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
Claims 9-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 4/23/26.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “connecting device”, “wire feeding device”, “wire feeding device connecting plate”, in claim 1, and “connecting block” in claim 2.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-8 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “a second gas cylinder”, but does not claim a first gas cylinder. It is unclear whether a first cylinder is intended to be part of the device structure.
The remaining claims are rejected based on their dependence on a rejected claim.
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 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Withers et al. (US2006/0185473).
PNG
media_image1.png
637
525
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Withers teaches a device for controlling a size of a molten pool in a wire and arc additive manufacturing process, comprising: additive manufacturing equipment (Fig. 1), a connecting device (64) and bilateral gas flow devices (see two “argon gas” flanking the welding torch 18); wherein the additive manufacturing equipment comprises a welding gun (18), a welding power source (20), a second gas cylinder (it is understood that the argon gas has a cylinder source), a wire feeding device (14) and a wire feeding device connecting plate (shown schematically in Fig. 1), wherein welding wires are conveyed to a designed position of a deposited layer by the wire feeding device, molten drops are bonded to a designated substrate under an action of arcs, and a member is formed on the designated substrate by deposition (see paragraph [0014]); a heat source in the wire and arc additive manufacturing process is supplied by the welding power source connected to the welding gun (see paragraph [0014]); the wire feeding device is connected to the connecting device on the welding gun by the wire feeding device connecting plate, so that the welding gun and the wire feeding device move synchronously (see Figs. 1 and 5); and the bilateral gas flow devices are connected to the connecting device, and precise adjustment of relative positions of the bilateral gas flow devices and the welding gun is achieved by adjusting the connecting device (see paragraph [0016]).
Regarding claim 6, Withers teaches gases, used for an interior of the welding gun and two sides of the deposited layer, in a first gas cylinder and the second gas cylinder are inert gases (Withers teaches argon gas).
Regarding claim 7, Withers teaches wire and arc additive manufacturing manners comprise gas metal arc welding (GMAW), gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW) and plasma arcs (Withers teaches plasma arc, see paragraph [0014]).
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 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 of this title, 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.
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withers in view of Stempfer et al. (US2022/0176484).
Regarding claim 2, Withers teaches the device of claim 1, and further teaches the connecting device comprises a connecting block (64), z-axis position adjusting devices, y-axis position adjusting devices, x-axis position adjusting devices and deflection angle position adjusting devices (paragraph [0016]).
Withers fails to explicitly teach wherein the connecting block is fixed to the welding gun, and the connecting block serves as a reference structural member for adjusting the relative positions of the bilateral gas flow devices and the welding gun; and the welding gun, the connecting block, the z-axis position adjusting devices, the y-axis position adjusting devices, the x-axis position adjusting devices, the deflection angle position adjusting devices and the bilateral gas flow devices are sequentially connected and combined by bolts.
In an analogous art, Stempfer teaches a welding fabrication system. Stempfer teaches a connecting block (See Fig. 9, showing welding device 410 bolted to the connecting block), where the block is fixed to the welding gun, and the connecting block serves as a reference structural member for adjusting the relative positions of the bilateral gas flow devices and the welding gun; and the welding gun, the connecting block, the z-axis position adjusting devices, the y-axis position adjusting devices, the x-axis position adjusting devices (see Fig. 9 and paragraph [0007]), the devices connected by bolts (see Fig. 9).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Withers and change it so that the connecting block is fixed to the welding gun, and the connecting block serves as a reference structural member for adjusting the relative positions of the bilateral gas flow devices and the welding gun; and the welding gun, the connecting block, the z-axis position adjusting devices, the y-axis position adjusting devices, the x-axis position adjusting devices, the deflection angle position adjusting devices and the bilateral gas flow devices are sequentially connected and combined by bolts as taught by Stempfer to achieve precise positioning of the device during manufacturing.
Regarding claim 2, Withers as modified teaches the device for controlling the size of the molten pool in the wire and arc additive manufacturing process according to claim 2, but fails to explicitly teach connecting parts of the z-axis position adjusting devices, the y-axis position adjusting devices, the x-axis position adjusting devices and the deflection angle position adjusting devices are provided with size scales to achieve the precise adjustment of the relative positions of the bilateral gas flow devices and the welding gun.
However, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Withers as modified and change it so that the deflection angle position adjusting devices are provided with size scales that are well known in the art to achieve desired positioning of the system components.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Withers in view of Henn (US7073561).
Regarding claim 5, Withers teaches the device for controlling the size of the molten pool in the wire and arc additive manufacturing process according to claim 1, but fails to teach the welding wires are stainless steel welding wires or aluminum alloy welding wires.
In an analogous art, Henn teaches a welding fabrication system where aluminum and steel are noted alternatives to the titanium used in Withers (see Col. 4 lines 39-55).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the device of Withers and change it so that the welding wires are stainless steel welding wires or aluminum alloy welding wires as taught by Henn to use suitable alternative welding materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-4 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See the PTO-892 for a list of relevant wire and arc additive manufacturing references.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CAMERON A CORDAY whose telephone number is (571)272-0383. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-4 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/CAMERON A CORDAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights