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. Claim Status Claims 1-20 are pending: Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 09/18/2023, 01/11/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner. IDS dated 01/11/2024 NPL1 and NPL3 were not considered due to being illegible. Specification Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details. The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied , such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided. Claim Objections Claims are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 L1-2, amend “wherein [[a ]] the melting temperature of the core material” to improve clarity by directly tying in to the antecedent basis of Claim 8 L1-2 The office notes that L2-3 “the melt temperature of the one or more clad metal layers” inherently has antecedent basis due to being a material property and as the claim element was indirectly introduced in Claim 8 L3 due to the claim construction. Claim 19 L1 “a DED process”, spell out acronym the first time it is used per independent claim chain The office notes that while Claim 1 preamble spells out the instant acronym, Claim 19 does not depend upon Claim 1. Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim (s) 1-4, 6, 14-17, 19-20 is/are reje cted under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Wilhelmy (US 2017/0014937) Claim 1 Wilhelmy discloses: “A clad wire feedstock (Fig5a/b, wire 25) for a directed energy deposition (DED) process (Para54/55; Fig5a, beam 75, deposited material 100; Para3 /12 , additive manufacturing) , the clad wire feedstock (wire 25) comprising: a core material (Para55, powder core or powder cored wire “PCW”; Fig5b, powder core shown within tube portion of wire) defining an outer surface (Fig5b, outer surface of powder core that contacts the tube portion of wire) ; and one or more clad metal layers (Para55, tube portion of wire that contains the powder core of the wire; Fig5b, outer tube portion of wire; Para55, tube is aluminum or an aluminum alloy) that surround the outer surface of the core material (Fig5b, tube portion of wire that surrounds and contacts the powder core) .” Claim 2 Wilhelmy discloses: “The clad wire feedstock of claim 1, wherein the one or more clad metal layers (Fig5b, tube portion of wire) are configured to persist after a molten bead of clad wire feedstock (best seen Fig5a, beam 75, deposited material 100) has been deposited (Para55 , the tube itself is formed aluminum or an aluminum alloy and the selection of powder core is adapted to account for the aluminum material selection of the tube itself. Powder core material selection is any of “ one-metal particles, multiple metal particles, metal-nonmetal particles, non-metal particles, and combinations thereof ”. Fig2a-d/Para38, additively manufactured produced product 100 is formed of a first region 200 formed of aluminum alloy and a second region 300 with a second material formed of a metal/non-metal. ) , and the one or more clad metal layers stays separate from the core material during the DED process ( product 100 of Fig2 having the tube and a first powder of the powder core both being aluminum forming the first region 200, while the second region 300 is formed of a different metal, thus resulting in the metal of the tube remaining separate from the second powder metal material. Para23/24 disclose metal powder material selection and Para55 discloses that the powder core material selection is as “described above” ) .” Claim 3 , material properties evidenced using NPL_AmericanElements – see filewrapper Wilhelmy discloses: “The clad wire feedstock of claim 2, wherein the one or more clad metal layers (Fig5b, tube portion of wire) includes a melt temperature (Para55, tube is made of aluminum. Aluminum melting point is 660.32 C) that is different from a melt temperature of the core material (Claim 4, second powder metal material selections: copper, manganese, silicon, magnesium, zinc, iron, titanium, zirconium, chromium, nickel, silver, vanadium ) by at least ten degrees Celsius ( NPL_AmericanElements : metal material melting points in C: copper 1084.62 , manganese 1246 , silicon 1414 , magnesium 650 , zinc 419.53 , iron 1538 , titanium 1668 , zirconium 1855 , chromium 1907 , nickel 1453 , silver 961 , vanadium 1910) .” Claim 4 Wilhelmy discloses: “The clad wire feedstock of claim 2, wherein a surface tension (implicit material property) of the one or more clad metal layers (Fig5b, tube portion of wire) differs from a surface tension (implicit material property) of the core material (Fig5b, powder core) by a threshold amount, and wherein the threshold amount ensures the one or more clad metal layers remain intact after depositing the molten bead (functional limitation. Fig2 shows regions 200/300 remain intact/separate after forming – see more detailed discussion above in the context of Claim 2. Wilhelmy discloses all structural elements and results in product 100 that corresponds to claimed functional requirement.) .” The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above. Claim 6 Wilhelmy discloses: “The clad wire feedstock of claim 1, wherein the one or more clad metal layers (Fig5b, tube portion of wire) are constructed of aluminum (Para55, tube is aluminum or an aluminum alloy) and the core material is constructed of a metal matrix composite ( Para14/17/19 /23/24 ; Table1 , metal matrix composite ; Para35 ) .” Claim 14 Wilhelmy discloses: “ The clad wire feedstock of claim 1, wherein the clad metal layer (Fig5b, tube portion of wire) is constructed of aluminum or an aluminum alloy (Para55, tube is aluminum or an aluminum alloy) , and the core material is a metal matrix composite (Para14/17/19/23/24; Table1, metal matrix composite; Para35) . ” Claim 15 , as informed by the 35 USC 112 issues above Wilhelmy discloses: “ The clad wire feedstock of claim 1, wherein the clad metal layer (Fig5b, tube portion of wire ; Para55, tube is aluminum or an aluminum alloy ) acts as an optical energy absorber ( functional limitation. materials inherently absorb light when contacted by light ) configured to absorb a specific wavelength of light (functional limitation. The aluminum or aluminum alloy of the tube will inherently absorb specific wavelengths of light when contacted by light based on the wavelengths of the give light exposer. Wilhelmy discloses the instant limitation to at least the same degree as applicant has support for the instant limitation.) . ” The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above. Claim 16 , as informed by the 35 USC 112 issues above Wilhelmy discloses: “ The clad wire feedstock of claim 15, wherein the light is in the ultraviolet, visible, or infrared spectrum (continuation of the functional limitation of Claim 15, merely specifying the particular light spectrum that is intended to be applied to the clad metal layer. Wilhelmy discloses the instant limitation to at least the same degree as applicant has support for the instant limitation. ) . ” The above noted limitations are considered functional language, and as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. However, the functional language is disclosed as noted above. Claim 17 , as informed by the 35 USC 112 issues above Wilhelmy discloses: “ The clad wire feedstock of claim 15, wherein the core material (Fig5, powder core of wire) is constructed of aluminum (Para57, powder is one/multiple metal particles arrangement; Para24/23, powder metal material is/contains aluminum) and the clad metal layer (Fig5b, tube portion of wire; Para55, tube is aluminum or an aluminum alloy) is constructed of copper (Para57, tube is a 2xxx aluminum alloy; Para26, 2xxx aluminum alloy is an aluminum alloy comprising copper (Cu) as the predominate alloying ingredient after aluminum; Thus, tube is constructed using copper) . ” Claim 19 Wilhelmy discloses: “ A method for creating an article by a DED process (Para54/55; Fig5a, beam 75, deposited material 100; Para3/12, additive manufacturing) , the method comprising: m elting (Para54/55; Fig5a, beam 75, deposited material 100; Para3, additive manufacturing) , by a focused energy beam (Fig5a, beam 75) , a clad wire feedstock (Fig5a/b, wire 25) ; and d epositing (Para54, Fig5a, deposited material 100) the clad wire feedstock (Fig5, wire 25) onto a substrate (Fig5a, substrate that supports deposited material 100) that is part of a three-dimensional printer (Para3/12, results in objects made from 3D model data) , wherein the clad wire feedstock includes a core material (Para55, powder core or powder cored wire “PCW”; Fig5b, powder core shown within tube portion of wire) defining an outer surface (Fig5b, outer surface of powder core that contacts the tube portion of wire) and one or more clad metal layers (Para55, tube portion of wire that contains the powder core of the wire; Fig5b, outer tube portion of wire; Para55, tube is aluminum or an aluminum alloy) that surround the outer surface of the core material (Fig5b, tube portion of wire that surrounds and contacts the powder core) . ” Claim 20 Wilhelmy discloses: “ The method of claim 19, wherein the one or more clad metal layers (Fig5b, tube portion of wire) are configured to persist after a molten bead of clad wire feedstock (best seen Fig5a, beam 75, deposited material 100) has been deposited (Para55, the tube itself is formed aluminum or an aluminum alloy and the selection of powder core is adapted to account for the aluminum material selection of the tube itself. Powder core material selection is any of “ one-metal particles, multiple metal particles, metal-nonmetal particles, non-metal particles, and combinations thereof ”. Fig2a-d/Para38, additively manufactured produced product 100 is formed of a first region 200 formed of aluminum alloy and a second region 300 with a second material formed of a metal/non-metal.) , and the one or more clad metal layers stays separate from the core material during the DED process (product 100 of Fig2 having the tube and a first powder of the powder core both being aluminum forming the first region 200, while the second region 300 is formed of a different metal, thus resulting in the metal of the tube remaining separate from the second powder metal material. Para23/24 disclose metal powder material selection and Para55 discloses that the powder core material selection is as “described above”) .” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmy (US 2017/0014937) in view of Lukas (US 2016/0288272) Claim 5 Wilhelmy discloses: “The clad wire feedstock of claim 1, wherein … and the core material is constructed of at least one of nickel, copper, stainless steel, and tin (Para23, powder core materials are selected between; copper, nickel, tin) .” Wilhelmy is silent to “ the one or more clad metal layers are constructed of platinum ”. Lukas teaches (Abstract, Para30; Fig2 , wire 1, core 2, coating 3 ) that it is known to select a coating material of platinum in combination with a core material of copper of a wire for bonding. Lukas further teaches (Para101) that instant material selection of Lukas provides the advantage of “excellent properties with respect to oxidation effects”. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the wire core/tube layer material selections of Wilhelmy for the material selections taught by Lukas, as such a substitution would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art bonding wire core/tube material selection for another; further Lukas teaches that its material selection of a copper core, the same as Wilhelmy , with a platinum coating , provides the advantage of “excellent properties with respect to oxidation effects” , and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Wilhelmy with a working known in the art material selection for the wire core and tube/coating layers. Claim (s) 7-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmy (US 2017/0014937) in view of Marois (US 9,908,202) . Claim 7 Wilhelmy discloses: “The clad wire feedstock of claim 1, wherein the one or more clad metal layers (Fig5b, outer tube portion of wire) are constructed of a brazing alloy (Para55, tube portion of wire that contains the powder core of the wire; Fig5b, outer tube portion of wire; Para55, tube is aluminum or an aluminum alloy) .” Wilhelmy is silent to the tube’s material of aluminum or aluminum alloy being explicitly a brazing alloy. Marois teaches (C19L43-47) that it is known in the art to have an aluminum alloy that is an Al-Si alloy that is known to be a standard Al-Si cladding alloy. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular alloy selection for the tube of the wire of Wilhelmy , as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Wilhelmy of a generic “aluminum alloy” for the tube of the wire of Wilhelmy , and Marois teaches that a known in the art standard material selection for an aluminum alloy, when melting the aluminum alloy in practice, is to select a standard Al-Si cladding alloy, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Wilhelmy with a known in the art material selection for the melting “aluminum alloy” as taught by Marois for the tub of the wire of Wilhelmy . Claim 8 , material properties evidenced using NPL_AmericanElements – see filewrapper The modified arrangement of Wilhelmy by the teachings of Marois discloses: “The clad wire feedstock of claim 7, wherein the core material ( Wilhelmy : Para55/Fig5b powder core of wire) is constructed of a material ( Wilhelmy : Claim 4, second powder metal material selections: copper, manganese, silicon, magnesium, iron, titanium, zirconium, chromium, nickel, silver, vanadium ) including a higher melting temperature ( NPL_AmericanElements : metal material melting points in C: copper 1084.62 , manganese 1246 , silicon 1414 , magnesium 650 , iron 1538 , titanium 1668 , zirconium 1855 , chromium 1907 , nickel 1453 , silver 961 , vanadium 1910) when compared to the brazing alloy ( Marois : C19L43-47, Al-Si cladding alloy melting starts between 575-577 C) .” Claim 9 The modified arrangement of Wilhelmy by the teachings of Marois discloses: “The clad wire feedstock of claim 8, wherein a melting temperature ( NPL_AmericanElements : metal material melting points in C: copper 1084.62 , manganese 1246 , silicon 1414 , magnesium 650 , iron 1538 , titanium 1668 , zirconium 1855 , chromium 1907 , nickel 1453 , silver 961 , vanadium 1910) of the core material ( Wilhelmy : Claim 4, second powder metal material selections: copper, manganese, silicon, magnesium, iron, titanium, zirconium, chromium, nickel, silver, vanadium ) is at least ten percent higher than the melt temperature of the one or more clad metal layers ( Marois : C19L43-47, Al-Si cladding alloy melting starts between 575-577 C; the 10 percent higher temperature threshold would be roughly 634.7 C [557C+55.7C to be on the upper end]; all recited core material melting points are greater than 634.7 C) .” Claim (s) 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmy (US 2017/0014937) in view of Jiang (US 10,343,212 ) Claim 10 Wilhelmy discloses the arrangement of Claim 1. Wilhelmy does not explicitly discuss “ wherein the one or more clad metal layers are constructed of a grain boundary inhibitor ”. However, Wilhelmy (Para64) is open to modification. Jiang teaches (C2L19-26, C4L12-18) that a wire to be used in an additive manufacturing process has ( Fig1/5, tungsten carbide 10 core, coating 12 ; C1L61-66 ) a core that is formed of tungsten carbide with a metallic binder and a coating 12 is formed (C4L5-8) of a metallic carbide where ( C6L6-11 ) of at least one of “ Ti, Zr, Nb, V, Ta, and Hf ” is identified as a selectable metal to form the metallic carbide. Jiang further teaches ( C6L6-11; Fig4, tungsten carbide without the TiC coating; Fig5, tungsten carbide coating with TiC coating ) that it is known in the art that the selection of a Ti, Zr, Nb, V, Ta, or Hf based metallic carbide coating around a tungsten carbide core controls/inhibits grain boundary behavior of the tungsten carbide core. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the wire core/tube layer material selections of Wilhelmy for the material selections taught by Jiang, as such a substitution would merely be a simple substitution of one known in the art material additive manufacturing wire material selection for another known in the art material additive manufacturing wire material selection; further Jiang teaches that its material selection of a core formed of tungsten carbide with a metallic binder and a coating formed of a Ti, Zr, Nb, V, Ta, or Hf based metallic carbide coating, provides the advantage of controlling the grain boundary region of the core when used, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Wilhelmy with a working known in the art material selection for the wire core and tube /coating layers. Claim 11 The modified arrangement of Wilhelmy by the teachings of Jiang, discloses: “ The clad wire feedstock of claim 10, wherein the core material is constructed of a metal that the grain boundary inhibiter controls (limitation is within the scope of the combination discussed in claim 10. Jiang: C6L6-11; Fig4, tungsten carbide without the TiC coating; Fig5, tungsten carbide coating with TiC coating; TiC coating controls/inhibits grain boundary behavior of the tungsten carbide core) . ” Claim 12 The modified arrangement of Wilhelmy by the teachings of Jiang, discloses: “ The clad wire feedstock of claim 11, wherein the grain growth inhibitors are one or more of the following: titanium carbide ( TiC ), vanadium carbide (VC), molybdenum carbide (Mo 2 C), and tantalum carbide ( TaC ) (limitation is within the scope of the combination discussed in claim 10. Jiang: C4L5-8, C6L6-11 ) . ” Claim 13 The modified arrangement of Wilhelmy by the teachings of Jiang, discloses: “ The clad wire feedstock of claim 11, wherein the core material (240) is constructed of tungsten carbide (WC) with a metal binder (limitation is within the scope of the combination discussed in claim 10. Jiang: Fig1/5, tungsten carbide 10 core, coating 12; C1L61-66 ) . ” Claim (s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wilhelmy (US 2017/0014937) in view of Heard (US 2017/0326690) Claim 18 Wilhelmy discloses the arrangement of Claim 1. Wilhelmy is silent to the application of two or more clad metal layers around the core material. Heard teaches ( Fig5a/b, single tube layer of tube portion of wire 25; Fig5c/d, inner tube layer 610, outer tube layer 600, core 620 ; Fig5e/f, plurality of tube layers 600/610/630/640/650, core 620) that it is known in the art to form the tube portion of wire 25 with one, two, or a greater plurality of tube layers . Heard further teaches (Para77) that they tube layers are metal . Heard further teaches ( Para77 ) that core 620 is the same material as that discussed in the embodiment of Figa /b , and that ( Para75-76 ) the material of powder core of wire 25 (Para22/23/25/27/Table1) is effectively identical to the single/multi-metal composition as disclosed in Wilhelmy and mapped in the corresponding claims above in the context of the rejection under 35 USC 102 by Wilhelmy . The office notes that Heard and Wilhelmy share a large number of common inventors and the corresponding specifications have significant overlap. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the tube of the wire of Wilhelmy to have multiple layers as taught by Heard, as such a modification would merely be the simple substitution of one known in the art wire tube layer selection for another known in the art wire tube layer selection, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Wilhelmy with a working wire tube layer arrangement that is known in the art and provides the addition advantage of providing additional flexibility in selecting additional materials for use in the wire due to the additional layers provided in the tube. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: US 2021/0129268 from Burbaum : Fig1a/b, cored wire 10 US 2010/0112374 from Knauf: Fig1, cored wire 1/2, beam 4 EP 3 632 608 from Zhang: Fig3/10, cored wire used in additive manufacturing Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-5093 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9-18 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Helena Kosanovic can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 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. /JOHN S HUNTER, JR/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761