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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 01/20/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group III (claims 12-22) in the reply filed on 01/26/2026 is acknowledge. Group I (claims 1-8) and Group II (claims 9-11) are withdrawn from consideration.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains “said”. The form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said”, should be avoided.
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-22 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a target object” in line 2. It is understood that the limitation “a target object” recited in claim 12 (line 2) refers to the limitation “a target object” recited previously in claim 12 (line 1). Therefore, the limitation “a target object” recited in claim 12 (line 2) should read “the target object” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously claim 12 (line 1).
Claims 13-22 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Claim 17 (lines 2-3), claim 18 (line 2), claim 20 (line 2), claim 21 (line 2) recite the limitation “the discharge device”. This should read “the plasma discharge device” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously claim 12 (line 3).
Claim 18 is objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 17.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim 15 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 15 recites the limitation “the other material” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 15 depends on claim 12; however, there is no “other material” or “material” recited previously in claim 12 or claim 15. It is unclear what the limitation “the other material” herein refers to. Furthermore, it is unclear if claim 15 meant to be dependent on claim 14 since claim 14 recites the limitation “other material” in line 3. For examination purposes, claim 15 will be treated as to be dependent on claim 14.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 12-13, 19-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stempfer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0318130 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Stempfer discloses a process for plasma fusing (as shown in Stempfer Fig.4) of a target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4), comprising:
disposing a target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4) on a support bed (holding substrate 1, Stempfer Fig.4) with an applicator (wire feeder 4, Stempfer Fig.4);
discharging plasma (first plasma transferred arc 7 and second plasma transferred arc 11, Stempfer Fig.4) from a plasma discharge device (plasma transferred arc (PTA) torches 8 & 12, Stempfer Fig.4) defining an emitter (Stempfer Fig.4 & Par.0091 discloses discharging plasma 7 & 12 from the PTA torches 8 & 12 defining emitters) or an emitter array [it is noted that the limitation “an emitter or an emitter array” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination]; and
altering the target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4) with the discharged plasma (first plasma transferred arc 7 and second plasma transferred arc 11, Stempfer Fig.4) (Stempfer Par.0059 discloses: “fusing successive deposits of the metallic material onto the holding substrate in a pattern which results in building a physical object according to the virtual three-dimensional model of the object”, and Stempfer Par.0060 discloses: “Non-limiting examples of welding guns or guns include PAW torches, including PTA torches, laser emitting devices (“laser devices”), and electron beam emitting devices (“electron beam devices”). The first gun can ensure fusion between the base material or workpiece and the molten metal produced by the action of the second gun on a metal, such as a metal wire or metal powder.”).
Regarding claim 13, Stempfer discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Sweeney also disclose:
wherein altering the target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4) comprises fusing the target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4) to a device under build (it is noted that the device under build is interpreted to be previously fused and solidified layer(s) because Stempfer Par.0058 discloses one or more layers of metallic material have been deposited onto the holding substrate. In this case the previously fused and solidified layer(s) is device under build because the fused and solidified layer(s) is part of the 3D built device).
Regarding claim 19, Stempfer discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Sweeney also disclose:
wherein a material of the target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4) is conductive (Stempfer Par.0097 discloses the wire is metal wire containing Al, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hf, Sn, Mn, Mo, Ni, Nb, Si, Ta, Ti, V, W, or Zr, or composites or alloys thereof; therefore, the material of the wire 3 is conductive) and is connected to one pole (as shown in Stempfer Fig.4) of a plasma-generating electrical system (DC power source 13, Stempfer Fig.4) (Stempfer Par.0091 discloses: “A second plasma transferred arc 11 is formed by a PTA-torch 12 which is electrically connected to a DC power source 13 such that the electrode 14 of the PTA-torch 12 becomes the cathode and the feed wire 3 the anode.”).
Regarding claim 20, Stempfer discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Sweeney also disclose further comprising:
moving the discharge device (plasma transferred arc (PTA) torches 8 & 12, Stempfer Fig.4) proximate to the target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4) on a device-under-build (DUB) (It is noted that the device under build is interpreted to be previously fused and solidified layer(s) because Stempfer Par.0058 discloses one or more layers of metallic material have been deposited onto the holding substrate. In this case the previously fused and solidified layer(s) is device under build because the fused and solidified layer(s) is part of the 3D built device) (Stempfer discloses moving plasma transferred arc (PTA) torches 8 & 12 proximate to the wire 3 that is deposited on the previously fused and solidified layer(s) as shown in Stempfer Fig.4 and Stempfer Par.0022 discloses: “an actuator arm that moves the first welding gun, or an actuator arm that moves the second welding gun, or any combination of these actuators”); and
firing a power source (DC power sources 15, 13, 9; Stempfer Fig.4), wherein a geometry of the target object is imaged into a desired geometry (It is noted that the Instant Application defines the limitation “a geometry of the target object is imaged into a desired geometry” as “A pattern or image of the target object 16 may be predetermined before or during application of the plasma 14 and may be selected from multiple image portions which together define a finished or desired pattern. One or multiple images or patterns defining the target object 16 may be saved in a memory which may be generated for example by an image slicer known in the art and therefore applied in one or more layers by sintering the single layer or by successively sintering multiple layers of material.”, as indicated by Par.0030 of the Instant Application. In this case, Stempfer Par.0022 discloses: “a control system able to read a computer assisted design (CAD) model of the object to be formed and employ a CAD-model to regulate the position and movement of the system for positioning and moving the base material and to operate the welding guns such that a physical object is built by fusing successive deposits of the metallic material onto the base material”. Therefore, Stempfer discloses a geometry of the target object is imaged into a desired geometry).
