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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because of the following reasons:
Figs. 5-9 show lettering at the bottom of the figures that is not black, sufficiently dense and dark, uniformly thick and well-defined (PCT Rule 11.13.a; MPEP 1825). Instead, a grayscale font is used.
Figs. 5-9 show letters that interfere with the lines of a graph, where the lines impede the clear reading of the letters, i.e., the lines interfere with “FABRICATION POINT 253” (PCT Rules 11.13.a and 11.13.e, MPEP 1825)
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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the Abstract is over 150 words in length, the Abstract uses acronyms DED and AM that should be identified when first used, e.g., “Direct Energy Deposition” and “Additive Manufacturing,” and the Abstract begins: “The present disclosure provides…” which is implied language. Several sample abstracts are provided in MPEP 608.01.b.I.e. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, recommend adding “Direct Energy Deposition” and “Additive Manufacturing” to the claim when the acronyms DED and AM are first used.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 7-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims 7-12 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 7-12 recites at least one step or instruction for “determining,” which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Specifically, “determining” is considered to be a mental process – concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))]] Accordingly, each of Claims 7-12 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 7 recites “a method for designing (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) a DED nozzle for use with an AM apparatus (additional elements), the method comprising: determining a direction (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) of a powder port provided at a distal end of a DED nozzle main body and configured to eject a powder material and a direction of a powder passage in communication with the powder port, the powder passage being configured to allow the powder material to pass through inside the DED nozzle main body based on a distance from the powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port, and a gravitational acceleration (additional elements).
Additionally, claim 11 recites: “a method for designing (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) an adapter detachably attachable to a DED nozzle for use with an AM apparatus (additional elements), the method comprising: determining a direction (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) of an adapter powder port configured to eject a powder material and a direction of an adapter powder passage in communication with the adapter powder port in a state that the adapter is attached to a distal end of a DED nozzle main body based on a distance from the adapter powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the adapter powder port, and a gravitational acceleration (additional elements).
Further, dependent Claims 8-10 and 12 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea of “determining” (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claims 7 and 11 (and their respective dependent Claims) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claims 7 and 11), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a DED nozzle, an AM apparatus, a powder port, a DED nozzle main body, and a powder passage do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply modify the abstract idea and do not add any additional activities or method steps to the claimed “method for designing.” Instead, the additional elements can be “designed” and “determined,” which would satisfy the limitations of the claims. For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 7 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Accordingly, independent Claims 7 and 11 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 7 and 11 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a DED nozzle, an AM apparatus, a powder port, a DED nozzle main body, and a powder passage.
The above-identified additional elements are conventional components, which are known in the art for Additive Manufacturing based on the Applicant’s disclosure in the Instant Application (pease see paragraph 0002 of the Specification and fig. 3 of the Drawings, which is described as “conventional,” paragraph 0016 of the Specification).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 7 and 11 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, none of the additional elements add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 7-12 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 7-12 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Recommend including in claims 7 and 11 a method step that is not an abstract idea (i.e, an observation, judgment or evaluation, per MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claims 1-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites: “wherein directions of the powder passage and the powder port are determined based on a distance from the powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port, and a gravitational acceleration.” It is unclear what “directions of the powder passage” are considered to be “determined based on a distance from the powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port, and a gravitational acceleration.” Figure 2 of the Drawings in the Instant Application show two “directions” for the second passageway 254 where one direction is vertical and another direction is slanted inwards relative to a vertical axis with an angle θ as shown in figure 4. For the purpose of the examination, if the prior art discloses a passage with a vertical direction and a slanted inward direction, then these “directions” will be considered to be “determined based on a distance from the powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port, and a gravitational acceleration.”
Claims 2 and 5 recite “wherein the directions … are determined while the velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port is 0.3 m/s or lower.” A single claim which claims both an apparatus and the methods steps for using the apparatus is indefinite (MPEP 2173.05.p.II). It is unclear if infringement occurs based on how the structure of the powder passage and the powder port or instead based on how the directions are determined and the velocity of the powder material as it is ejected from the powder port. Recommend using “configured to” in order to associate these limitations with claimed structure so as to clarify that the claim is an apparatus claim instead of a method claim.
Claim 4 recites: “wherein directions of the adapter powder passage and the adapter powder port are determined based on a distance from the adapter powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the adapter powder port, and a gravitational acceleration.” It is unclear what “directions of the adapter powder passage” are considered to be “determined based on a distance from the powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port, and a gravitational acceleration.” Figure 10 of the Drawings do not show “directions” for the passageway 304 within the adapter 300. Instead, fig. 10 shows only a single “direction,” i.e., the passageway 304 only has one direction inwards. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of the term “directions,” as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed adapter powder passage, then it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 7 recites: “A method for designing a DED nozzle for use with an AM apparatus, the method comprising: determining a direction of a powder port … and a direction of a powder passage….” The metes and bounds for a method that comprises a “determining a direction” step are unclear. For example, suppose one of ordinary skill designed a nozzle in their mind, where mentally a “direction” was determined that met the limitations of the claim. Thus, this mental construction would infringe on the limitation. However, this determining step was done mentally, and it would not be possible to show that infringement occurred. Recommend claiming a method with method steps that are finite such that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand whether or not they were infringing on the claimed method steps.
Claim 10 recites: “A method for designing an adapter detachably attachable to a DED nozzle for use with an AM apparatus, the method comprising: determining a direction of an adapter powder port configured to eject a powder material and a direction….” The metes and bounds for a method that comprises a “determining a direction” step are unclear. For example, suppose one of ordinary skill designed an adapter in their mind, where mentally a “direction” was determined that met the limitations of the claim. Thus, this mental construction would infringe on the limitation. However, this determining step was done mentally, and it would not be possible to show that infringement occurred. Recommend claiming a method with method steps that are finite such that one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand whether or not they were infringing on the claimed method steps.
Claims 3, 5-6, 8-9, and 11-13 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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.
Claims 1, 3, 7, 9, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US-20150196975-A1; hereinafter Sato ‘975) in view of Sato et al. (US-20060266740-A1; hereinafter Sato ‘740).
Regarding claim 1, Sato ‘975 teaches a DED nozzle (nozzle 7, fig. 2; “laser cladding processing,” para 0002; laser cladding is a specific type of DED) for use with an AM apparatus (laser cladding processing device 9, fig. 1; laser cladding is construed as being AM), the DED nozzle comprising:
a DED nozzle main body (outer nozzle member 20, fig. 2);
a laser port (irradiation opening 14, fig. 2) provided at a distal end of the DED nozzle main body (bottom of member 20, fig. 2), the laser port being configured to emit laser light (para 0056);
a laser passage (laser passage 11, fig. 2) in communication with the laser port, the laser passage being configured to allow the laser light to pass through inside the DED nozzle main body (para 0056);
a powder port (discharge opening 18, fig. 2) provided at the distal end of the DED nozzle main body (bottom of member 20, fig. 2), the powder port being configured to eject a powder material (para 0048); and
a powder passage (discharge space 19 and passage walls 12, fig. 2) in communication with the powder port (para 0052), the powder passage being configured to allow the powder material to pass through inside the DED nozzle main body (powder passes through the member 20 via walls 12, fig. 2);
wherein directions of the powder passage (discharge space 19 is vertical and walls 12 and slanted inwards, which are construed as the claimed “directions;” fig. 2 of the Instant Application shows similar “directions” for the passage 254) and the powder port are determined based on
a fabrication point (“powder that has passed through the discharge passages 19 c of the lower discharge space 19 b is discharged toward a predetermined point on the axis L from around the laser beam,” para 0055; the predetermined point is construed as the claimed determination that is based on a “fabrication point”),
a velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port (“the supply channels 22A may be designed as needed depending on the flow rate or flow velocity,” para 0060), and
a gravitational acceleration (figs. 9A-9C describe how the nozzle compensates for inclinations in the laser head in comparison with fig. 9D, which is described as a “comparative example” and where the powder distribution is skewed towards the “lower side,” para 0072; designing the powder distribution to compensate for inclinations of the laser head is construed as determinations based on “gravitational acceleration”).
Sato ‘975, fig. 2
PNG
media_image1.png
1126
927
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sato ‘975 does not explicitly disclose a distance from the powder port to a fabrication point.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment using powder, Sato ‘740 teaches a distance (distance D, fig. 14) from the powder port (outlet 19, fig. 14) to a fabrication point (bottom apex of powder P, fig. 14).
Sato ‘740, fig. 14
PNG
media_image2.png
992
742
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sato ‘975, in view of the teachings of Sato ‘740, by using a distance “D,” as taught by Sato ‘740, to determine the predetermined point that the powder is discharged towards, as taught by Sato ‘975, in order to determine a discharge distance for the nozzle, because if the nozzle is too close to the process portion, then the process portion may be adversely affected by radiation heat, which can be avoided by keeping a certain degree of discharge distance for the nozzle (Sato ‘740, para 0060).
Regarding claim 3, Sato ‘975 teaches wherein the DED nozzle (nozzle 7, fig. 2) is configured in such a manner that powder ejected from the powder port and the laser emitted from the laser port intersect at the fabrication point (“powder that has passed through the discharge passages 19 c of the lower discharge space 19 b is discharged toward a predetermined point on the axis L from around the laser beam,” para 0055; construed such that the laser beam and the powder meet at the predetermined point) or intersect at a position higher than the fabrication point.
Regarding claim 7, Sato ‘975 teaches a method for designing a DED nozzle (nozzle 7 is designed, fig. 2; “laser cladding processing,” para 0002; laser cladding is a specific type of DED) for use with an AM apparatus (laser cladding processing device 9, fig. 1; laser cladding is construed as being AM), the method comprising:
determining a direction of a powder port (discharge opening 18, fig. 2; the discharge opening 18 is slanted inwards, which is construed as the claimed “direction;” fig. 2 of the Instant Application shows similar “direction” for the powder port) provided at a distal end of a DED nozzle main body (bottom of member 20, fig. 2) and configured to eject a powder material (para 0048) and a direction of a powder passage (discharge space 19 and passage walls 12, fig. 2; discharge space 19 is vertical and walls 12 and slanted inwards, which are construed as the claimed “direction;” fig. 2 of the Instant Application shows similar “directions” for the passage 254) in communication with the powder port (para 0052), the powder passage being configured to allow the powder material to pass through inside the DED nozzle main body (powder passes through the member 20 via walls 12, fig. 2) based on
a fabrication point (“powder that has passed through the discharge passages 19 c of the lower discharge space 19 b is discharged toward a predetermined point on the axis L from around the laser beam,” para 0055; the predetermined point is construed as the claimed determination that is based on a “fabrication point”),
a velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port (“the supply channels 22A may be designed as needed depending on the flow rate or flow velocity,” para 0060), and
a gravitational acceleration (figs. 9A-9C describe how the nozzle compensates for inclinations in the laser head in comparison with fig. 9D, which is described as a “comparative example” and where the powder distribution is skewed towards the “lower side,” para 0072; designing the powder distribution to compensate for inclinations of the laser head is construed as determinations based on “gravitational acceleration”).
Sato ‘975 does not explicitly disclose a distance from the powder port to a fabrication point.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment using powder, Sato ‘740 teaches a distance (distance D, fig. 14) from the powder port (outlet 19, fig. 14) to a fabrication point (bottom apex of powder P, fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sato ‘975, in view of the teachings of Sato ‘740, by using a distance “D,” as taught by Sato ‘740, to determine the predetermined point that the powder is discharged towards, as taught by Sato ‘975, in order to determine a discharge distance for the nozzle, because if the nozzle is too close to the process portion, then the process portion may be adversely affected by radiation heat, which can be avoided by keeping a certain degree of discharge distance for the nozzle (Sato ‘740, para 0060).
Regarding claim 9, Sato ‘975 teaches wherein the directions of the powder passage and the powder port (discharge space 19 is vertical and walls 12 and slanted inwards, which are construed as the claimed “directions) are determined in such a manner that powder ejected from the powder port and a laser (beam along axis L, fig. 2) emitted from a laser port (irradiation opening 14, fig. 2) intersect at the fabrication point (“powder that has passed through the discharge passages 19 c of the lower discharge space 19 b is discharged toward a predetermined point on the axis L from around the laser beam,” para 0055; construed such that the laser beam and the powder meet at the predetermined point) or intersect at a position higher than the fabrication point.
Regarding claim 13, Sato ‘975 teaches an AM apparatus (laser cladding processing device 9, fig. 1; laser cladding is construed as being AM) comprising: the DED nozzle according to claim 1 (please see claim 1 above).
Claims 2 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sato et al. (US-20150196975-A1; hereinafter Sato ‘975) in view of Sato et al. (US-20060266740-A1; hereinafter Sato ‘740) as applied to claims 1 and 7 above and further in view of Freneaux et al. (US-5418350-A).
Regarding claim 2, Sato ‘975 does not explicitly disclose wherein the directions of the powder passage and the powder port are determined while the velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port is 0.3 m/s or lower.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment using powder, Freneaux teaches wherein the directions of the powder passage (internal wall 10 is sloped inwards, fig. 1) and the powder port (outlet 3, fig. 1) are determined while the velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port is 0.3 m/s or lower (“volumetric flow rate, under standard conditions, is comprised between
1.5
x
10
-
5
and
35
x
10
-
5
m
3
/
s
,” column 3, lines 43-45; “diameter of the injection annulus D comprised between 4 millimeters and 10 millimeters,” column 3, lines 31-32; construed as a speed with a range between 1.5
x
10
-
5
m
3
s
*
1
0.00
5
2
π
m
-
2
=
0.19
m
/
s
and 35
x
10
-
5
m
3
s
*
1
0.00
2
2
π
m
-
2
=
27.87
m
/
s
; in other words, a range between 0.19 and 27.87 m/s overlaps with the claimed range of less than 0.3 m/s).
Freneaux, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
290
424
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sato ‘975, in view of the teachings of Freneaux, by using a flow rate between
1.5
x
10
-
5
and
35
x
10
-
5
m
3
/
s
, as taught by Freneaux, for the powder, as taught by Sato ‘975, in order to use a flow rate that provides powder at the right rate to ensure that the powder intersects with the laser beam and does disperse outside the laser beam (Freneaux, column 4, lines 15-23) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 8, Sato ‘975 does not explicitly disclose wherein the directions of the powder passage and the powder port are determined while the velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port is 0.3 m/s or lower.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment using powder, Freneaux teaches wherein the directions of the powder passage (internal wall 10 is sloped inwards, fig. 1) and the powder port (outlet 3, fig. 1) are determined while the velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port is 0.3 m/s or lower (“volumetric flow rate, under standard conditions, is comprised between
1.5
x
10
-
5
and
35
x
10
-
5
m
3
/
s
,” column 3, lines 43-45; “diameter of the injection annulus D comprised between 4 millimeters and 10 millimeters,” column 3, lines 31-32; construed as a speed with a range between 1.5
x
10
-
5
m
3
s
*
1
0.005
2
π
m
-
2
=
0.19
m
/
s
and 35
x
10
-
5
m
3
s
*
1
0.002
2
π
m
-
2
=
27.87
m
/
s
; in other words, a range between 0.19 and 27.87 m/s overlaps with the claimed range of less than 0.3 m/s).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Sato ‘975, in view of the teachings of Freneaux, by using a flow rate between
1.5
x
10
-
5
and
35
x
10
-
5
m
3
/
s
, as taught by Freneaux, for the powder, as taught by Sato ‘975, in order to use a flow rate that provides powder at the right rate to ensure that the powder intersects with the laser beam and does disperse outside the laser beam (Freneaux, column 4, lines 15-23) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Claims 4-6 and 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Freneaux et al. (US-5418350-A) in view of Sato et al. (US-20150196975-A1; hereinafter Sato ‘975) and Sato et al. (US-20060266740-A1; hereinafter Sato ‘740).
Regarding claim 4, Freneaux teaches an adapter (removable ferrules 22 and 22’, fig. 1) detachably attachable to a nozzle (nozzle body 1, fig. 1), the adapter comprising:
an adapter laser passage (annotated in fig. 1 below) configured to be brought into communication with a laser passage (annotated in fig. 1 below) of the DED nozzle when the adapter is attached to the DED nozzle (the ferules 22 and 22’ are attached to the nozzle body 1, fig. 1);
an adapter laser port (annotated in fig. 1 below) configured to emit a laser (laser beam 6, fig. 1) that passes through the adapter laser passage;
an adapter powder passage (annotated in fig. 1 below) configured to be brought into communication with a powder passage of the DED nozzle (annotated in fig. 1 below) when the adapter is attached to the DED nozzle (the ferules 22 and 22’ are attached to the nozzle body 1, fig. 1); and
an adapter powder port (annotated in fig. 1 below) configured to eject a powder material that passes through the adapter powder passage (column 2, lines 54-59),
wherein directions of the adapter powder passage and the adapter powder port (the direction of the construed adapter powder passage and the construed adapter powder port point inwards, annotated fig 1 below; similarly, fig. 10 of the Drawings in the Instant Application shows a direction for the adapter powder passage that points inwards).
Freneaux, fig. 1 (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
595
879
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Freneaux does not explicitly disclose a DED nozzle for use with an AM apparatus; wherein directions of the adapter powder passage and the adapter powder port are determined based on a distance from the adapter powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the adapter powder port, and a gravitational acceleration.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment using powder, Sato ‘740 teaches a DED nozzle (nozzle 7, fig. 2; “laser cladding processing,” para 0002; laser cladding is a specific type of DED) for use with an AM apparatus (laser cladding processing device 9, fig. 1; laser cladding is construed as being AM); wherein directions of the adapter powder passage (discharge space 19 and passage walls 12, fig. 2) and the adapter powder port (discharge opening 18, fig. 2; discharge space 19 is vertical and walls 12 and slanted inwards, which are construed as the claimed “directions;” fig. 2 of the Instant Application shows similar “directions” for the passage 254) are determined based on a fabrication point (“powder that has passed through the discharge passages 19 c of the lower discharge space 19 b is discharged toward a predetermined point on the axis L from around the laser beam,” para 0055; the predetermined point is construed as the claimed determination that is based on a “fabrication point”), a velocity of the powder material ejected from the adapter powder port (“the supply channels 22A may be designed as needed depending on the flow rate or flow velocity,” para 0060), and a gravitational acceleration (figs. 9A-9C describe how the nozzle compensates for inclinations in the laser head in comparison with fig. 9D, which is described as a “comparative example” and where the powder distribution is skewed towards the “lower side,” para 0072; designing the powder distribution to compensate for inclinations of the laser head is construed as determinations based on “gravitational acceleration”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Freneaux, in view of the teachings of Sato ‘975, by using the nozzle 7, as taught by Sato ‘975, instead of the nozzle, as taught by Freneaux, but such that the ferrules 22 and 22’, as taught by Freneaux, were connected to the nozzle 7, as taught by Sato ‘975, in order to use a nozzle that has discharge passages that uniformly discharge powder to the nozzle opening, even when the nozzle is inclined with respect to the vertical direction, for the advantage of increasing the quality of the overlay powder layer (Sato ‘975, para 0013).
Freneaux/Sato ‘975 does not explicitly disclose a distance from the adapter powder port to a fabrication point.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment using powder, Sato ‘740 teaches a distance (distance D, fig. 14) from the adapter powder port (outlet 19, fig. 14) to a fabrication point (bottom apex of powder P, fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Freneaux/Sato ‘975, in view of the teachings of Sato ‘740, by using a distance “D,” as taught by Sato ‘740, relative to the bottom of the ferules 22 and 22’, as taught by Freneaux, to determine the predetermined point that the powder is discharged towards, as taught by Sato ‘975, in order to determine a discharge distance for the nozzle, because if the nozzle is too close to the process portion, then the process portion may be adversely affected by radiation heat, which can be avoided by keeping a certain degree of discharge distance for the nozzle (Sato ‘740, para 0060).
Regarding claim 5, Freneaux teaches wherein the directions of the adapter powder passage (the construed adapter powder passage in annotated fig. 1 above is sloped inwards) and the powder port (annotated in fig. 1 above) are determined while the velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port is 0.3 m/s or lower (“volumetric flow rate, under standard conditions, is comprised between
1.5
x
10
-
5
and
35
x
10
-
5
m
3
/
s
,” column 3, lines 43-45; “diameter of the injection annulus D comprised between 4 millimeters and 10 millimeters,” column 3, lines 31-32; construed as a speed with a range between 1.5
x
10
-
5
m
3
s
*
1
0.005
2
π
m
-
2
=
0.19
m
/
s
and 35
x
10
-
5
m
3
s
*
1
0.002
2
π
m
-
2
=
27.87
m
/
s
; in other words, a range between 0.19 and 27.87 m/s overlaps with the claimed range of less than 0.3 m/s).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Freneaux in view of Sato ‘975 and Sato ‘740 as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Freneaux teaches the adapter (removable ferrules 22 and 22’, fig. 1). Additionally, Sato ‘975 teaches wherein the adapter is configured in such a manner that powder ejected from the adapter powder port and the laser emitted from the adapter laser port intersect at the fabrication point (“powder that has passed through the discharge passages 19 c of the lower discharge space 19 b is discharged toward a predetermined point on the axis L from around the laser beam,” para 0055; construed such that the laser beam and the powder meet at the predetermined point) or intersect at a position higher than the fabrication point.
Regarding claim 10, Freneaux teaches a method for designing an adapter (removable ferrules 22 and 22’ are designed in fig. 1) detachably attachable to a nozzle (nozzle body 1, fig. 1), the method comprising:
determining a direction of an adapter powder port (annotated in fig. 1 above; the direction of the construed adapter powder port is directed inwards; similarly, fig. 10 of the Drawings in the Instant Application shows a direction for the adapter powder port that points inwards) configured to eject a powder material (column 2, lines 54-59) and a direction of an adapter powder passage (annotated in fig. 1 above; the direction of the construed adapter powder passage is directed inwards; similarly, fig. 10 of the Drawings in the Instant Application shows a direction for the adapter powder passage that points inwards) in communication with the adapter powder port (annotated in fig. 1 above) in a state that the adapter is attached to a distal end of a DED nozzle main body (the ferules 22 and 22’ are attached to the bottom of the nozzle body 1, fig. 1)
Freneaux does not explicitly disclose a DED nozzle for use with an AM apparatus; wherein a direction of an adapter powder port and a direction of an adapter powder passage are determined based on a distance from the adapter powder port to a fabrication point, a velocity of the powder material ejected from the adapter powder port, and a gravitational acceleration.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment using powder, Sato ‘740 teaches a DED nozzle (nozzle 7, fig. 2; “laser cladding processing,” para 0002; laser cladding is a specific type of DED) for use with an AM apparatus (laser cladding processing device 9, fig. 1; laser cladding is construed as being AM); wherein a direction of an adapter powder port (discharge opening 18, fig. 2; the discharge opening 19 is slanted inwards, fig. 2, which is construed as the claimed “direction”) and a direction of an adapter powder passage (passage walls 12, fig. 2; walls 12 and slanted inwards, which are construed as the claimed “direction”) are determined based on a fabrication point (“powder that has passed through the discharge passages 19 c of the lower discharge space 19 b is discharged toward a predetermined point on the axis L from around the laser beam,” para 0055; the predetermined point is construed as the claimed determination that is based on a “fabrication point”), a velocity of the powder material ejected from the adapter powder port (“the supply channels 22A may be designed as needed depending on the flow rate or flow velocity,” para 0060), and a gravitational acceleration (figs. 9A-9C describe how the nozzle compensates for inclinations in the laser head in comparison with fig. 9D, which is described as a “comparative example” and where the powder distribution is skewed towards the “lower side,” para 0072; designing the powder distribution to compensate for inclinations of the laser head is construed as determinations based on “gravitational acceleration”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Freneaux, in view of the teachings of Sato ‘975, by using the nozzle 7, as taught by Sato ‘975, instead of the nozzle, as taught by Freneaux, but such that the ferrules 22 and 22’, as taught by Freneaux, were connected to the nozzle 7, as taught by Sato ‘975, in order to use a nozzle that has discharge passages that uniformly discharge powder to the nozzle opening, even when the nozzle is inclined with respect to the vertical direction, for the advantage of increasing the quality of the overlay powder layer (Sato ‘975, para 0013).
Freneaux/Sato ‘975 does not explicitly disclose a distance from the adapter powder port to a fabrication point.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment using powder, Sato ‘740 teaches a distance (distance D, fig. 14) from the adapter powder port (outlet 19, fig. 14) to a fabrication point (bottom apex of powder P, fig. 14).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Freneaux/Sato ‘975, in view of the teachings of Sato ‘740, by using a distance “D,” as taught by Sato ‘740, relative to the bottom of the ferules 22 and 22’, as taught by Freneaux, to determine the predetermined point that the powder is discharged towards, as taught by Sato ‘975, in order to determine a discharge distance for the nozzle, because if the nozzle is too close to the process portion, then the process portion may be adversely affected by radiation heat, which can be avoided by keeping a certain degree of discharge distance for the nozzle (Sato ‘740, para 0060).
Regarding claim 11, Freneaux teaches wherein the directions of the adapter powder passage (the construed adapter powder passage in annotated fig. 1 above is sloped inwards) and the powder port (annotated in fig. 1 above) are determined while the velocity of the powder material ejected from the powder port is 0.3 m/s or lower (“volumetric flow rate, under standard conditions, is comprised between
1.5
x
10
-
5
and
35
x
10
-
5
m
3
/
s
,” column 3, lines 43-45; “diameter of the injection annulus D comprised between 4 millimeters and 10 millimeters,” column 3, lines 31-32; construed as a speed with a range between 1.5
x
10
-
5
m
3
s
*
1
0.005
2
π
m
-
2
=
0.19
m
/
s
and 35
x
10
-
5
m
3
s
*
1
0.002
2
π
m
-
2
=
27.87
m
/
s
; in other words, a range between 0.19 and 27.87 m/s overlaps with the claimed range of less than 0.3 m/s).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Freneaux in view of Sato ‘975 and Sato ‘740 as set forth above regarding claim 10 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Freneaux teaches the directions of the adapter powder passage and the adapter powder port (slanted inwards, annotated fig. 1 above). Additionally, Sato ‘975 teaches in such a manner that powder ejected from the adapter powder port and the laser emitted from the adapter laser port intersect at the fabrication point (“powder that has passed through the discharge passages 19 c of the lower discharge space 19 b is discharged toward a predetermined point on the axis L from around the laser beam,” para 0055; construed such that the laser beam and the powder meet at the predetermined point) or intersect at a position higher than the fabrication point.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Bullen et al. (US-20060003095-A1) teach nozzle angles.
Coskun et al. (US-20180257168-A1) teach diameter ratios for powder streams and laser beams.
Riemann et al. (US-20190047088-A1) teach several nozzle variations (figs. 4-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 Landrum can be reached at 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5/16/2026
Prosecution Insights