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 5 January 2026 has been entered.
New Drawing, Specification, and Claim objections have been provided in the current Office action.
A new Claim Interpretation section has been provided in the current Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejection. The previous 35 USC 112 rejection has been withdrawn.
However, new 35 USC 112 rejections and a new 35 USC 101 rejection have been provided in the present Office action, which is not a result of the Applicant’s amendments. Therefore, the current Office action is in a non-final status.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, another reference was identified, which teaches the disputed portions of the claims not taught by the previous reference. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 5 Jan 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 11, 13, 16, and 19 have been amended.
Claims 11-19 are pending.
Drawings
Figures 1 and 2 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
The drawings are objected to because of the following:
In fig. 3a, there is a reference numeral 305 that is not pointing to anything.
In fig. 3b, reference numeral 305 appears to include the tubular wall but is described in the Specification as only being individual fins (as shown in fig. 3a).
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: the Specification describes fig. 3b as being a photograph, but fig. 3b is instead a black and white line drawing.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1 and 19 are objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claims to recite: “…metal wire at the outlet…” (line 5). Appropriate correction is required.
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 the following:
“delivery system configured to deliver a metal wire to an inlet orifice of a feed nozzle” in claims 11 and 19
The generic placeholder is “system” and the functional limitations are “delivery” and “configured to deliver a metal wire to an inlet orifice of a feed nozzle.”
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 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 11-19 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.
Claims 11 and 19 recite “a delivery system configured to deliver a metal wire to an inlet orifice of a feed nozzle,” but the Specification fails to disclose any structure in sufficient detail such that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to readily understand what “a delivery system” is or that the inventor possessed the claim subject matter at the time of filing.
Claims 12-18 are rejected based on their dependence to 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.
In claims 11 and 19, the limitation “delivery system” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 18 is 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 18 attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process. The claim is indefinite because it merely recites a use of a laser metal deposition system without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced (MPEP 2173.05.q).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. The claim(s) does/do not fall within at least one of the four categories of patent eligible subject matter because the claim is a “Use” claim where the claims are drawn to the use of a process without setting forth any steps to achieve the process (see also MPEP 2173.05.q).
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 18-19 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 delivery system (“wire pull system,” para 0035; located in the neck 185, fig. 4) configured to deliver a metal wire (“wire residing in the central axis wire feed guide tube,” para 0038) to an inlet orifice of a feed nozzle (deposition housing 180, fig. 7; the inlet is annotated below), the feed nozzle comprising 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 laser head (lens assembly casements 195, fig. 4), located on the perimeter of the delivery system (neck 185, fig. 4), and configured to generate the melting (“melt pool,” para 0049) of the metal 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),
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
928
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).
Regarding claim 19, Matthews teaches a laser metal deposition system (“direct-metal deposition additive manufacturing (AM) print head,” abstract) comprising a delivery system (“wire pull system,” para 0035; located in the neck 185, fig. 4) configured to deliver a metal wire (“wire residing in the central axis wire feed guide tube,” para 0038) to an inlet orifice of a feed nozzle (deposition housing 180, fig. 7; the inlet is annotated above), the feed nozzle comprising 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 above), and a laser head (lens assembly casements 195, fig. 4) configured to generate the melting of the metal at the outlet orifice of the feed nozzle with a focused laser beam transmitting around the feed nozzle (the wire 125 melts when it arrives at the “focal point” with the laser beams around housing 180, para 0045, fig. 7)
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 above).
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 above) 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).
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).
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 5 Jan 2026 regarding claim 11 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Matthews combined with Limem.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Bruck (US-20160346875-A1) teaches a fabrication method using a laser and a filler metal wire.
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 1/22/2026