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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (claims 1-9) in the reply filed on 11/10/2025 is acknowledged. Non-elected invention II (claims 10-20) are withdrawn from consideration.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-9 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 approximately the same size and configured to receive the collimated laser beam from the collimator and to wobble the collimated laser beam in first and second axes within a scan angle of about 0.1-2°” is indefinite. It is unclear where the first and second axes are, and what structure define the first and second axes.
For the purpose of examination, examiner interpreted the first and second axes are merely imaginary lines that defined by operator.
The terms “approximately the same size” and “about 0.1-2°” are a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term terms “approximately the same size” and “about 0.1-2°” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, examiner interpreted terms “approximately the same size” and “about 0.1-2°” to be “the same size” and “0.1-2°”.
The limitation “a focus lens that is not a scanning lens” is indefinite. The definition of the scanning lens is unclear, and the difference between the focus lens and the scanning lens is unclear. The metes and bounds of the limitation is unclear.
Regarding claim 9, the term “about 6 mm” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 6 mm” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
For the purpose of examination, examiner interpreted terms “about 6 mm” to be “6 mm”.
Regarding claims 2-9, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on an indefinite claim as shown above.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claim 6, the limitation in this claim relates to a workpiece, which only disclosed in an intended function of a claimed limitation in claim 1. The workpiece appears to not a part of the claimed invention and it is an external structure that associated with the claimed invention. Therefore, the structure and the function od the workpiece do not further limit the claimed invention.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 and 3-9 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 approximately the same size and configured to receive the collimated laser beam from the collimator (collimator 122) and to wobble the collimated laser beam in first and second axes 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 first and second axes within a scan angle of about 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 6, the modification of Grapov and Kondo teaches the workpiece is a glass mould [Examiner’s note: The limitation in this claim is not a part of the claimed invention. Therefore the limitation does not further limit the claimed invention.].
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 about 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 about 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).
Conclusion
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