozzle 80, fig. 6A).
Womer, fig. 6A
PNG
media_image3.png
1170
845
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matthews, in view of the teachings of Womer, where the five fins annotated in fig. 7 above, as taught by Matthews, decrease in diameter, as taught by Womer, in order to adjust the amount of heat that dissipates as a result of changing the size of the fins such that the fins at the bottom of the heat sink have a smaller cross sectional area than the fins at the top of the heat sink, because if the filament above the heat sink were to melt, then the filament could begin melting prematurely causing a potential malfunction in the feeding of the filament, whereas by melting the filament as it exits the heat sink as a result of the smaller fins at the bottom (more heat is retained and less heat dissipates at the bottom than at the top), the filament melts quickly at the exit, ensuring that the filament is liquified during the printing of the manufactured object.
Regarding claim 13, Matthew teaches wherein the annular external fins (annotated in fig. 7 above) are configured to allow the transmission of a focused laser beam (light beams 120, focused at focal point 130, fig. 7) around the feed nozzle (deposition housing 180, fig. 7;).
Matthews does not explicitly disclose the annular external fins comprise a plurality of external peripheries in a substantially conical shape.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Womer teaches wherein the annular external fins comprise a plurality of external peripheries (external edges of fins 29, fig. 6A) in a substantially conical shape (as shown in fig. 6A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matthews, in view of the teachings of Womer, where the five fins annotated in fig. 7 above, as taught by Matthews, decrease in diameter, as taught by Womer, in order to adjust the amount of heat that dissipates as a result of changing the size of the fins such that the fins at the bottom of the heat sink have a smaller cross sectional area than the fins at the top of the heat sink, because if the filament above the heat sink were to melt, then the filament could begin melting prematurely causing a potential malfunction in the feeding of the filament, whereas by melting the filament as it exits the heat sink as a result of the smaller fins at the bottom (more heat is retained and less heat dissipates at the bottom than at the top), the filament melts quickly at the exit, ensuring that the filament is liquified during the printing of the manufactured object.
Regarding claim 14, Matthews teaches wherein the external annular fins (annotated in fig. 7 above) are rectangular in cross-section (the fins have rectangular cross sections, as shown in fig. 7).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews et al. (US-20180318929-A1, effective filing date of 2 May 2017) in view of Limem et al. (US-20190375149-A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Church et al. (US-20160031159-A1).
Matthews teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the feed nozzle is made of metal.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Church teaches wherein the feed nozzle (apparatus 10, fig. 8) is made of metal (“stainless steel,” para 0052).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matthews, in view of the teachings of Church, by using stainless steel, as taught by Church, for the material that is used for the deposition housing 180, as taught by Matthews, in order to use stainless steel, which is a material that is readily available and which is able to achieve thin walls that can withstand the high temperatures of a thermally conductive, metallic wire filament that melts upon leaving the nozzle (Church, para 0052).
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matthews et al. (US-20180318929-A1, effective filing date of 2 May 2017) in view of Limem et al. (US-20190375149-A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Mark et al. (US-20160067928-A1).
Matthews teaches wherein the tubular wall (wire feed guide tube 135, fig. 7) of the feed nozzle, in a portion located in an extension of the outlet orifice (portion of tube 135 above the annotated “outlet,” fig. 7 annotated above).
Matthews does not explicitly disclose wherein the tubular wall defines the cylindrical duct whose diameter is between 1.05 and 1.25 millimeters.
However, in the same field of endeavor of additive manufacturing, Mark teaches wherein the tubular wall defines the cylindrical duct whose diameter is between 1.05 and 1.25 millimeters (“a Teflon/PTFE inner tube forms the inner diameter) may be approximately 1½ to 2½ times (at, e.g., 32 thou) the diameter of the filament,” para 0096; the diameter of the wire is construed as being 32 thousandths of an inch or 0.8128 mm; the inner diameter of the tube is construed as being 1.22-1.62 mm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Matthews, in view of the teachings of Mark, by using a Teflon/PTFE inner tube with a diameter between 1.22-1.62 mm and a 0.8128 mm diameter wire, as taught by Mark, for tube 135 and the wire 125, as taught by Matthews, because the inner diameter of the wire feed tube is a results-effective variable that is dependent on the diameter of the wire filament, and it would have been obvious to try a 0.8128 mm diameter for filament, where the diameter generally varies between 0.7-1.1 mm (Mark, paras 0096 and 0238) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 26 Jun 2026 regarding claim 11 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Page 9 of the arguments refers to Matthews (US20180318929A1) and describes Matthews as having a “complex arrangement of multiple laser sources.” In their arguments, the Applicant also places emphasis on the limitation “single laser head.” Thus, the examiner is inferring from this argument that the Applicant is arguing that the limitation “single laser head” means that there cannot be a “complex arrangement of multiple laser sources.”
The examiner did not find this argument persuasive because Matthews teaches a “single laser head” and because the limitation a “single laser head” does not exclude “multiple laser sources” from being within the scope of the claim. In fig. 6, the Matthews reference shows a laser head, which is described as being a “deposition head housing” (paragraph 0042). Although fig. 6 shows multiple laser couplings 165, fig. 6 shows only one laser head. The examiner understands the definition for a “laser head” as being the terminal end of a laser system where the optics are located, which direct the laser beam or the laser beams that are produced by the laser system. Thus, a “laser head” does not mean that there must be only one laser source.
The examiner considered the Applicant’s Specification to see if a “laser head” is defined differently, but the Specification does not provide a special definition for a laser head. Although fig. 1 of the Drawings shows a laser head 104, this laser head appears to be a cylinder. Moreover, the Specification describes “laser heads” as already being known in the art (Background section). Thus, the examiner submits that claiming a “laser head” would not be a good reason for patentability, based on what is disclosed in the Specification.
Moreover, the examiner submits that the limitation “single” does not mean that multiple laser heads are excluded from the scope of the claim. If the Applicant wishes to excluded additional laser heads from the scope of the claim, then the term “consisting of” should be used instead. The transitional phrase “consisting of” excludes any element, step, or ingredient not specified in the claim (MPEP 2111.03.II), which appears to be the Applicant’s argument. Currently, claim 11 recites: “A laser metal deposition system comprising:…a single laser head.” The word “comprising” allows for additional laser heads to be included within the scope of the claim.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/8/2026
Prosecution Insights