DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) was submitted on 12/20/2024 and 06/22/2023. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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 1-18 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.
Regarding claim 1,
the phrase "preferably hot filler wire" in line 6 renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The term “hot” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “hot” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, the phrase is construed as “
Regarding claim 4,
the phrase "preferably" in line 6 renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is suggested to delete the term “preferably”.
It should be noted that based on the ambiguity and obscurity of the claim language, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as best as can be understood and applied prior art accordingly.
Regarding claim 5,
the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is suggested to delete the term “preferably”.
It should be noted that based on the ambiguity and obscurity of the claim language, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as best as can be understood and applied prior art accordingly.
Regarding claim 6,
the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is suggested to amend as follows, “[…],
It should be noted that based on the ambiguity and obscurity of the claim language, the Examiner has interpreted the claim as best as can be understood and applied prior art accordingly.
Regarding claim 8, the phrase "preferably" renders the claim indefinite. First, it is unclear whether the limitation(s) following the phrase “preferably” are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). For examination purposes, it is suggested to delete the term “preferably”.
Regarding claim 16,
the term “Spoolarc™ 95” is a trademark/trade name Capstone ®CPS and XIAMETER® OFX-5211. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe surfactants and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
Regarding claim 18, the terms “Spoolarc™ 86”, and “Spoolarc™ 95” are a trademark/trade name Capstone ®CPS and XIAMETER® OFX-5211. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe surfactants and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite.
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, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-11, 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denney (US 20150209906 A1) in view of Martukanitz (US 20060255019 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Denney discloses, a build-up welding method (see Figs. 1, 2A-2D) by power density laser (see para 0037 “intensity energy source can provide at least 500 W/cm.sup.2”) direct energy deposition upon a substrate to be welded (see workpiece 115 in Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A-2D), without preheating the substrate (see workpiece 115 in Fig. 1 and Figs. 2A-2D), or preheating the substrate to a temperature below 90° C, the method comprising the steps of:
directing (see Fig. 2A) a laser beam (see laser beam 110) onto the substrate (see workpiece 115) to melt a portion of the substrate to form a molten pool (see puddle A and disclosed in para 0044 “The beam 110 creates a molten puddle A on the surface of the workpiece”);
supplying (see Fig. 2B) a filler wire (see wire 140), as a filler material to produce a welded build-up as a first layer (see droplet D);
advancing the filler wire (140) towards and into the molten pool (A) formed by the laser beam (see Fig. 2B);
wherein the filler wire (140) is resistance-heated (see power supply 170 in Fig. 7 and disclosed in para 0038 “The power supply 170 provides energy needed to resistance-melt the filler wire 140”), by a separate energy source (170);
electricity is shorted to prevent a traditional arc such that the filler wire reaches its melting point and contacts the molten pool (see Fig. 3 and disclosed in para 0045 “The heating current from the power supply 170 is ramped up very quickly to provide the necessary energy to melt the droplet D from the end of the wire 140. However, the current is controlled carefully so that no arc is created between the wire 140 and the workpiece”); and
wherein the laser beam (110) is directed perpendicular or substantially perpendicular to the substrate (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 2D).
Since the specification of the instant application states, in para 0107, the low power density laser is in the range of 10-40 kW/cm.sup.2, Denney does not explicitly disclose the low power density laser in light of the specification.
Nonetheless, Martukanitz teaches, power density is at least 10 kW/cm.sup.2 (see para 0024).
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). Hence, since Martukanitz’s power density lies inside the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the power density of Denney such that the power density laser is in the range of 10-40 kW/cm.sup.2as depending on the welding application/material in order to sufficient maintain keyhole stability of the welding application/material so that a self-healing keyhole is obtained during oscillation of the focus point (see para 0024 by Martukenitz).
Regarding claim 2, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denney further discloses, wherein the laser direct energy deposition is performed with a CO.sub.2 laser, a YAG laser, a diode laser, a disc laser or a fiber laser (disclosed in para 0037 “The laser subsystem can be any type of high energy laser source, including but not limited to carbon dioxide, Nd:YAG, Yb-disk, YB-fiber, fiber delivered or direct diode laser systems”).
Regarding claim 7, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1.
However, Denney does not explicitly disclose, wherein the laser beam having a spot size, on the surface of the substrate that is from 3 mm to 10 mm in diameter.
Nonetheless, Martukanitz teaches, wherein the laser beam having a spot size, on the surface of the substrate that is from 3 mm to 10 mm in diameter (disclosed in para 0028 “Laser stir welding of aluminum alloy components (AA 6013) was performed using a circle diameter of 2 mm to 4 mm”).
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). Hence, since Martukanitz’s spot size of the laser beam lies inside the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the spot size of the laser beam Denney so as the laser beam having the spot size, on the surface of the substrate that is from 3 mm to 10 mm in diameter as taught/suggested by Martukenitz in order to sufficient maintain keyhole stability (for keyhole welding applications), so that a self-healing keyhole is obtained during oscillation of the focus point (see para 0024 by Martukenitz).
Regarding claim 8, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1.
However, Denney does not explicitly disclose, wherein the laser beam having a power of from 2 to 8 kW, or from 3 to 6 kW, or from 3.5 to 5 kW.
Nonetheless, Martukanitz teaches, wherein the laser beam having a power of from 2 to 8 kW (disclosed in para 0028 “A 4.5 kW Nd:YAG laser was used as the laser radiation source”).
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). Hence, since Martukanitz’s power of the laser beam lies inside the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the power of the laser beam Denney so as the laser beam having a power of from 2 to 8 kW as taught/suggested by Martukenitz in order to sufficient maintain keyhole stability (for keyhole welding applications), so that a self-healing keyhole is obtained during oscillation of the focus point (see para 0024 by Martukenitz).
Regarding claim 9, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1.
However, Denney does not explicitly disclose, wherein the welding method proceeds at a speed of 5-20 mm/s.
Nonetheless, Martukanitz teaches, wherein the welding method proceeds at a speed of 5-20 mm/s (disclosed in para 0028 “travel speeds of 1-2 m/minute”, wherein 1m=1000mm and 1min=60sec, hence, the speed is about 1000mm/60sec=16.67mm/sec).
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). Hence, since Martukanitz’s speed of the process lies inside the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the speed of the process Denney so as the welding method proceeds at a speed of 5-20 mm/s as taught/suggested by Martukenitz in order to sufficient maintain keyhole stability (for keyhole welding applications), so that a self-healing keyhole is obtained during oscillation of the focus point (see para 0024 by Martukenitz).
Regarding claim 10, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1.
However, Denney does not explicitly disclose, wherein the laser power density is in the range of 10-40 kW/cm.sup.2.
Nonetheless, Martukanitz teaches, power density is at least 10 kW/cm.sup.2 (see para 0024).
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). Hence, since Martukanitz’s power density lies inside the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the power density of Denney such that the power density laser is in the range of 10-40 kW/cm.sup.2as depending on the welding application/material in order to sufficient maintain keyhole stability of the welding application/material so that a self-healing keyhole is obtained during oscillation of the focus point (see para 0024 by Martukenitz).
Regarding claim 11, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denny further discloses, wherein the wire feed speed is adjusted to a value to produce a weld bead (disclosed in para 0121 “during the rotation of the assembly 1305 any one, or a combination of, the wire feed speed, the current waveform, stick-out and/or contact tip position of for any of the consumables can be adjusted”).
However, Denney does not explicitly disclose, wherein the wire feed speed is adjusted to a value to produce a weld bead having an aspect ratio of 3 to 6, wherein the aspect ratio is defined as ratio of the bead width divided by the bead height.
Nonetheless, Martukanitz teaches, wherein the wire feed speed is adjusted to a value to produce a weld bead having an aspect ratio of 1.4, wherein the aspect ratio is defined as ratio of the bead width divided by the bead height (see para 0028 “A weld width of over 7 mm (0.28 in) and a weld penetration of over 5 mm (0.2 in) were achieved using a weld velocity of 1 m/min and a rotation speed of 3000 rpm”).
Even though Denney and Martukanitz does not disclose the ratio of 3 to 6, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). Hence, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the wire feed speed of Denney in view of Martukenitz such that the wire feed speed is adjusted to a value to produce a weld bead having an aspect ratio of 3 to 6.
Regarding claim 13, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denny further discloses, wherein the filler wire is heated by an electric current of from 70-120 A before being inserted into the molten pool (disclosed in para 0130 “for a deposition current of 200 amps the controller can determined (using stored information) that a minimum of 4 ground points are needed for such a current level. The controller/power supply can utilize a first, lower, current level (e.g., 50 amps) until at least 4 ground points are contacted, at which time the deposition current is increased to the optimal level. In other embodiments, the current can be increased in increments as each new ground point is contacted until the minimum needed ground points are contacted. For example, the current can increase by 50 amps for each subsequent ground point, until the desired deposition current level is reached”. In other words, first current is 50 amps, second increased current is 100amps before the final current reaches 200amps to deposit on the workpiece).
Regarding claim 14, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denny further discloses, wherein the method includes no preheating of the substrate (see Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 15, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denny further discloses, wherein the method is carried out in a flat position (1G), a horizontal position (2G), or a vertical (3G) uphill position (see direction 125 and robot 190 in Fig. 1 and disclosed in para 0039 “The robot 190 is operatively connected (e.g., mechanically secured) to the workpiece 115 to move the workpiece 115 in the direction 125 such that the laser beam 110 and the wire 140 effectively travel along the workpiece 115”).
Regarding claim 16, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denny further discloses, wherein the method is carried out with hot Spoolarc™ 95 filler wire (140) onto the surface of steel (115, wherein a structure or workpiece using a mixture of stainless steel and mild steel as disclosed in para 0114) in a flat position (1G), a horizontal position (2G), or a vertical uphill (3G) position (see direction 125 and robot 190 in Fig. 1 and disclosed in para 0039 “The robot 190 is operatively connected (e.g., mechanically secured) to the workpiece 115 to move the workpiece 115 in the direction 125 such that the laser beam 110 and the wire 140 effectively travel along the workpiece 115”), except for the surface of HY-80 steel, and Spoolarc™ 95.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention select the type of steel for the workpiece and the type of filler wire such that the type of steel for the workpiece is the surface of HY-80 steel, and type of filler wire is Spoolarc™ 95, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. MPEP 2144.07.
Regarding claim 17, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denny further discloses, wherein the filler material is a solid wire, flux-cored wire, or powder (disclosed in para 0144 “the void 1910 can be filled with a flux or powder of a desired chemistry that is needed for the deposition”).
Regarding claim 18, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 17, Denny further discloses, wherein the filler wire (140) is fed using a welding torch (see tube 160 in Fig. 1), except for the filler wire is selected from the group consisting of ER70s, ER100s, ER120S, Spoolarc™ 86, and Spoolarc™ 95.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention select the type of filler wire such that the filler wire is selected from the group consisting of ER70s, ER100s, ER120S, Spoolarc™ 86, and Spoolarc™ 95, since it has been held to be within the general skill of a worker in the art to select a known material on the basis of its suitability for the intended use as a matter of obvious design choice. In re Leshin, 125 USPQ 416. MPEP 2144.07.
Claims 3-6, and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Denney (US 20150209906 A1) in view of Martukanitz (US 20060255019 A1) and in further view of Bruck (US 20160144441 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, except for wherein the method produces a crack-free heat affected zone.
Nonetheless, Bruck teaches wherein the method produces a crack-free heat affected zone (disclosed in para 0064 “mixed submerged arc welding flux and alloy 247 powder was pre-placed from 2.5 to 5.5 mm depths and demonstrated to achieve crack free laser clad deposits after final post weld heat treatment”).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method produces heat affected zone of Denney in view of Martukanitz so as the method produces a crack-free heat affected zone as taught/suggested by Bruck in order to accomplish crack-free joining of superalloy materials without the necessity for high temperature hot box welding or the use of a chill plate or the use of inert shielding gas since the flux material is effective to provide energy trapping, impurity cleansing, atmospheric shielding, bead shaping, and cooling temperature control (see para 0022 by Bruck).
Regarding claim 4, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denny further discloses, a first layer (L2 in Fig. 13) of weld material is deposited with a heat input between the minimum (50amps) and the maximum (200amps) heat input (disclosed in para 0130 “for a deposition current of 200 amps the controller can determined (using stored information) that a minimum of 4 ground points are needed for such a current level. The controller/power supply can utilize a first, lower, current level (e.g., 50 amps) until at least 4 ground points are contacted, at which time the deposition current is increased to the optimal level. In other embodiments, the current can be increased in increments as each new ground point is contacted until the minimum needed ground points are contacted. For example, the current can increase by 50 amps for each subsequent ground point, until the desired deposition current level is reached”) with an increased cooling time (disclosed in para 0133 “where the substrate 1600 contains at least one cooling channel 1640 through which a cooling medium can be passed during manufacture of a workpiece, or at least during the initial manufacture of a workpiece. The cooling medium can be a gas or a liquid and is used to keep the substrate at a temperature such that no portion of the surface 1610 melts, or is otherwise adhered, to a workpiece. By cooling the substrate 1600 via the use of a cooling manifold/channel 1640, the surface 1610 can be kept cool, and any electrically conductive materials on the surface 1610 (e.g., lattice structure, conductive particles, etc.) can be kept cool so that any layer of the workpiece formed on the surface 1610 will not melt, or otherwise bond with the electrically conductive components on the surface 1610”), except for, with a maximum allowable heat input to avoid deterioration of Charpy V-notch toughness and fracture toughness of the weld, with an increased cooling time t.sub.8/5 and t.sub.8/3, to minimize the formation of untempered martensite in the heat affected zone to avoid cracks.
Nonetheless, Bruck teaches the flux material is effective to provide energy trapping, impurity cleansing, atmospheric shielding, bead shaping, and cooling temperature control in order to accomplish crack-free joining of superalloy materials without the necessity for high temperature hot box welding or the use of a chill plate or the use of inert shielding gas (see para 0022) and a heat input range of 0.05 to 0.6 kJ/mm is what is referred to as a low heat input process (see para 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method produces heat affected zone of Denney in view of Martukanitz so as wherein a first layer of weld material is deposited with a heat input between the minimum and the maximum heat input, wherein with a maximum allowable heat input to avoid deterioration of Charpy V-notch toughness and fracture toughness of the weld , with an increased cooling time t.sub.8/5 and t.sub.8/3, to minimize the formation of untempered martensite in the heat affected zone to avoid cracks as taught/suggested by Bruck in order to accomplish crack-free joining of superalloy materials without the necessity for high temperature hot box welding or the use of a chill plate or the use of inert shielding gas since the flux material is effective to provide energy trapping, impurity cleansing, atmospheric shielding, bead shaping, and cooling temperature control (see para 0022 by Bruck).
Regarding claim 5, Denney in view of Martukanitz and in further view of Bruck discloses, the method of claim 4, Denny further discloses, wherein a second layer (L2 in Fig. 13) of welded material is deposited on top of the first layer with a heat input between the minimum and the maximum heat input the minimum (50amps) and the maximum (200amps) heat input (disclosed in para 0130 “for a deposition current of 200 amps the controller can determined (using stored information) that a minimum of 4 ground points are needed for such a current level. The controller/power supply can utilize a first, lower, current level (e.g., 50 amps) until at least 4 ground points are contacted, at which time the deposition current is increased to the optimal level. In other embodiments, the current can be increased in increments as each new ground point is contacted until the minimum needed ground points are contacted. For example, the current can increase by 50 amps for each subsequent ground point, until the desired deposition current level is reached”).
Regarding claim 6, Denney in view of Martukanitz and in further view of Bruck discloses, the method of claim 5, Denny further discloses, wherein subsequent layers (see L3 and L4 in Fig. 13) of welded material (see Fig. 13) are deposited with a heat input between the minimum and the maximum heat input the minimum (50amps) and the maximum (200amps) heat input (disclosed in para 0130 “for a deposition current of 200 amps the controller can determined (using stored information) that a minimum of 4 ground points are needed for such a current level. The controller/power supply can utilize a first, lower, current level (e.g., 50 amps) until at least 4 ground points are contacted, at which time the deposition current is increased to the optimal level. In other embodiments, the current can be increased in increments as each new ground point is contacted until the minimum needed ground points are contacted. For example, the current can increase by 50 amps for each subsequent ground point, until the desired deposition current level is reached”), except for preferably with the minimum heat input while maintaining the required interpass temperature to maximize the Charpy V-notch toughness and fracture toughness of the weld metal.
Nonetheless, Bruck teaches the flux material is effective to provide energy trapping, impurity cleansing, atmospheric shielding, bead shaping, and cooling temperature control in order to accomplish crack-free joining of superalloy materials without the necessity for high temperature hot box welding or the use of a chill plate or the use of inert shielding gas (see para 0022) and a heat input range of 0.05 to 0.6 kJ/mm is what is referred to as a low heat input process (see para 0021).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method produces heat affected zone of Denney in view of Martukanitz so as while maintaining the required interpass temperature to maximize the Charpy V-notch toughness and fracture toughness of the weld metal as taught/suggested by Bruck in order to accomplish crack-free joining of superalloy materials without the necessity for high temperature hot box welding or the use of a chill plate or the use of inert shielding gas since the flux material is effective to provide energy trapping, impurity cleansing, atmospheric shielding, bead shaping, and cooling temperature control (see para 0022 by Bruck).
Regarding claim 12, Denney in view of Martukanitz discloses, the method of claim 1, Denny further discloses, except for wherein the heat input from the laser beam is in a range of from 0.2-1.2 kJ/mm.
Nonetheless, Bruck teaches a heat input range of 0.05 to 0.6 kJ/mm is what is referred to as a low heat input process (see para 0021).
The courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range (MPEP 2144.05 IIa). Hence, since Bruck’s heat input ranges overlap the claimed ranges, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to optimize the heat input from the laser beam of Denney so as the heat input from the laser beam is in a range of from 0.2-1.2 kJ/mm as taught/suggested by Bruck in order to obtain a low heat input process to sufficient deposit the most difficult to weld superalloy materials (see para 0021 by Bruck).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 6:00 am-3:30 pm ET.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached on (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761