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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following feature(s) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
“a thread” in claim 11 is not shown in any of the figures in the drawing
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
The following claim(s) is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 9, “a workpiece” should be changed to “[[a]]the workpiece”
Appropriate correction is required.
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means of the welding device” in claim 9 does not invoke 112(f) because there is sufficient structure being the welding device,
“means of a welding device” in claim 14 does not invoke 112(f) because there is sufficient structure being a welding device,
“means of the nozzle apparatus” in claim 14 does not invoke 112(f) because there is sufficient structure being the nozzle apparatus,
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-8 and 12-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Acharya (US 20200130268 A1).
Regarding claim 1
Acharya discloses a welding device (Fig 2) for welding at least one workpiece (substrate 26), comprising:
- a welding torch (energy source 22, that is capable of directing an energy beam 24 toward a substrate 26, [0029 middle]), which is designed to create an electric arc (energy beam 24 is an electrical discharge arc, [0029 middle]) for welding the at least one workpiece (26);
- a nozzle apparatus (cooling nozzles 40, Fig 2, [0038 top]) which is arranged on the welding torch (22/24) and has a cooling nozzle array (an array of cooling nozzles 40 as seen in Fig 2),
wherein the cooling nozzle array has at least one radial row of cooling nozzles (section row 46 is interpreted to be in the radial direction, Fig 2) and at least two cooling nozzles are arranged in the row (four cooling nozzles 40 are shown in Fig 2 arranged in a row section 46),
wherein for cooling the workpiece, the respective cooling nozzle can (the term “can” is interpreted as capable of but is not required) be supplied with an adjustable volume flow of a cooling medium (the nozzles 40 are supplied with cooling air or fluid, [0036 bottom], thus the would be capable of receiving an adjustable volume flow of a cooling medium,
additionally, controller 50 is programmed to control the flow rate of the cooling fluid output from the nozzles, [0039 middle], indicating that the volume of fluid through the nozzle is adjustable via controller 50).
Regarding claim 2
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses wherein the cooling nozzles of the nozzle apparatus are arranged next to one another in a circumferential direction (Fig 3 shows the cooling nozzles 40 arranged annularly around the welding torch 22) of the welding torch preferably equidistantly (“preferably” is interpreted as not required), so that the cooling nozzle array extends annularly around the welding torch (nozzles 40 are annularly around welding torch 22, Fig 3).
Regarding claim 3
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses wherein the cooling nozzle array (nozzles 40, Fig 2) has a plurality of rows of cooling nozzles (rows 46 and 48).
Regarding claim 4
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses wherein a plurality of cooling nozzles of the cooling nozzle array can (the term “can” is interpreted as capable of but is not required) be supplied with an adjustable volume flow of a particular cooling medium (the nozzles 40 are supplied with cooling air or fluid, [0036 bottom], thus the would be capable of receiving an adjustable volume flow of a cooling medium).
Regarding claim 5
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses wherein at least one cooling nozzle can (the term “can” is interpreted as capable of but is not required) be supplied with a first cooling medium and at least one further cooling nozzle can be supplied with a second cooling medium (since the nozzles 40 are independent from one another, each of the nozzles is capable of receiving a different cooling medium) wherein the second cooling medium differs from the first cooling medium in its composition (the nozzles 40 are supplied with cooling air or fluid, [0036 bottom], indicating that the nozzles 40 are capable of receiving air and fluid as cooling media, where air and fluid are different in composition).
Regarding claim 6
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses wherein the cooling nozzle array can (the term “can” is interpreted as capable of but is not required) be rotated about a rotational axis (R) (orientation of each nozzle 40 can be adjusted as indicated by the angle θ2 with respect to rotational axis, annotated in Fig 2, [0038 bottom], which shows that the nozzle 40 rotates by angle θ2) so that the cooling nozzles can in particular (the term “in particular” is interpreted as not required) be moved around the welding torch (this limitation is interpreted as not required, additionally, see that nozzles 40 are positioned adjacent and in the same vicinity or around the welding torch 22, and the nozzles 40 move by angle θ2).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
910
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 6.
Acharya further discloses wherein the welding device (Fig 2) is designed to adjust a rotation angle (angle θ2) of the cooling nozzle array (40) with respect to the rotational axis (R) (rotational axis annotated in Fig 2) on the basis of a temperature signal (the controller 50 is programmed to control the nozzle orientation, i.e. angle θ2, and the flow rate of the cooling fluid output from the nozzles to achieved the desired convection coefficient, [0039 bottom], where the convection coefficient of may be manipulated to achieve a desired temperature [0033 top], this indicates that the controller 50 adjusts the rotation angle θ2 based on a desired temperature signal) and/or (“or” is interpreted as optional and not required) on the basis of an automatic calculation based on a known movement sequence of the welding torch during the welding process.
Regarding claim 8
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses wherein the cooling nozzle array can (the term “can” is interpreted as capable of but is not required) be tilted about a tilting axis (y) (orientation of each nozzle 40 can be adjusted as indicated by the angle θ2, Fig 2, [0038 bottom], which shows that the nozzle 40 is tilted by angle θ2), in particular (the term “in particular” is interpreted as not required) a horizontal tilting axis.
Regarding claim 12
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses wherein the welding device (Fig 2) is designed to supply a cooling nozzle of the cooling nozzle array (nozzle 40 closest to beam 24 in Fig 2) that is closer to the electric arc (arc at energy beam 24) than a further cooling nozzle (nozzle 40 furthest away from beam 24) with a lower volume flow of a cooling medium than the further cooling nozzle in order to reduce the risk of interaction of the cooling medium with a process gas of the welding process (this limitation is interpreted as functional language).
"[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim.
In this case, the claim limitation of “to supply a cooling nozzle … that is closer to the electric arc than a further cooling nozzle with a lower volume flow of a cooling medium than the further cooling nozzle in order to reduce the risk of interaction of the cooling medium with a process gas of the welding process” is interpreted as functional language. Acharya discloses a cooling nozzle array including a closer cooling nozzle and a further cooling nozzle to the electric arc (Fig 2), which is the same or similar to the structural limitations of the claim,
where each of the nozzles in Acharya is independent from one another, thus the closer cooling nozzle and the further cooling nozzles are capable of operating to achieve the function of the closer cooling nozzle being supplied “with a lower volume flow of a cooling medium than the further cooling nozzle in order to reduce the risk of interaction of the cooling medium with a process gas of the welding process”.
Regarding claim 13
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses wherein the welding device (Fig 2) is designed to dispense as cooling medium via at least one cooling nozzle (40): air (the nozzles 40 are supplied with cooling air, [0036 bottom]).
Regarding claim 14
Acharya discloses a method for welding at least one workpiece (energy source 22 capable of directing an energy beam 24 toward a substrate 26, [0029 middle] Fig 2), wherein the workpiece is constructed in layers (material deposition assembly 20 is movable relative to the substrate/workpiece 26 to forms a layer on the workpiece 26, [0030 bottom]) by means of a welding device (welding device in Fig 2) according to Claim 1 and is cooled by means of the nozzle apparatus (cooling nozzles 40, [0037]).
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) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya in view of Fischer (US 20190061061 A1).
Regarding claim 9
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya further discloses a workpiece (26 Fig 2) produced by means of the welding device (means of energy beam 24 of welding device).
Acharya is silent on at least one temperature sensor that is configured to detect a temperature distribution of the workpiece.
However, Fischer teaches a welding device (Fig 1, additive method using welding [0029]) having at least one temperature sensor (temperature-sensitive camera 8, [0054]) that is configured to detect a temperature distribution of the workpiece (sensor 8 detects temperature of layer 1.1 around the site of action 7, [0054], indicates that sensor 8 detects temperature distributed onto layer 1.1 around the site of action 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to add a temperature sensor, as suggested and taught by Fischer, to detect a temperature distribution of the workpiece in Acharya, to accurately monitor the temperature of the workpiece, in order to control the coolant impact position and coolant flow (0054).
Regarding claim 10
Acharya in view of Fischer discloses the welding device according to Claim 9.
Acharya in view of Fischer further discloses wherein the welding device (Fischer teaches a welding device in Fig 1) is designed to control, on the basis of the detected temperature distribution (sensor 8 detects temperature of layer 1.1 around the site of action 7, [0054], indicates that sensor 8 detects temperature distributed onto layer 1.1 around the site of action 7), a volume flow of a cooling medium (coolant 4) dispensed through the respective cooling nozzle (fluid supply device 3, where control unit 6 permits the control of the coolant impact position and the coolant mass flow, [0054]).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Acharya in view of Veldsman (US 20170120398 A1).
Regarding claim 11
Acharya discloses the welding device according to Claim 1.
Acharya is silent on wherein the respective cooling nozzle is fixed to the nozzle apparatus via a thread.
However, Veldsman teaches a welding apparatus (Figs 10-11) having a plurality of cooling nozzles (two cooling nozzles 118 in Fig 10, [0059 top]) fixed to a nozzle apparatus (welding apparatus 110) via a thread (two hex nuts shown in Figs 10 and 11, used for mounting the nozzles 118 to the welding apparatus, where the hex nuts comprise internal threads).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to fix the respective cooling nozzle to the nozzle apparatus in Acharya, via hex nuts with threads, as suggested and taught by Veldsman, because hex nuts are simple and readily available.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Yang (US 10252369 B2) teaches cooling tubes for welding
Miklos (US 20090014422 A1) teaches to mount a welding means and a cooling nozzle together
Riemann (US 11020822 B2) teaches a gas channel for a welding machine
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Thuyhang Nguyen whose telephone number is (571) 272-5317. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8am-5pm 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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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.
/Thuyhang N Nguyen/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights