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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 5/19/2026 have been fully considered as follows:
Amendments to the drawings filed on 5/19/2026 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The objection of drawings has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, see page 1, lines 12-22, filed on 5/19/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. The rejection of claims 2-10 is withdrawn with the same reason.
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection is withdrawn. As amended, claim 11 requires the ultrasonic-vibrating member to be immersed in the melt pool and to travel together with the energy source, neither of which Hyde discloses. This necessitates a new ground of rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103, set forth below.
Applicant’s arguments filed 5/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 1 and 12 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the analogous art argument, Liu is analogous under either prong of the test. See MPEP 2141.01(a). Applicant’s own specification identifies welding-based processes as the field of the claimed invention (¶¶ [0003]-[0004], [0008]), and Liu is in any event reasonably pertinent to the same problem of refining microstructure and reducing porosity via ultrasonic vibration of a molten pool.
Regarding the “travels together... to build up layers” limitation, Hyde discloses layer-by-layer construction (¶ [0019]) and successive-layer bead formation as the delivery device moves (¶ [0034]).
Regarding the statement that “Liu’s immersed sonotrode is arranged for a stationary, single-weld pass and is not disclosed as co-moving,” the examiner disagrees with this statement. Instead, Liu further discloses the probe moving forward together with the welding torch while immersed in the melt (Example 1). The combination discloses the claimed arrangement.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning (p. 11), it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). In particular, a motivation statement providing articulated reasoning for combining Hyde and Liu was provided in the rejection. This motivation statement was based on the teachings from Liu and not based on disclosure from the instant application.
The rejection of claims 1 and 12 is maintained. Claims 3-10, 13, and 21-24, argued by dependency, are maintained for the same reason. Claim 11 is newly rejected on this same combination, necessitated by amendment.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 5/19/2026, with respect to the rejection of claims 18-20 under 35 U.S.C. 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Each reference was combined for a discrete, known purpose—Liu for immersion, Onuma for the screw/horn structural connection (Onuma, ¶ [0041]), Kim for the booster/power supply (Kim, ¶ [0085])—supporting combination of known elements for predictable results. The rejection is maintained.
Applicant argues that new claims 21-24 are patentable for the same reasons as claim 1. As the rejection of claim 1 is maintained for the reasons discussed above, this argument is not persuasive. Claims 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as set forth below.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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, 9-10, 11-13 and 21-23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (US 20150064047) hereinafter Hyde, in view of Liu et al. (CN 110681937) hereinafter Liu.
Regarding claim 1, Hyde discloses a system for additive manufacturing, in Fig. 2, comprising:
an additive manufacturing material supply (¶ [0027]: 58, “first delivery device”) comprising an additive manufacturing material (56);
an energy source (62) that heats the additive manufacturing material (56) (¶ [0027]: material 56 is melted by heating energy 62),
a melt pool (60, printing sites; ¶ [0034]: “melt pool” formed at the printing sites) formed by applying heat from the energy source (62) to the additive manufacturing material (56); and
an ultrasonic-vibrating member (68, agitation device; Fig. 2) positioned at a distance behind (Fig. 2, the distance between 68 and 62) the energy source (62) (¶ [0034]; “first delivery device 58 focuses heating energy 62 at printing site 60, and material 56 melts to form a melt pool”);
wherein said ultrasonic-vibrating member (68) is on a trailing side (right side as seen in Fig. 2) of the energy source (62); and
wherein successive layers are built up to form the object (¶ [0019]: “Additive manufacturing is a process I which an object is built up layer by layer”; ¶ [0034]: “First delivery device 58 forms a bead of material... as it is moved relative to the platform 54... [and] [s]uccessive layers of material are fused together to form the object 52”; the examiner interprets Hyde as teaching “build up layers”).
Hyde does not explicitly disclose wherein said ultrasonic-vibrating member is configured to be immersed within the melt pool; and wherein said ultrasonic-vibrating member travels together with the energy source to build up layers.
However, Liu discloses an ultrasonic-vibrating member (3, sonotrode), in Fig. 1, is configured to be immersed within the melt pool (paragraph 2; Liu discloses metal probe 31 of the sonotrode 3 is in the pool as shown in annotated Fig. 1).
Liu further discloses that an ultrasonic-vibrating member (3) travels together with the energy source (4, “welding gun”) (Liu (translation), p. 3, ln. 15: “the welding gun 4 and the metal probe 31 moving forward while the welding is finished”; Fig. 1 shows the sonotrode 3 comprises the metal probe 31; the examiner interprets Liu as teaching the sonotrode 3 travels together with the welding gun 4, corresponding to the claimed limitation).
Hyde and Liu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic vibration in the context of molten metal processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the ultrasonic-vibrating member configured to be immersed within the melt pool and to travel together with the energy source to build up layers as disclosed by Liu in the system disclosed by Hyde, in order to “improve the joint tissue, and interface metal compound and distribution shape, finally realizing the high quality among heterogeneity metal connection.” Liu (translation), p. 2, lns. 9-10.
PNG
media_image1.png
213
373
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Liu, annotated
Regarding claim 2, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Hyde discloses additive manufacturing material supply (56; the examiner interprets additive manufacturing material supply as additive manufacturing material 56 being supplied) in the form of a wire (paragraph 29; “a solid metal delivered as a wire”).
Regarding claim 9, Hyde discloses the system of claim 1, in Fig. 2, where in the ultrasonic-vibrating member (68) applies ultrasonic-vibrations nonparallel to the additive manufacturing material supply (58) (shown in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 10, Hyde discloses the system of claim 1, in Fig. 2, wherein a distance between the energy source and the ultrasonic-vibrating member is varied based on a geometry of the melt pool (paragraph 44; Hyde discloses that as shown in FIG. 2, “agitation device 68 can be positioned remote from printing site 60”, and further discloses, “agitation device 68 can be positioned proximate to printing site 60”).
Regarding claim 11, Hyde discloses, in Fig. 2,
an additive manufacturing process (paragraph 20; “an additive manufacturing process”) comprising:
providing an additive manufacturing material supply (58; paragraph 27; “first delivery device”) comprising an additive manufacturing material (56);
supplying an energy source (62, heating energy) to heat the additive manufacturing material (56) thereby creating a melt pool (60, printing sites; paragraph 34; “melt pool” formed at the printing sites);
applying longitudinal vibrational energy (paragraph 45 discloses agitation device provides ultrasonic vibrations to printing site; paragraph 51 discloses the longitudinal waves produced by agitation device 68; the examiner interprets what Paragraphs 45 & 51 disclose as longitudinal vibration energy) to the melt pool (60) using an ultrasonic-vibrating member (68; paragraph 45; “agitation device” providing ultrasonic vibrations to printing site 60); and
wherein successive layers are built up to form the object (¶ [0019]: “Additive manufacturing is a process I which an object is built up layer by layer”; ¶ [0034]: “First delivery device 58 forms a bead of material... as it is moved relative to the platform 54... [and] [s]uccessive layers of material are fused together to form the object 52”; the examiner interprets Hyde as teaching “build up layers”).
Hyde does not explicitly disclose wherein said ultrasonic-vibrating member is at least partially immersed within the melt pool; and travels together with the energy source to build up layers.
However, Liu discloses an ultrasonic-vibrating member (3, sonotrode), in Fig. 1, is configured to be immersed within the melt pool (paragraph 2; Liu discloses metal probe 31 of the sonotrode 3 is in the pool as shown in annotated Fig. 1).
Liu further discloses that an ultrasonic-vibrating member (3) travels together with the energy source (4, “welding gun”) (Liu (translation), p. 3, ln. 15: “the welding gun 4 and the metal probe 31 moving forward while the welding is finished”; Fig. 1 shows the sonotrode 3 comprises the metal probe 31; the examiner interprets Liu as teaching the sonotrode 3 travels together with the welding gun 4, corresponding to the claimed limitation).
Hyde and Liu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic vibration in the context of molten metal processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the ultrasonic-vibrating member configured to be at least partially immersed within the melt pool and to travel together with the energy source to build up layers as disclosed by Liu in the process disclosed by Hyde, in order to “improve the joint tissue, and interface metal compound and distribution shape, finally realizing the high quality among heterogeneity metal connection.” Liu (translation), p. 2, lns. 9-10.
PNG
media_image2.png
663
934
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Hyde
Regarding claim 12, Hyde discloses a method of producing a part using additive manufacturing (paragraph 20; “methods for fabricating a metal object with an additive manufacturing process”) comprising:
depositing an additive manufacturing material (56) (paragraph 27; “the controlled formation of a desired microstructure of material 56”) using a heat source (62) to form a melt pool (60); and
applying vibrational energy (paragraph 45 discloses agitation device provides ultrasonic vibrations to printing site; paragraph 51 discloses the longitudinal waves produced by agitation device 68; the examiner interprets what Paragraphs 45 & 51 disclose as longitudinal vibration energy) to the melt pool (60) using an ultrasonic-vibrating member (68);
Hyde does not explicitly disclose the ultrasonic-vibrating member is at least partially submerged in the melt pool, and wherein a relative position of an ultrasonic probe of the ultrasonic-vibrating member and heat source can be adjusted.
However, Liu discloses, in Fig. 1, an ultrasonic-vibrating member (3; sonotrode) is at least partially submerged in the melt pool (paragraph 2; Liu discloses metal probe 31 of the sonotrode 3 is in the pool as shown in annotated Fig. 1), and wherein a relative position of an ultrasonic probe (31; metal probe) of the ultrasonic-vibrating member (3) and heat source (4; welding gun) can be adjusted (Liu (translation); p. 2, Ln. 11-13; Liu discloses the welding gun 4 is adjusted so that the welding wire 41 is located at the edge of the aluminum alloy plate 2, then the metal probe 3 of the sonotrode 3 is adjusted to be located behind the welding wire 41).
Hyde and Liu are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic vibration in the context of molten metal processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the ultrasonic-vibrating member configured to be immersed within the melt pool as disclosed by Liu in the system disclosed by Hyde, in order to “improve the joint tissue, and interface metal compound and distribution shape, finally realizing the high quality among heterogeneity metal connection.” Liu (translation), p. 2, lns. 9-10.
It would also have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the relative position of the ultrasonic probe and heat source to be adjustable as disclosed by Liu in the system of Hyde, for the purpose of controlling the interaction between the ultrasonic vibration and the melt pool, in order to optimize acoustic energy coupling into the molten material, and thereby improving the homogeneity of the product structure.
Claim 13 recites the method of claim 12, wherein the additive manufacturing material is deposited using a method of gas metal arc welding, or wherein the additive manufacturing material supply is deposited using cold metal transfer, or wherein the additive manufacturing material supply is deposited using gas tungsten arc welding, or herein the additive manufacturing material supply is deposited using laser welding, or wherein the additive manufacturing material supply is deposited using electron beam welding. As claim 13 recites theses alternatives in the disjunctive, disclosure of any one alternative is sufficient to satisfy the limitation.
Hyde discloses the additive manufacturing material is deposited using laser welding (¶ [0019]: “laser deposition”) and using electron beam welding (¶ [0033]: “heating energy 62 can be provided via first delivery device 58 in another form, such as an electron beam”).
Claim 13 is therefore unpatentable over Hyde in view of Liu for the reasons set forth above with respect to claim 12, from which claim 13 depends.
Regarding claim 21, Hyde discloses the system of claim 1, comprising a positioning system (150) configured to control the positions of the delivery devices relative to the platform on which the object is fabricated (¶ [0061]), but does not explicitly disclose that control of movement of the energy source is in tandem with control of the ultrasonic-vibrating member.
However, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, Liu discloses that the ultrasonic-vibrating member (3) travels together with the energy source (4, “welding gun”) (Liu (translation), p. 3, ln. 15; the examiner interprets this movement of the ultrasonic-vibrating member together with the energy source as tandem control of movement).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the ultrasonic-vibrating member to travel together with the energy source, based on the combined teachings of Hyde and Liu. Hyde’s positioning system 150 discloses the control structure by which movement of the delivery devices is achieved (¶ [0061]), and tandem control of the energy source and the ultrasonic-vibrating member necessarily follow from the combination already established with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Hyde discloses a control system (134) comprising a processor (140) and memory (142), wherein the memory stores computer code for completing and/or facilitating the various process described herein (¶ [0058]), and wherein the processor receives feedback data and provides control signals to one or more of the positioning system (150) and the agitation system (158) (¶ [0067]: “processor 140 receives inputs from monitoring system 160..., and provides control signals to one or more of systems 150, 152, 154, 156, 158, and 159”).
Hyde does not explicitly disclose a control program configured to control movement of the ultrasonic-vibrating member.
However, as set forth above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to configure the ultrasonic-vibrating member to travel together with the energy source, based on the combined teachings of Hyde and Liu. Hyde’s control system (134) discloses a control program structure providing control signals to the positioning system (150) and the agitation system (158) (¶¶ [0058], [0067]), and configuring that control program to control movement of the ultrasonic-vibrating member necessarily follow from the combination already established with respect to claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Hyde discloses, in Fig. 1, a carriage system (26) providing movement in the X and Y directions and a vertical adjustment member (28) providing movement in the Z direction (¶ [0023]), and further discloses that the positioning systems (24, 32) may be configured to tilt or rotate the delivery device (22) or support platform (30) about any of the X, Y, Z, or another positioning axis (¶ [0025]).
As set forth above with respect to claim 1, it would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the ultrasonic-vibrating member to travel together with the energy source, based on the combined teachings of Hyde and Liu. Hyde’s positioning system (24, 32), providing multi-axis movement and rotation, disclose the 3D multi-degree of freedom motor structure by which such control of movement is achieved (¶¶ [0023], [0025]), and use of these positioning systems to achieve control of movement necessarily follows from the combination already established with respect to claim 1.
Claim 24 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (US 20150064047) hereinafter Hyde, in view of Liu et al. (CN 110681937) hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Barge et al. (GB 2512068) hereinafter Barge.
Regarding claim 24, Hyde in view of Liu discloses the system of claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose wherein a depth of the ultrasonic-vibrating member into the melt pool is adjustable.
However, Barge discloses, in Figs. 1(A)-(C), a method of welding metal comprising a probe (40) movable into and out of contact with a molten material, wherein a depth (p. 4, ln. 12: “probe penetration depth”) of a probe (40) into the melt pool (p. 3, lns. 17-18: “melted portion”) is adjustable (p. 4, lns. 8-12: “The process may be optimised to adjust the process parameters of the melt and re-melt steps... Parameters which may... be varied may include... probe penetration depth”).
Hyde, Liu and Barge are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are pertinent to the problem of controlling the interaction between a probe and a molten material through adjustment of the probe’s position relative to the melt. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to configure the depth of the ultrasonic-vibrating member into the melt pool to be adjustable as disclosed by Barge in the system of Hyde and Liu, for the purpose of optimizing the interaction between the ultrasonic-vibrating member and the molten material depending on the particular application parameters, in order to provide “a consistent and repeatable quality... finish... having a good quality surface... free of defects... [and] a uniform overall profile” (Barge, p. 2, lns. 9-13), thereby achieving a desired weld or coupling quality.
PNG
media_image3.png
365
820
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1(A)-(C) of Barge
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (US 20150064047) hereinafter Hyde, in view of Liu et al. (CN 110681937) hereinafter Liu, and further in view of Galen et al. (WO 2020081876) hereinafter Galen.
Regarding claim 3, which is a dependent claim of claim 1, Hyde and Liu discloses the ultrasonic-vibrating member (3; Liu) comprises a probe (31; Liu).
Hyde and Liu does not explicitly disclose the ultrasonic-vibrating member to be in tune with an ultrasonic frequency supplied to the probe.
However, Galen discloses, Fig. 11, an ultrasonic-vibrating member (1104, sonicator) comprises a probe (1102, sonication probe head) configured to be in tune with an ultrasonic frequency supplied to the probe (paragraph 168; Galen teaches an ultrasonic transducer generating ultrasonic energy or ultrasonic sound waves, coupled to the probe head).
Hyde, Liu and Galen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic vibration in the context of molten metal processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the probe tuned with the ultrasonic frequency as disclosed by Galen in the system disclosed by Hyde and Liu, in order to minimize damping loses and preserve efficient transmission of ultrasonic vibration energy without shifting the resonance point.
PNG
media_image4.png
402
671
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11 of Galen
Regarding claim 4, Hyde in combination with Liu and Galen discloses the system of claim 3 (Fig. 2; Hyde), wherein the ultrasonic-vibrating member (1104; Galen) comprises a probe (1102; Galen) comprising one of a high-temperature resistant material, a high temperature metal material, or a high temperature metal alloy material (Paragraph 3; Liu discloses the metal probe is tungsten alloy, which is well known as a high temperature material: https://www.google.com/search?q=is+a+tungsten+alloy+a+high+temperature+material%3F&oq=is+a+tungsten+alloy+a+high+temperature+material%3F&gs_lcrp=EgRlZGdlKgYIABBFGDkyBggAEEUYOTIICAEQ6QcY_FXSAQkxMzk0M2owajGoAgCwAgA&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8, accessed 2/18/2026).
Regarding claim 5, which is a dependent claim of claim 4, Hyde, Liu, and Galen discloses the probe comprises tungsten or a tungsten alloy (Liu, paragraph 3).
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (US 20150064047) hereinafter Hyde, in view of Liu et al. (CN 110681937) hereinafter Liu, Galen et al. (WO 2020081876) hereinafter Galen, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 10857735) hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 6, which is a dependent claim of claim 3, Hyde, Liu and Galen discloses a length of the probe is tuned for a natural resonating frequency (paragraph 169; Galen discloses the length of the probe head 1102 can be determined by the sonicator frequency).
Hyde, Liu and Galen does not explicitly disclose the frequency is about 20 kHz.
However, Martin discloses the frequency is about 20 kHz (Col 3, Ln 65-67; the range of frequencies supplied by a resonate probe is from 1 Hz to 100 kHz approximately).
Hyde, Liu, Galen and Martin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic vibration in the context of molten metal processing for additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the probe tuned for the frequency of 20 kHz as disclosed by Martin in the system disclosed by Hyde, Liu and Galen, for the purpose of activating appropriate modes of frequency to improve the structural integrity of the part being built (Martin, Col 2, Ln 51-59).
Regarding claim 7, which is a dependent claim of claim 3, Hyde, Liu, Galen and Martin discloses a length of the probe is tuned for a natural resonating frequency (paragraph 169; Galen) of about 40 kHz (Martin, Col 3, Ln 65-67).
Hyde, Liu, Galen and Martin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic vibration in the context of molten metal processing for additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the probe tuned for the frequency of 40 kHz as disclosed by Martin in the system disclosed by Hyde, Liu and Galen, for the purpose of activating appropriate modes of frequency to improve the structural integrity of the part being built (Martin, Col 2, Ln 51-59).
Claims 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hyde et al. (US 20150064047) hereinafter Hyde, in view of Liu et al. (CN 110681937) hereinafter Liu, Galen et al. (WO 2020081876) hereinafter Galen, Rundquist et al. (US 20120042751) hereinafter Rundquist, and further in view of Rice et al. (US 20190120079) hereinafter Rice.
Regarding Claim 8, which is a dependent claim of claim 3, Hyde, Liu and Galen discloses the ultrasonic-vibrating probe (1102, sonication probe head; Galen), but does not explicitly teach the probe is brazed concentrically within a titanium screw.
However, Rundquist discloses, in Fig. 4, an ultrasonic device (600), having a probe (610, ultrasonic probe) being concentrically within a titanium screw (603; paragraph 59 discloses the material for attachment nut 603 may be titanium; the examiner interprets “the attachment nut” as a hollow screw).
Hyde, Liu, Galen and Rundquist are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic device. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have a probe being concentrically within a titanium screw as disclosed by Rundquist in the system of Hyde, Liu and Galen, for the purpose of improving mechanical stability and vibrational performance during ultrasonic operation.
PNG
media_image5.png
319
771
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Rundquist
Hyde, Liu, Galen and Rundquist does not explicitly teach the screw is brazed in a screw.
However, Rice discloses a system, in Fig. 3, having a probe 64 being brazed in a screw (paragraph 39; the probe 64 is secured in the opening 66 via brazing).
Hyde, Liu, Galen, Rundquist and Rice are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic probe structural assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to have a probe brazed in a screw as disclosed by Rice in the system disclosed by Hyde, Liu, Galen and Rundquist, for the purpose of permanently securing the ultrasonic probe within the threaded screw, in order to enhance stiffness thereby improving acoustic energy transmission while maintaining the concentric alignment.
PNG
media_image6.png
94
317
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Rice
Claims 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 110681937) hereinafter Liu, in view of Kim et al. (US 20180361668) hereinafter Kim, and further in view of Onuma et al. (US 20160143648) hereinafter Onuma.
Regarding claim 18, Liu disclosed a device for an additive manufacturing system (the examiner construes that “for an additive manufacturing system” is an intended use. MPEP 2111.02 (II)) comprising:
an ultrasonic probe (31, metal probe; Fig. 1); and
the ultrasonic probe (31) being configured to be immersed in a melt pool of additive manufacturing material (“wire”) during operation (paragraph 2; Liu discloses metal probe 31 of the sonotrode 3 is in the pool as shown in annotated Fig. 1).
Liu does not explicitly teach an ultrasonic booster; and a power supply.
However, Kim, drawn to a system for an additive manufacturing technology (paragraph 2), discloses
an ultrasonic booster (paragraph 85; “the dual-vibration sonotrode head includes two separate ultrasonic transducers to generate vibration, a booster for each transducer to amplify ultrasonic energy”); and
a power supply (paragraph 10; “power and electrical interfaces”)
Liu and Kim are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic assisted additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the ultrasonic booster and power supply as disclosed by Kim into the system of Liu, in order to “amplify ultrasonic energy” (Kim, paragraph 85), and provide electrical power necessary to drive the ultrasonic vibration, thereby ensuring effective transmission of ultrasonic energy in an additive manufacturing system.
Liu and Kim does not explicitly disclose the ultrasonic probe concentrically fitting within a screw connected to a horn.
However, Onuma, drawn to an ultrasonic probe as shown in Fig. 2, discloses an ultrasonic probe (26, probe unit) concentrically fitting (shown in Fig. 2) within a screw connected to a horn (paragraph 42; “a horn 54 is disposed to a male screw 26a at a proximal end of the probe unit 26 through a connection screw (a female screw) 56”).
Liu, Kim and Onuma are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic probe and its structural assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the configuration of the ultrasonic probe concentrically fitting within a screw as disclosed by Onuma into the probe disclosed by Liu and Kim, for the purpose of enlarging the amplitude of the ultrasonic vibration generated by the ultrasonic probe (Onuma, paragraph 41).
PNG
media_image7.png
207
740
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Onuma
Claims 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 110681937) hereinafter Liu, in view of Kim et al. (US 20180361668) hereinafter Kim, Onuma et al. (US 20160143648) hereinafter Onuma, and further in view of Galen et al. (WO 2020081876) hereinafter Galen.
Regarding claim 19, which is a dependent claim of claim 18, Liu in view of Kim and Onuma does not explicitly disclose a length of the ultrasonic probe is tuned such that its natural frequency matches with an ultrasonic excitation frequency used in the additive manufacturing system.
However, Galen discloses, in Fig. 11, a length of the ultrasonic probe (1102, probe head) is tuned such that its natural frequency matches with an ultrasonic excitation frequency used in the additive manufacturing system (paragraph 168 discloses an ultrasonic transducer generating ultrasonic energy or ultrasonic sound waves, coupled to the probe head 1102; paragraph 169 further discloses the length of the probe head 1102 can be determined by the sonicator frequency).
Liu, Kim, Onuma and Galen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic probe and its structural assembly. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date, to incorporate the probe of Galen into the additive manufacturing system disclosed by Liu, Kim and Onuma, in order to “not dampen the available energy for transfer or change the resonate point” (Onuma, paragraph 168), thereby preserving efficient transmission of ultrasonic vibration energy without shifting the resonance point.
Claims 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu et al. (CN 110681937) hereinafter Liu, in view of Kim et al. (US 20180361668) hereinafter Kim, Onuma et al. (US 20160143648) hereinafter Onuma, Galen et al. (WO 2020081876) hereinafter Galen, and further in view of Martin et al. (US 10857735) hereinafter Martin.
Regarding claim 20, which is a dependent claim of claim 19, Liu in combination of Kim, Onuma and Galen does not explicitly disclose the ultrasonic probe vibrates at a frequency between 20 kHz to 40 kHz.
However, Martin discloses the ultrasonic probe vibrates at a frequency between 20 kHz to 40 kHz (Col 3, Ln 65-67; the range of frequencies supplied by a resonate probe is from 1 Hz to 100 kHz approximately).
Liu, Kim, Onuma, Galen and Martin are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of ultrasonic vibration for additive manufacturing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to have the probe tuned for the frequency between 20 kHz and 40 kHz as disclosed by Martin in the system disclosed by Liu, Kim, Onuma and Galen, for the purpose of activating appropriate modes of frequency to improve the structural integrity of the part being built (Martin, Col 2, Ln 51-59).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Liu et al. (CN 110508788), Godfrey et al. (US 20190247921), Rothberg et al. (US 20170365774), Hall (US 20170276651), Lee et al. (US 20150061465), Burger et al. (US 20130324990), Olszewski et al. (US 20130180473), Tasman et al. (US 4195523)
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights