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 .
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 1-5 and 7-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation ““the first and second movable mirrors being the same size and configured to receive the collimated laser beam from the collimator and to wobble the collimated laser beam in an x-axis and a y-axis within a scan angle of 0.1-2°” is lacking support in the specification. The specification does not disclose laser beam is wobbled in an x-axis and a y-axis. Therefore this limitation is a new matter.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-9, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on an rejected claim as shown above.
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 1-5 and 7-9 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.
Regarding claim 1, the term “the first and second movable mirrors being the same size and configured to receive the collimated laser beam from the collimator and to wobble the collimated laser beam in an x-axis and a y-axis within a scan angle of 0.1-2°” is indefinite. It is unclear where the x-axis and the y-axis are, and what structure define the x-axis and the y-axis.
For the purpose of examination, examiner interpreted the first and second axes are merely imaginary lines that defined by operator.
Regarding claims 2-5 and 7-9, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on an indefinite claim as shown above.
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 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov (US 2016/0368089) in view of Kondo (US 2019/0168454).
PNG
media_image1.png
658
576
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Grapov teaches a system (laser welding system 100) for laser metal powder deposition, comprising:
a fiber laser (fiber laser 112) configured to generate a laser beam (See para.[0036] “The fiber laser 112 may include an Ytterbium fiber laser capable of generating a laser”); and
a laser head (welding head 110), the laser head configured to receive the laser beam from the fiber laser (see para.[0035] “a laser welding system 100 includes a laser welding head 110 coupled to an output fiber 111 of a fiber laser 112”) and including:
a collimator (collimator 122) configured to collimate the laser beam;
a wobbler module having first and second movable mirrors (movable mirrors 132, 134), the first and second movable mirrors being the same size and configured to receive the collimated laser beam from the collimator (collimator 122) and to wobble the collimated laser beam in an x-axis and a y-axis within a scan angle of about 0.1-2° (see fig.1, movable mirrors 132, 134 have substantially the same size and capable to configured to receive the collimated laser beam from the collimator and to wobble the collimated laser beam in x-axis and y-axis within a scan angle of 0.1-2°); and
a focus lens (focus lens 142) that is not a scanning lens and is configured to focus the collimated laser beam (see para.[0037] “a focus lens 142 for focusing and delivering a focused beam 118 to the workpiece 102”), such that a focal point location of the focused collimated laser beam is positioned below a workpiece surface [Examiner’s note: Operator can adjust the location of the workpiece or the collimator such that the focal point of the focused collimated laser beam is positioned below a workpiece surface (see para.[0054]).].
Grapov does not explicitly teach the focused collimated laser beam directed through a powder nozzle device, the powder nozzle device configured to deliver metal powder to a region on the workpiece surface that is heated by the focused collimated laser beam.
However, Kondo teaches in the same field of endeavor of a laser system, comprising a focused collimated laser beam (laser beam through collimate lens 14; see fig.1) directed through a powder nozzle device (material supplying unit 20), the powder nozzle device (material supplying unit 20) configured to deliver metal powder to a region on the workpiece surface that is heated by the focused collimated laser beam (See fig.1 and para.[0023] “a head 30 having a material supplying unit 20 for supplying powder material P to the irradiation region S.”)
PNG
media_image2.png
808
524
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Grapov by adding a powder nozzle device configured to deliver metal powder to a region on the workpiece surface that is heated by the focused collimated laser beam as taught by Kondo, in order to supplying metal powder so that performing additive manufacturing process, since using powder nozzle device is conventional in additive manufacturing, and use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claims 3-4, the modification of Grapov and Kondo teaches the focal point location of the focused collimated laser beam is within a range of 1-30 mm below the workpiece surface and within a range of 5-20 mm below the workpiece surface. [Examiner’s note: Operator can adjust the location of the workpiece to any position with respect to the laser system, including the focal point location of the focused collimated laser beam is within a range of 1-30 mm below and 5-20mm the workpiece surface.]