Regarding claim 21, Stempfer discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Sweeney also disclose further comprising:
selectively energizing portions (electrode portions of the plasma transferred arc (PTA) torches 8 & 12, Stempfer Fig.4) of the discharge device (plasma transferred arc (PTA) torches 8 & 12, Stempfer Fig.4).
Regarding claim 22, Stempfer discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Sweeney also disclose further comprising:
discharging the plasma (plasma 11 generated by the plasma transferred arc (PTA) torch 12, Stempfer Fig.4) in multiple successive shots of applied energy to the target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4) (Stempfer Par.0092 discloses: “there are means 16 for pulsing the power delivered by DC power source 15 such that the arc 11 will in addition to heat and melt the wire 3, enter into the preheated area or molten pool 5 with the same frequency as the pulsed power supply and thus deliver a pulsating heat flux to the molten pool.”).
Claims 12, 17, 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Sweeney et al. (WO 2018213718 A1, Published 11/22/2018).
Regarding claim 12, Sweeney discloses a process for plasma fusing (as shown in Sweeney Fig.3) of a target object (feedstock 228, Sweeney Fig.3), comprising:
disposing a target object (feedstock 228, Sweeney Fig.3) on a support bed (part carrier 224, Sweeney Fig.3) with an applicator (print head nozzle 222, Sweeney Fig.3);
discharging plasma from a plasma discharge device (plasma field applicators 232, Sweeney Fig.3) defining an emitter (Sweeney Fig.3 & Par.0039 discloses discharging plasma from plasma field applicators 232 defining emitters) or an emitter array [it is noted that the limitation “an emitter or an emitter array” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination]; and
altering the target object (feedstock 228, Sweeney Fig.3) with the discharged plasma (plasma emitted from plasma field applicators 232, Sweeney Fig.3) (Sweeney Abstract & Par.0039 discloses altering the feedstock 228 with the discharged plasma).
Regarding claim 17, Sweeney discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Sweeney also disclose:
wherein the applicator (print head nozzle 222, Sweeney Fig.3) provides the target object (feedstock 228, Sweeney Fig.3) in powder form (Sweeney Par.0037 discloses: “The print head nozzle 222 is a screw-type print head nozzle 222 using a powdered or bulk feed material”) and the target object (feedstock 228, Sweeney Fig.3) is applied directly onto the discharge device (print head nozzle 222, Sweeney Fig.3).
Regarding claim 22, Sweeney discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Sweeney also disclose:
further comprising discharging the plasma (plasma emitted from plasma field applicators 232, Sweeney Fig.3) in multiple successive shots of applied energy to the target object (feedstock 228, Sweeney Fig.3) (Sweeney discloses plasma is discharged in multiple successive shots of applied energy to the target object because the signal output to the plasma field applicator comprises a high potential electromagnetic signal, and the high potential electromagnetic signal comprises a short duration pulse signal; specifically, Sweeney Par.0008 discloses: “the signal output to the plasma field applicator comprises a high potential electromagnetic signal”, and Sweeney Par.0010 discloses: “the high potential electromagnetic signal comprises one of a continuous wave signal, a square wave signal, a triangle wave signal, a short duration pulse signal, and a rectified signal.”).
Claims 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ramaswamy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0203364 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Ramaswamy discloses a process for plasma fusing (as shown in Ramaswamy Fig.1B) of a target object (feed material 114, Ramaswamy Fig.1B), comprising:
disposing a target object (feed material 114, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) on a support bed (platen 105, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) with an applicator (material dispenser assembly 104, Ramaswamy Fig.1B);
discharging plasma (plasma 148, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) from a plasma discharge device (plasma source 131, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) defining an emitter (Ramaswamy Fig.1B shows discharging plasma 148 from the plasma source 131 defining emitter) or an emitter array [it is noted that the limitation “an emitter or an emitter array” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination]; and
altering the target object (feed material 114, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) with the discharged plasma (plasma 148, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) (Ramaswamy Par.0099 discloses: “At low enough frequencies (e.g., 2 MHz), the bias signal can cause the ions in the plasma to have enough energy to vaporize a feed material (e.g., aluminum powder) that is deposited on a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer)”).
Regarding claim 16, Ramaswamy discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Ramaswamy also discloses:
wherein the target object (feed material 114, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) comprises a vaporizable material (feed material 114 comprises vaporizable material because Ramaswamy Par.0043 discloses: “The feed material can be dry powders of metallic or ceramic particles, metallic or ceramic powders in liquid suspension, or a slurry suspension of a material.”) and altering the target object (feed material 114, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) further comprises vaporizing the target object (feed material 114, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) (Ramaswamy Par.0099 discloses: “At low enough frequencies (e.g., 2 MHz), the bias signal can cause the ions in the plasma to have enough energy to vaporize a feed material (e.g., aluminum powder) that is deposited on a substrate (e.g., silicon wafer)”).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ramaswamy et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0203364 A1) in view of Crema et al. (EP 1130637 A1, Published 09/05/2001).
Regarding claim 14, Ramaswamy discloses the method set forth in claim 12, Ramaswamy also discloses:
wherein the target object (feed material 114, Ramaswamy Fig.1B) comprises a polymer material (Ramaswamy Par.0107 discloses: “some techniques described here could be applicable to plastic powders. Examples of plastic powders include nylon, acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS), polyurethane, acrylate, epoxy, polyetherimide, polyetheretherketone (PEEK), polyetherketoneketone (PEKK), polystyrene or polyamides.”; it is noted that all plastics are polymers.)
Ramaswamy does not explicitly disclose:
altering the target object further comprises de-binding the target object from an other material.
Crema teaches:
altering the target object further comprises de-binding the target object from an other material (Crema Abstract discloses a method of removing plastic residues (14) from metal parts (11, 12) using plasma and Crema Par.0019 teaches: “The formation of plasma is associated with vaporization of at least some of the residual material present on the impact area in a circular region of approximately 2 mm diameter.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Ramaswamy, by adding the teaching of altering the target object further comprises de-binding the target object from an other material, as taught by Crema, in order to effectively clean plastic residues of from metal parts to ensure functionality, thus, prevent contamination and structural failure, and achieve required surface quality.
Regarding claim 15, Ramaswamy in view of Crema teaches the method set forth in claim 14 [see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections section above for the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections of claim 15], Ramaswamy in view of Crema also teaches:
wherein the other material comprises metal (Crema Abstract discloses the method of removing plastic residues (14) from metal parts (11, 12) using plasma, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 14 above).
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sweeney et al. (WO 2018213718 A1, Published 11/22/2018) in view of Stempfer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0318130A1).
Regarding claim 18, Sweeney discloses the method set forth in claim 17, Sweeney does not explicitly disclose:
moving the discharge device proximate to the applicator allowing the plasma to pass through the target object; and
fusing the target object.
Stempfer teaches a process for plasma fusing (as shown in Stempfer Fig.4) of a target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4), comprising:
moving the discharge device (plasma transferred arc (PTA) torches 8 & 12, Stempfer Fig.4) proximate to the applicator (wire feeder 4, Stempfer Fig.4) (Stempfer Par.0022 discloses: “an actuator arm that moves the first welding gun, or an actuator arm that moves the second welding gun, or any combination of these actuators”) allowing the plasma (plasma 11 generated by plasma transferred arc (PTA) torch 12, Stempfer Fig.4) to pass through the target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4); and
fusing the target object (wire 3, Stempfer Fig.4) (Stempfer Par.0059 discloses: “fusing successive deposits of the metallic material onto the holding substrate in a pattern which results in building a physical object according to the virtual three-dimensional model of the object”, and Stempfer Par.0060 discloses: “Non-limiting examples of welding guns or guns include PAW torches, including PTA torches, laser emitting devices (“laser devices”), and electron beam emitting devices (“electron beam devices”). The first gun can ensure fusion between the base material or workpiece and the molten metal produced by the action of the second gun on a metal, such as a metal wire or metal powder.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Sweeney, by adding the teachings of moving the discharge device proximate to the applicator allowing the plasma to pass through the target object, and fusing the target object, as taught by Stempfer, in order to allow filler wire is heated directly, ensuring it is at or near its melting point before reaching the substrate, thus, allow for a highly concentrated heat source, which reduces the overall heat input to the part. This narrows the heat affected zone, preventing excessive, unwanted melting of the base material.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Rowland et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0221948 A1) discloses an additive manufacturing system including a platen to support an object to be fabricated, a dispenser assembly positioned above the platen, and an energy source configured to selectively fuse a layer of powder.
Fang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2016/0074942 A1) discloses a method for producing a substantially spherical metal powder.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 02/20/2026