DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/11/2026 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 112b rejection of claim 1 has been accepted and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 05/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Mathisen does not disclose displacing the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal” (Page 7 of applicant’s remarks filed 05/11/2026). Paragraph 97 of Mathisen teaches that the jet device is provided to direct a cooling gas across a liquid molten pool or to impinge on a liquid molten pool. This indicates that the gas displaces the atmosphere within the vicinity of the heat source
Furthermore, displacing an area adjacent to the heat source such as to “impinge upon a solidified material adjacent to a liquid-solid boundary of the liquid molten pool” would reasonably be considered as displacing atmosphere within a vicinity of the heat source
Applicant further argues “Mathisen does not disclose delivering inert gas through a matrix of individual closable gas diffusers” as the “gas diffusers diffuse the fluid flow over a wider area” (Page 8 of applicant’s remarks filed 05/11/2026). Paragraph 97 of Mathisen teaches of “a jet device as provided herein to direct a cooling gas across the liquid molten pool, or to impinge on the liquid molten pool, or to impinge upon a solidified material adjacent to a liquid-solid boundary of the liquid molten pool, or any combination thereof”. Since the prior art teaches that the jet device is directed toward performing each of these tasks, said gas is spread along a wide area such as to be capable of performing each of these functions of Mathisen. Paragraphs 108-110 of Mathisen teaches that one or more jet devices are provided to apply a cooling gas to gas at melt pool as well as the as-solidified material of a deposited layer. This indicates that the gas is directed toward a wide area and not only at a specific point and thus would create an atmosphere of inert gas around the weld pool
Applicant further argues that “Mathisen’s jet device is not a recycle distribution loop” (Page 9 of applicant’s remarks filed 05/11/2026) wherein “nothing in Mathisen suggests that the high velocity jet streams be collected for recirculation, much less how this would be accomplished” (Page 10 of applicant’s remarks filed 05/11/2026). The applicant's interpretation of the claims encompasses a narrower reading of the term "circulating" than the broadest reasonable interpretation. This definition had not been previously considered as the Examiner had previously adopted a broader, more colloquial interpretation of the word "circulate" (e.g. the wind circulates around the park). The Britannica Dictionary defines the term “circulate” as “to move without stopping through a system, place, etc.” and “to cause (something) to go or spread from one person or place to another”. However, upon further review, the narrow version of the interpretation is not supported by the applicant’s specifications as originally filed and a 35 USC 112a rejection is made herein for any portion of the claim that encompasses the narrower interpretation of "circulating" argued by Applicant. It is further noted that it is believed that the colloquial definition of "circulate" is still encompassed by the claims as written and the art rejection is upheld based on this. Applicant’s recycle distribution loop in Paragraph 19 of the applicant’s filed specifications is a source which provides shielding gas to the welding. Similarly, the conduit inlets of Mathisen are sources which deliver supply gas into the manifold. Mamrak teaches that heat exchangers and a closed loop cooling system can be used to lower the temperature of inert gases (Mamrak Paragraph 65) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used a heat exchanger and a closed cooling system to lower the temperature of the inert gas delivered to the manifold for the purpose of controlling the temperature of the gas, which is used in the process (Mamrak Paragraph 65). This reasonably reads upon the limitation of a recycle distribution loop by circulating gas from a closed cooling system through the gas manifold such as to deliver said gas to the plurality of nozzles for displacing the atmosphere.
Applicant further argues the “Modifications in view of Mamrak Do Not Cure the Above Deficiencies of the Combination” (Page 10 of applicant’s remarks filed 05/11/2026). Mamrak teaches using a heat exchanger with a loop to cool gas. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used heat exchanger to cool gas delivered to the heat source/molten metal. However, Mathisen already teaches displacing the atmosphere within the immediate vicinity of the heat source and molten metal as Paragraph 97 of Mathisen teaches of “a jet device as provided herein to direct a cooling gas across the liquid molten pool, or to impinge on the liquid molten pool, or to impinge upon a solidified material adjacent to a liquid-solid boundary of the liquid molten pool, or any combination thereof”.
Applicant further argues “De Facci Does Not Teach the Claimed Matrix of Individual Closable Gas Diffusers” (Page 11 of applicant’s remarks filed 05/11/2026). The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having the needle valves be automatically controlled instead of manually controlled is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. De Facci teaches of individually closable valves which can adjust the flow volumes through each valve which can reasonably be considered an individual closable gas diffusers.