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Grapov and Kondo teaches the metal powder is a nickel based superalloy (See para,[0044] of Grapov “As the powder material, there is available any metal material, such as stainless steel, nickel base alloy (Inconel), tungsten carbide composite material, copper alloy, brass, cobalt chromium molybdenum alloy, stellite, or tool steel.”).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Grapov and Kondo teaches the laser beam generated by the fiber laser has a power of at least 0.3 kW (See para.[0036] of Grapov “fiber laser capable of generating a laser beam with power up to 1 kW in some embodiments and higher powers up to 50 kW”).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Grapov and Kondo teaches the wobbler module (movable mirrors 132, 134) is configured to wobble the collimated laser beam in coordination with movement of at least one of the workpiece and the laser head in a repeating wobble pattern on the surface of the workpiece (See figures 2-3 and para.[0051] of Grapov “FIGS. 2A-2D illustrate examples of wobble patterns that may be used to perform stir welding of a seam 204. As used herein, “wobble” refers to reciprocating movement of a laser beam (e.g., in two axes) and within a relatively small field of view defined by a scan angle of less than 10°.”).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Grapov and Kondo teaches the wobble pattern has a diameter having a maximum value of 6 mm (See para.[0045] of Grapov “a control system 160 for controlling the fiber laser 112, the positioning of the movable mirrors 132, 134, and/or the motion stages 108, 114” Operator can control the diameter of the wobble pattern to be a maximum valve of 6 mm.).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification Grapov (US 2016/0368089) Kondo (US 2019/0168454) in view of Kanko (US 2018/0297117).
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Grapov and Kondo does not explicitly teach a metal powder deposition rate is at least 1 kg/hr.
However, Kanko teaches in the same field of endeavor of laser processing system, comprising operator can manipulate the powder deposition rate (See para.[0079] “the at least one processing parameter of the material modification process that is controlled comprises at least one of:… additive material feed rate”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the system of the modification of Grapov and Kondo with manipulate the powder deposition rate in a laser system as taught by Kanko, so that to control the powder deposition rate to at least 1 kg/hr, in order to provide a desired powder deposition rate, since applicant does not disclose that powder deposition rate is at least 1 kg/hr solved any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, and therefore powder deposition rate is an obvious design choice (MPEP 2144).
Response to Amendment
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), applicant amended claims 1 and 9 filed on 04/20/2026, which overcomes partial of the claim rejection. Therefore partial of the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) is withdrawn.
With respect to the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d), applicant amended claim 6 filed on 04/20/2026, which overcomes the claim rejection. Therefore the claim rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues: 1) None of these advantages of the invention are implanted or contemplated by the cited references. 2) one skilled in the art would not be motivated to combine the laser beam of Kondo with the "dog-ear" type intensity profile for laser additive manufacturing to the wobble welding apparatus of Grapov
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “[t]he inventors have found that positioning the focal point below the surface of the workpiece achieved better deposition results than when the focal point was at the surface or above the surface" (see page 9, lines 16-18). In addition, laser wobbling of the process laser beam boosts laser metal powder deposition process stability by reducing sensitivity variations between the nozzle standoff and focal position with respect to the workpiece surface, increases the flexibility of the system, offers better control of dilution, increases control of the cooling and heating rates, reduces residual stress and deformation, and increases the deposition rate (see page 5, lines 14- 30; page 10, line 17 to line 1 of page 11)” in page 6 of Remarks) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Reference Grapov teaches all limitation in claim 1 except “the focused collimated laser beam directed through a powder nozzle device, the powder nozzle device configured to deliver metal powder to a region on the workpiece surface that is heated by the focused collimated laser beam”. Secondary reference Kondo teaches in the same field of endeavor of a laser system, comprising a laser beam through collimate lens 14 directed through material supplying unit 20, the material supplying unit 20 configured to deliver metal powder to a region on the workpiece surface that is heated by the laser beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the system of Grapov by adding a powder nozzle device configured to deliver metal powder to a region on the workpiece surface that is heated by the focused collimated laser beam as taught by Kondo, in order to supplying metal powder so that performing additive manufacturing process, since using powder nozzle device is conventional in additive manufacturing, and use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2143). Therefore the claim rejection is respectfully maintained.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights