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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because
reference character 1 has been used to designate both vibrating ultrasonic probe in Fig. 1A & 1B and mounting brackets in Fig. 2A;
reference character 2 has been used to designate filler metal in Fig. 1A, heat input in Fig. 1B, and pneumatic cylinder in Fig. 2A; and
reference character 3 has been used to designate arc in Fig. 1A, filler metal in Fig. 1B, and mounting brackets for ultrasonic booster in Fig. 2A.
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. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim 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.
Claim 1 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 the limitation "the additive manufacturing material" in Ln. 4-5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependencies.
Claim 1 is indefinite as presently written, and the scope of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, because claim 1 recites “an energy source that heats the additive manufacturing material supply.” It is unclear whether the energy source is configured to heat the material supply itself, or the additive manufacturing material, which is supplied from the material supply. For the purpose of examination, the claim limitation will be interpreted as “the additive manufacturing material.”
Claims 2-10 are rejected due to dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hyde et al. (US 20150064047) hereinafter Hyde.
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”);
supplying an energy source (62, heating energy) to heat the additive manufacturing material supply (58) thereby creating a melt pool (60, printing sites; paragraph 34; “melt pool” formed at the printing sites); and
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).
PNG
media_image1.png
663
934
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Hyde
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, 12 and 16-17 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 (58; paragraph 27; “first delivery device”);
an energy source (62) that heats the additive manufacturing material supply (58) (paragraph 27; material 56 is melted by heating energy 62),
a melt pool (60, printing sites; paragraph 34; “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) (paragraph 34; “first delivery device 58 focuses heating energy 62 at printing site 60, and material 56 melts to form a melt pool”); and
wherein said ultrasonic-vibrating member (68) is on a trailing side (right side as seen in Fig. 2) of the energy source (62).
Hyde does not explicitly disclose said ultrasonic-vibrating member is configured to be immersed within the melt pool.
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).
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, Ln. 9-10.
PNG
media_image2.png
213
373
media_image2.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 (56) (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 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 supply (58) (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, Ln. 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.
Regarding claim 16, which is a dependent claim of claim 12, Hyde discloses the additive manufacturing material supply (58) is deposited using laser welding (paragraph 19; “laser deposition”).
Regarding claim 17, which is a dependent claim of claim 12, Hyde discloses the additive manufacturing material supply is deposited using electron beam welding (paragraph 33; “heating energy 62 can be provided via first delivery device 58 in another form, such as an electron beam”).
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_image3.png
402
671
media_image3.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 13-15 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 Bruck et al. (US 20150275687) hereinafter Bruck.
Regarding claim 13, which is a dependent claim of claim 12, Hyde in view of Liu does not explicitly disclose the additive manufacturing material supply is deposited using a method of gas metal arc welding.
However, Bruck, drawn to additive manufacturing (Abstract), teaches gas metal arc welding (paragraph 4; “gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW)” and “gas metal arc welding (GMAW)”).
Hyde, Liu and Bruck are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of 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 combine gas metal arc welding disclosed by Bruck to be the method disclosed by Hyde and Liu, in order to improve protection from the atmosphere for the molten material in the weld pool (Bruck, paragraph 4).
Regarding claim 14, which is a dependent claim of claim 12, Hyde and Liu does not explicitly disclose the additive manufacturing material supply is deposited using cold metal transfer.
However, Bruck, drawn to additive manufacturing, teaches cold metal transfer (paragraph 33; “cold metal arc welding torch 54”).
Hyde, Liu and Bruck are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they all are in the same field of 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 combine cold metal transfer disclosed by Bruck to the method disclosed by Hyde and Liu, in order to reduce process energy required during deposition while melting the additive manufacturing material (Bruck; paragraph 33).
Regarding claim 15, which is a dependent claim of claim 12, Hyde, Liu and Bruck discloses the additive manufacturing material supply is deposited using gas tungsten arc welding (paragraph 4; “gas tungsten arc welding (GTAW)”), as discussed in the claim 13 rejection.
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_image4.png
319
771
media_image4.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_image5.png
94
317
media_image5.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)
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_image6.png
207
740
media_image6.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)
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761