Applicant further argues “Reliance on Powell Is Improper, Because Powell is Non-analogous Art” (Page 13 of applicant’s remarks filed 05/11/2026). In response to applicant's argument that Powell is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Powell teaches a manifold as a solution for receiving gas and distributing said gas over an area which is the same problem which the applicant solves. Furthermore, even if Powell were considered nonanalogous art, which the Office does not concede, given that the applicant has given no criticality to the size and shape of the gas manifold, the MPEP teaches that mere changes in the size and shape are not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP2144.04IV.A/B. In this case, having a gas manifold be within the general dimensions of 80 to 180mm wide and 180 to 400mm long or that is of a cylindrical shape up to 400mm in diameter are not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Applicant further argues that “The Rejection Relies on Impermissible Hindsight” (Page 15 of applicant’s remarks filed 05/11/2026). In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). Each reference cited has a specified motivation for why one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have combined these features in the manner claimed.
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, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have modified Kovacevic with MATHISEN and had the inert gas be delivered by an apparatus of individual gas diffusers. This would have been done to provide grain refinement in metal articles produced by additive manufacturing (MATHISEN Paragraph 11).
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 1-8 and 12 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 1 recites the limitation “a recycle distribution loop for circulating the inert gas through the gas manifold compartment to displace the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal”. Under one interpretation of the limitation, the recycle distribution loop causes the gas to move continuously through a closed system to displace the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal. However, it is unclear what structure facilitates circulating the inert gas through the gas manifold compartment such as to result in a recycle distribution loop. The inert gas is used to displace the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal, which necessitates that the inert gas interacts with the atmosphere and thus results in the gas leaving the manifold. The term “circulate” indicates that the gas moves about in a closed system. For example, Collins dictionary defines the term “circulate” as “When something circulates, it moves easily and freely within a closed place or system”. However, the applicant invention is directed toward an apparatus which is open to the ambient atmosphere (Paragraph 32 of applicant’s specifications filed 12/16/2022). Furthermore, the applicant’s claim limitations do not provide sufficient structure such as to facilitate circulating the inert gas back through the gas manifold compartment from an ambient atmosphere such as to create a closed system, using a recycle distribution loop. The applicant’s specification filed 12/16/2022 only broadly explains that a manifold is employed to create the “recycled” effect. The applicant’s drawings filed 09/22/2023 only shows the manifold system as a schematic box and does not provide any additional structure for clarifying the issue. Given that the applicant has provided an advantage for the “recycling” system, the applicant must provide details on the structure and arrangement of said structure to which the applicant had possession at the time of the filing. Given that there is no said disclosure beyond a generic recitation of a flow path structure, one of ordinary skill in the art would not reasonably conclude that the applicant had possession of the invention.
Claims 2-8 and 12 are rejected upon their dependency on claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6 and 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacevic (US 6940037 B1) in view of UGLA ("Development and control of shaped metal deposition process using tungsten inert gas arc heat source in additive layered manufacturing," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, October 2016, pages 1-14.), MATHISEN (US 20190001437 A1), Mamrak (US 20210170494 A1), De Facci (US 4278864 A), Powell (US 20090246940 A1), Albrecht (US 20150021815 A1), Xiao (US 20170145586 A1), Nguyen (US 20150352794 A1), and Fong (US 6572807 B1).
Regarding claim 1, Kovacevic (US 6940037 B1) teaches a method of manufacturing a metallic part in a weldable material by solid freeform fabrication (Column 1 Lines 48-64, welding based-deposition process) open to the ambient atmosphere (Column 3 Lines 48-51, components of system 100 are free-standing on a shop floor or other suitable location which means the part is reasonably unrestricted in size), wherein the method comprises:
generating a computer-generated, three dimensional model of the part (Figure 9 Column 11 Line 55 – Column 12 Line 63, generating a solid CAD module representing a three-dimensional part by step 900), slicing the computer-generated three dimensional model into a set of computer- generated, parallel, sliced layers (Figure 9 Column 11 Lines 63-65, solid CA model 103 is electronically sliced into a plurality of electronic two-dimensional layers by step 902) and then dividing each layer into a set of computer-generated, virtual, one-dimensional pieces (Figure 9 Column 11 Lines 65-67, path of material deposition is identified in step 904)
an electric arc delivered by a tungsten arc welding torch (Column 4 Lines 39-44, welding based deposition system utilized in system 100 may be a gas tungsten arc welding system), a plasma transferred arc welding torch (Column 5 Lines 7-16, plasma transferred arc welding torch), and/ or a gas metal arc welding torch (Column 4 Lines 39-44, welding based deposition system utilized in system 100 may be a gas metal arc welding system),
and a system for feeding a consumable wire (Column 4 Lines 44-55, wire feeders 116 are used alongside substrate 110 to deposit a two-dimensional layer of material for part 102) placed in an open area build space relevant to the substrate unrestricted in size and open to the ambient atmosphere (Column 3 Lines 48-51, components of system 100 are free-standing on a shop floor or other suitable location),
wherein the method further includes:
the use of inert gas (Column 4 Lines 46-48, one or more inert gases are utilized during the welding process)
Kovacevic fails to explicitly teach:
and, with reference to layered weld-bead geometry data, forming a computer-generated, direction specific, layered model of the part,
uploading the direction specific, layered model of the part into a welding control system able to control the position and activation relative to a support substrate, of an electric arc delivered by a tungsten arc welding torch, a plasma transferred arc welding torch, and/ or a gas metal arc welding torch, and a system for feeding a consumable wire placed in an open area build space relevant to the substrate unrestricted in size and open to the ambient atmosphere for generating molten metal
directing the welding control system to deposit a sequence of one- dimensional weld beads of the weldable material onto the support substrate in a pattern required to form a first layer of the computer-generated, direction specific, layered model of the part,
depositing a second welded layer by sequencing one- dimensional weld beads of the weldable material onto the previous deposited layer in a configuration the same as the second layer of the computer-generated direction specific layered model of the part, and
repeating each successive weld bead layer of the computer-generated, direction specific, layered model of the part until the entire part is completed;
wherein the method further includes:
displacing the atmosphere within the immediate vicinity of the heat source and the molten metal with an atmosphere of-inert gas which produces a required flow rate, and in which that inert atmosphere contains a maximum oxygen concentration, wherein the inert gas is delivered by a localized purge apparatus via an electrically controlled valve through a matrix of individual closable gas diffusers in a gas manifold compartment that is 80 to 180 mm wide and 180 to 400 mm long or that is of a cylindrical shape up to 400 mm in diameter, the gas manifold compartment including a closed cooling circuit for lowering the temperature of the inert gas flowing through the gas manifold compartment, and a recycle distribution loop for circulating the inert gas through the gas manifold compartment to displace the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal; and
engaging an induction heating and closed loop cooling apparatus synergic to the welding control system to provide synergic closed loop control of both the temperature of the support substrate and the deposited weld layers, allowing welding process parameters, including heat source parameters of the electric arc, to be altered linearly from pre-set data, and pre-heating the support substrate relevant to the type of weldable material, wherein induction heating and cooling cycles are applied constantly or pulsed from the first layer to the final layer, where optimal heating and/ or cooling cycles of the weldable material are relative to the final desired part shape and microstructure
Ugla teaches a shaped metal deposition process, wherein:
and, with reference to layered weld-bead geometry data, forming a computer-generated, direction specific, layered model of the part (Page 4 experimental setup and materials Figure 2, simulation process is created according to the model created),
uploading the direction specific, layered model of the part into a welding control system able to control the position and activation relative to a support substrate (Page 5 experimental setup and material, the pattern model/paths are uploaded into the system controller which controls the deposition process by controlling the deposition tool’s movements relative to the machine work space),
of an electric arc delivered by a tungsten arc welding torch (Page 3 experimental setup and material; TIG torch; high energy tungsten arc welding torch), a plasma transferred arc welding torch, and/or a gas metal arc welding torch,
and a system for feeding a consumable wire (Page 3 experimental setup and material, PROMIG 4T wire feed machine) placed in an open area build space relevant to the substrate unrestricted in size and open to the ambient atmosphere (Page 6 materials and experiments Figure 3, all experiments were conducted without using a chamber) for generating molten metal (Page 1 abstract, continuous DC arc heat is used to melt a cold wire on a substrate in a layer-by-layer manner; Page 11 Conclusion, this section specifies that the metal is molten),
directing the welding control system to deposit a sequence of one- dimensional weld beads of the weldable material onto the support substrate in a pattern required to form a first layer of the computer-generated, direction specific, layered model of the part (Page 5 experimental setup and material, the system controller controls the deposition process by controlling the deposition tool’s movements relative to the machine work space; Page 7 experimental setup and material, the deposition starts and completes the outline of the part configuration and then completing the filing of the first layer of the deposed after; Page 8 results and discussions, beads are deposited along the paths to fill the layer),
depositing a second welded layer by sequencing one- dimensional weld beads of the weldable material onto the previous deposited layer in a configuration the same as the second layer of the computer-generated direction specific layered model of the part (Page 7 experimental setup and material, continues the filling for the sequential layers after completing the first layer; Page 8 results and discussions, beads are deposited along the paths to fill the layer),
andAttorney Docket 8965-147935-USPRELIMINARY AMENDMENT dated December 18, 2019 repeating each successive weld bead layer of the computer-generated, direction specific, layered model of the part until the entire part is completed (Page 7 experimental setup and material, continues the filling for the sequential layers after completing the first layer; Page 8 results and discussions, beads are deposited along the paths to fill the layer);
wherein the method further includes:
displacing the atmosphere within the immediate vicinity of the heat source and the molten metal with an atmosphere of inert gas atmosphere which produces a required flow rate (Page 5 materials and experiments, inert gas at a specified flow rate is applied from the top side to protect the deposition zone from the oxidation and other contaminants during the deposition process),
displace the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal (Page 5 materials and experiments, inert gas at a specified flow rate is applied from the top side to protect the deposition zone from the oxidation and other contaminants during the deposition process)
and in which that inert atmosphere contains a maximum oxygen concentration (Page 5 Materials and experiments, inert gas of 99.9% purity Argon applied from the top side to protect the deposition zone from the oxidation and other contaminants during the deposition process),1
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovacevic with Ugla and used the stainless steel deposition process described by Ugla. This would have been done to reduce the efforts and tedious tasks necessary for robots and also shortens the item for teaching of trajectories (Ugla Page 11 Conclusion).
Kovacevic modified with Ugla fails to teach:
wherein the inert gas is delivered by a localized purge apparatus via an electrically controlled valve through a matrix of individual closable gas diffusers in a gas manifold compartment that is 80 to 180 mm wide and 180 to 400 mm long or that is of a cylindrical shape up to 400 mm in diameter, the gas manifold compartment including a closed cooling circuit for lowering the temperature of the inert gas flowing through the gas manifold compartment, and a recycle distribution loop for circulating the inert gas through the gas manifold compartment to displace the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal; and
engaging an induction heating and closed loop cooling apparatus synergic to the welding control system to provide synergic closed loop control of both the temperature of the support substrate and the deposited weld layers, allowing welding process parameters, including heat source parameters of the electric arc, to be altered linearly from pre-set data, and pre-heating the support substrate relevant to the type of weldable material,
wherein induction heating and cooling cycles are applied constantly or pulsed from the first layer to the final layer, where optimal heating and/ or cooling cycles of the weldable material are relative to the final desired part shape and microstructure
MATHISEN (US 20190001437 A1) teaches a method of solidification refinement for a solid freeform fabrication method, wherein:
wherein the inert gas (Paragraph 126, inert gas such as argon) is delivered by a localized purge apparatus via an electrically controlled valve (Paragraph 70, provision of gas intermittently can be achieved by using valve switches such as described by U.S. Pat. No. 9,566,554 Wu et al., 2017 which describes an electrically controlled valve) through a matrix of individual closable gas diffusers (Paragraph 79, jet device delivers inert gas through a plurality of nozzles; Paragraphs 59-60, the jet device has two conduits which each comprise a plurality of nozzles and each contains a fluid connector which allows it to be connected to a source of cooling gas; Paragraph 69, flow of gas to teach nozzle can be separately controlled such that different flow rates are directed toward the as-solidified metal compared to the metal of the melt pool; Paragraph 70, provision of gas intermittently can be achieved by using valve switches)
a recycle distribution loop for circulating the inert gas through the gas manifold compartment (Paragraphs 77-79, cooling gas supply is delivered through a first and second conduit inlet such as to supply gas into the fluid connector and into the manifold) to displace the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal (Paragraph 78, melting tool is situated above the melt pool and wire is supplied to the melting arc; Paragraphs 79-80, wire feed delivers metal wire to a position above the melt pool wherein the cool gas from the jet device as gas jets to the melt pool which would displace the atmosphere at the heat source and molten metal); and
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovacevic with MATHISEN and had the inert gas be delivered by an apparatus of individual gas diffusers. This would have been done to provide grain refinement in metal articles produced by additive manufacturing (MATHISEN Paragraph 11).
While Kovacevic modified with MATHISEN fails to explicitly teach that “the gas manifold compartment including a closed cooling circuit for lowering the temperature of the inert gas flowing through the gas manifold compartment”, Mamrak (US 20210170494 A1) teaches a gas flow system for additive manufacturing wherein a heat exchanger is used to control the temperature of cooling inert gases used in the process (Mamrak Paragraph 65). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovacevic with Mamrak and used a heat exchanger to lower the temperature of the inert gas. This would have been done to control the temperature of the gas which is used in the process (Mamrak Paragraph 65). The Office further notes that the use of a heat exchanger to cool inert gas used in additive manufacturing is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 58 of Guldberg (US 20120193335 A1) and Paragraph 100 of FORSETH (US 20180010237 A1).
Kovacevic modified with Ugla fails to teach:
individual closable gas diffusers in a gas manifold compartment that is 80 to 180 mm wide and 180 to 400 mm long or that is of a cylindrical shape up to 400 mm in diameter;
engaging an induction heating and closed loop cooling apparatus synergic to the welding control system to provide synergic closed loop control of both the temperature of the support substrate and the deposited weld layers, allowing welding process parameters, including heat source parameters of the electric arc, to be altered linearly from pre-set data, and pre-heating the support substrate relevant to the type of weldable material,
wherein induction heating and cooling cycles are applied constantly or pulsed from the first layer to the final layer, where optimal heating and/ or cooling cycles of the weldable material are relative to the final desired part shape and microstructure
De Facci (US 4278864 A) teaches a welding gas shield control, comprising:
inert gas is delivered through individual closable gas diffusers in a gas manifold compartment (Figure 4 Column 4 Lines 28-39, gas flowing downstream from a regulator is bifurcated by a Y-shaped manifold through outlet conduits wherein needle valves 36A and 36B are provided to establish and control the desired relative flow volumes of shielding gas; Figures 1 and 4, the gas in the Y-shaped manifold 30 is delivered through individual closable gas diffusers needle valves 36A and 36B)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovacevic with De Facci and used a manifold with needle valves to establish and closely control the flow of the gas. This would have been done to improve welding results and save time (De Facci Column 1 Lines 45-55).
Gas manifolds that are 80 to 180mm wide and 180 to 400mm long or that is of a cylindrical shape up to 400mm in diameter are known in the art as evidenced by Powell (US 20090246940 A1) and one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to use such a manifold as obvious engineering choice.
Furthermore, given that the applicant has given no criticality to the size and shape of the gas manifold, the MPEP teaches that mere changes in the size and shape are not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP2144.04IV.A/B. In this case, having a gas manifold be within the general dimensions of 80 to 180mm wide and 180 to 400mm long or that is of a cylindrical shape up to 400mm in diameter are not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Kovacevic modified with De Facci fails to teach:
engaging an induction heating and closed loop cooling apparatus synergic to the welding control system to provide synergic closed loop control of both the temperature of the support substrate and the deposited weld layers, allowing welding process parameters, including heat source parameters of the electric arc, to be altered linearly from pre-set data, and pre-heating the support substrate relevant to the type of weldable material,
wherein induction heating and cooling cycles are applied constantly or pulsed from the first layer to the final layer, where optimal heating and/ or cooling
Albrecht (US 20150021815 A1) teaches an additive manufacturing heating control system (Figure 10), wherein:
engaging an induction heating (Paragraph 54, temperature control device 140 have a heating element) and closed loop cooling apparatus synergic to the welding control system to provide synergic closed loop control of both the temperature of the support substrate and the deposited weld layers (Paragraphs 54-56, temperature control device 140 is used to heat and cool the temperature of the part 12 and of the microdeposits via heating substrate 142; Paragraph 54, controller 30 utilizes temperature feedback from a sensor 144 in order to control the temperature of the part 12 wherein the sensor is placed on previously deposited micro-deposits 21 or substrate 142; Paragraph 53, temperature control device 140 and sensor 144 are both coupled to the substrate 142; Paragraph 54, temperature feedback from the substrate 142), and pre-heating the support substrate (Paragraph 54, temperature control device 140 preheats part 12 via heating substrate 142 prior to the deposit of the micro-deposits via preheating substrate 142),
wherein induction heating and cooling cycles are applied constantly or pulsed from the first layer to the final layer (Paragraph 54, temperature control device preheats part 12 prior to the addition of one or more layers of micro-deposits 21; Paragraph 54, temperature feedback from a sensor 144 positioned on a previously deposited micro-deposits 21), where optimal heating and/ or cooling cycles of the weldable material are relative to the final desired part shape and microstructure (Paragraph 54, the cooling rate of the part 12 is controlled such as to have a desired microstructure).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovacevic with Albrecht and have the method include engaging an induction heating and closed loop cooling apparatus to provide closed loop control of the temperature of the substrate and deposited weld layers. This would have been done to obtain the desired microstructure of the beads of the part (Albrecht Paragraphs 54-55).
Kovacevic modified with Albrecht fails to teach:
allowing welding process parameters, including heat source parameters of the electric arc, to be altered linearly from pre-set data
preheating the substrate relevant to the type of weldable material,
Xiao (US 20170145586 A1) teaches a system and method for additive manufacturing, comprising:
allowing welding process parameters, including heat source parameters of the electric arc, to be altered linearly from pre-set data (Paragraph 22, the controller uses temperature sensors which indicate a change in temperature of the substrate and/or part to control the operation of the additive manufacturing system by adjusting the heating of the droplets and the work region during the formation of the part; Paragraphs 21-22, controller 32 adapts the set of instructions based on the input of the sensors wherein the heating of the droplets and/or work region is adapted based on temperature detected by the sensor; Paragraph 21, said instructions are provided as a preset data directly to the controller via an operator interface 44 or load the instructions from a three-dimensional model)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovacevic with Xiao and have the controller also use the readings from the temperature sensor to adjust the heating of the droplets in addition to the work region during the formation of the part. This would have been done such that the operation of the heating system and other components of the additive manufacturing system would be regulated and coordinated (Xiao Paragraph 33).
The Office notes that while Xiao does not explicitly teach that that the parameters are altered linearly, it is well known in art to establish relationships between detected signals and the adjustments to parameters such as to provide feedback control of parameters based on said detected signals. A linear relationship is one of the simplest and well known relationships established between variables. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to establish a linear relationship between a detected signal and a parameter such as to adapt the heating of the droplets and/or heating of the work region during the formation of the part (Xiao Paragraph 22).
While Kovacevic modified with Xiao does not explicitly teach “preheating the substrate relevant to the type of weldable material”, Nguyen (US 20150352794 A1) teaches a method for distortion minimization in additive manufacturing comprising minimizing the thermal gradient between the workpiece and substrate by preheating the substrate before the deposition of the material (Paragraph 34) which is beneficial in minimizing the distortions in the workpiece (Paragraph 6). Fong (US 6572807 B1) teaches a method of solid freeform fabrication wherein material disposed in droplets must be deposited at or above the flowable temperature of the material (Fong Column 4 Lines 22-28). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art looking to minimize distortions in the workpiece by preheating the substrate would consider the temperature at which the weldable material droplets are deposited, which is relevant to the type of the weldable material.
Regarding claim 2, Kovacevic as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
Ugla further teaches:
the weldable material is a weldable metal, or a weldable alloyed metal, of ferrous or non-ferrous nature (Page 5 Materials and experiments, stainless steel solid wire which is a weldable alloyed metal of ferrous nature).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 3, Kovacevic as modified teaches the method according to claim 2.
Ugla further teaches:
the weldable material is carbon steel or carbon manganese alloys, nickel or nickel alloys, stainless steels (Page 5 Materials and experiments, stainless steel solid wire used as filler material for depositing process), aluminium or aluminium alloys, titanium or alloyed titanium, ferrous or non-ferrous, or a mixture of dissimilar weldable materials.
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 4, Kovacevic as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
Ugla further teaches:
the inert gas is one of argon (Page 5 Materials and experiments, argon), helium, hydrogen, nitrogen, or a mixture of these.
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 5, Kovacevic as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
Ugla further teaches:
the inert gas shielding the electric arc and heat-affected material is argon (Page 5 Materials and experiments, argon) or an argon mixture.
MATHISEN further teaches:
where the flow rate of the argon or argon mixture is constant or pulsed and above 20 liters per minute (Paragraph 69, flow rate of the cooling gas is typically from 5 L/min to about 100 L/min), and wherein the distribution of the inert gas is delivered through the matrix of individual gas diffusers (Paragraph 79, jet device delivers inert gas through a plurality of nozzles; Paragraphs 59-60, the jet device has two conduits which each comprise a plurality of nozzles and each contains a fluid connector which allows it to be connected to a source of cooling gas; Paragraph 69, flow of gas to teach nozzle can be separately controlled such that different flow rates are directed toward the as-solidified metal compared to the metal of the melt pool; Paragraph 70, provision of gas intermittently can be achieved by using valve switches).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
De Facci further teaches:
individual closable gas diffusers (Figure 4 Column 4 Lines 28-39, gas flows through outlet conduits wherein needle valves 36A and 36B are provided to establish and control the desired relative flow volumes of shielding gas).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 6, Kovacevic as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
MATHISEN further teaches:
the required flow rate is greater than 20 l/min (Paragraph 69, flow rate of the cooling gas is typically from 5 L/min to about 100 L/min).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 8, Kovacevic as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
MATHISEN further teaches:
there are less than 25 individual gas diffusers (Paragraph 71, each conduit includes at least one nozzle such that a minimum of two nozzles and the number of nozzles can range from 2 to 24).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
De Facci further teaches:
individual closable gas diffusers (Figure 4 Column 4 Lines 28-39, gas flows through outlet conduits wherein needle valves 36A and 36B are provided to establish and control the desired relative flow volumes of shielding gas).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacevic (US 6940037 B1) in view of UGLA ("Development and control of shaped metal deposition process using tungsten inert gas arc heat source in additive layered manufacturing," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, October 2016, pages 1-14.), MATHISEN (US 20190001437 A1), Mamrak (US 20210170494 A1), De Facci (US 4278864 A), Powell (US 20090246940 A1), Albrecht (US 20150021815 A1), Xiao (US 20170145586 A1), Nguyen (US 20150352794 A1), and Fong (US 6572807 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SYMEONIDIS (US 20170304944 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Kovacevic as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kovacevic as modified fails to teach:
the maximum oxygen concentration is less than 500ppm oxygen.
SYMEONIDIS (US 20170304944 A1) teaches a solid freeform deposition process (Paragraph 65) in standard atmospheric pressure (Paragraph 114), wherein:
the maximum oxygen concentration is less than 500ppm oxygen (Paragraph 117, concentration of oxygen should be minimized in a range from 0.001ppb – 100ppm).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovacevic to incorporate the teachings of SYMEONIDIS and had the oxygen concentration be less than 500 ppm. Having such an oxygen concentration range is well known in the art and would be used for its standardized and predictable results.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kovacevic (US 6940037 B1) in view of UGLA ("Development and control of shaped metal deposition process using tungsten inert gas arc heat source in additive layered manufacturing," Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part B: Journal of Engineering Manufacture, October 2016, pages 1-14.), MATHISEN (US 20190001437 A1), Mamrak (US 20210170494 A1), De Facci (US 4278864 A), Powell (US 20090246940 A1), Albrecht (US 20150021815 A1), Xiao (US 20170145586 A1), Nguyen (US 20150352794 A1), and Fong (US 6572807 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Slavens (US 20160326880 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Kovacevic as modified teaches the method according to claim 1.
Kovacevic fails to teach:
the support substrate includes one or more cooling channels, and the closed loop cooling apparatus is connected to the support substrate via inlet and outlet fittings which circulate coolant through the cooling channels.
Slavens (US 20160326880 A1) teaches an additive manufacturing system, wherein:
the support substrate includes one or more cooling channels, and the closed loop cooling apparatus is connected to the support substrate via inlet and outlet fittings which circulate coolant through the cooling channels (Paragraph 40, coolant source 32 controllably flow coolant such as water through a series of channels 74 in the seed 40 to thermal conduction wherein the cooling source can ramp up or reduce the flow based on the controller).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kovacevic with Slavens and have a cooling source flow coolant such as water through a series of channels into and out of the substrate such as to maintain the desired temperature gradient in the workpiece being fabricated (Slavens Paragraphs 40-41).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 Because there is a 99.9% purity Argon gas applied, there would be a maximum oxygen concentration of at most 0.01%. Furthermore, as the purpose of the inert gas is to reduce oxidation, there would certainly be a maximum oxygen concentration.
Prosecution Insights