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 .
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.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Election/Restrictions
Claims 11-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 07/06/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 1-3 and 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-110788324) in view of Xu (CN-107685149), using the applicant provided original documents and attached translations.
Regarding claim 1, Wang teaches:
A metal processing and forming system for forming a workpiece on a workbench ([0002] – [0006]), the metal processing and forming system comprising:
a forming device configured for providing a metallic material according to a processing path ([0026] – [0030]) and forming an initial melt ([0053]) of the metallic material ([0037] – [0040]);
a shaping device configured for shaping the initial melt ([0037] – [0040] and [0051] – [0053]); and
synchronously controlling the forming device and the shaping device ([0016] – [0017], [0025], and [0037] – [0040]);
wherein shaping device is controlled to shape the initial melt, before the initial melt is solidified, to form the workpiece ([0037] – [0041]).
Wang simply is silent as to whether there is an explicit control device coupled to the devices in order to carry out the controlling of the devices in synchronicity. While Xu, in a similar field of endeavor, a device for forming a metal workpiece, does not explicitly teach a forming device and shaping device working in synchronization, Wang does, see the rejection under Wang above. However, Xu, teaches a control device coupled to all of the devices in the system, and which controls all of the devices in order to form the metal workpiece ([0016], [0021] - [0023], and [0042] – [0045]; Fig. 1, #13). Therefore it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the metal processing and forming system of Wang to incorporate the teaching of Xu and include an explicit control system that controls the forming and shaping devices of Wang in order to synchronously carry out the shaping and forming of the workpiece, and therefore teach the entirety of claim 1 in combination. The purpose, as stated by Xu, being achieving coordinated operation and flexible operation among the various systems ([0042]).
Regarding claim 2, Wang in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 2 depends on. Wang further teaches:
wherein the shaping device comprises a first tool head, and the first tool head generates a vibration on a surface of the initial melt ([0028]).
Regarding claim 3, Wang in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 3 depends on. Xu further teaches:
wherein the control device adjusts a tilt angle ([0016], [0022] – [0023], and [0039] – [0045]) of the first tool head relative to the surface such that the vibration comprises a normal vibration in a normal direction relative to the surface and a tangent vibration in a tangent direction relative to the surface. The vibration being in specific orientations would be obvious from the combination of Wang in view of Xu, where Wang teaches providing vibration and Xu teaches controlling the tilt angle of the tools, in the absence of a showing of unexpected results.
Regarding claim 7, Wang in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 7 depends on. Wang further teaches:
such that the shaping device shapes the initial melt prior to solidification of the initial melt ([0037] – [0041]).
Xu further teaches:
wherein the forming device comprises a material supply head ([0039] Fig. 1, #9 and #10), the forming device forms a deposition region of the metallic material below an outlet of the material supply head ([0039] – [0044]; Fig.1), the shaping device shapes the initial melt at a first processing position of the initial melt, and the control device controls a distance of the first processing position from the deposition region ([0016], [0022] – [0023], [0039], and [0044] – [0045]).
Regarding claim 8, Wang in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 8 depends on. Wang further teaches:
wherein the first tool head is an ultrasonic head ([0025], [0028], [0034], and [0055]).
Regarding claim 9, Wang in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 9 depends on. Wang further teaches:
wherein the shaping device shapes the initial melt in a contact manner ([0028] – [0032] and [0051] – [0055]).
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-110788324) in view of Xu (CN-107685149), as applied to claims 3 and 1 above, respectively, and further in view of Elgar (US-20180281284), using the applicant provided original documents and attached translations.
Regarding claim 4, Wang in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 3, which claim 4 depends on, but does not teach the use of a force sensing module and using the force value to adjust the tilt angle of the tool head, however, Elgar, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing device for forming a metal workpiece, teaches:
further comprising a force sensing module coupled to the first tool head and the control device, and configured for sensing a force value of the first tool head during shaping the initial melt ([0233]);
wherein the control device adjusts the tilt angle of the first tool head according to the force value ([0247] – [0250] and [0257]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wang in view of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Elgar and include a force sensing module and using it to adjust the tilt angle of the tool head. The purpose, as stated by Elgar, being a tilted vibrating surface may impart a force ([0247]).
Regarding claim 5, Wang in view of Xu and Elgar teaches the limitations of claim 5, which claim 5 depends on, but does not teach the use of a storage device, however, Elgar further teaches:
further comprising a storage device coupled to the control device and configured for storing a plurality of parameter sets associated with material properties of different workpieces ([0259] – [0260], [0286] – [0294], [0300] - [0302], and [0316] – [0319]);
wherein the control device adjusts the tilt angle of the first tool head according to the force value by a parameter set of the parameter sets associated with the material property of the workpiece ([0247] – [0250], [0257], [0259] – [0260], [0286] – [0294], [0300] - [0302], and [0316] – [0319]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wang in view of Xu and Elgar to further incorporate the teachings of Elgar and include a storage device. The purpose, as stated by Elgar, being so that the processing unit executes a sequence of machine-readable instructions, which can be embodied in a program or software. The instructions may be stored in a memory location ([0290]).
Regarding claim 6, Wang in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 1, which claim 6 depends on, but does not teach the use of position tracker, however, Elgar, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing device for forming a metal workpiece, teaches:
further comprising a position tracking device coupled to the control device and configured for tracking a position information of the forming device and the shaping device ([0117]- [0119], [0146], [0174], [0179], [0187], [0233], [0287], [0300] – [0301], and [0315] – [0316]);
wherein the control device corrects positions of the forming device and the shaping device in real time according to the position information tracked by the position tracking device ([0117]- [0119], [0146], [0174], [0179], [0187], [0233], [0287], [0300] – [0301], and [0315] – [0316]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Wang in view of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Elgar and include a position tracker. The purpose, as stated by Elgar, being that the controller of the build module may direct the translation facilitator (e.g., actuator) to translate the build module from one position to another ([0119]).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang (CN-110788324) in view of Xu (CN-107685149), as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Fujita (US-20180022033), using the applicant provided original documents and attached translations.
Regarding claim 10, Wang in view of Xu teaches the limitations of claim 2, which claim 10 depends on, but does not teach the use of two shaping modules, however, Fujita, in a similar field of endeavor, an additive manufacturing system which creates metal pieces using a shaping device, teaches:
wherein the shaping device comprises a first shaping module and a second shaping module, the first shaping module comprises the first tool head, the second shaping module comprises a second tool head, and the first tool head and the second tool head respectively shape the initial melt on opposite sides of the initial melt ([0053] – [0062]; Fig. 3, #43 and #45).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the shaping device of Wang in view of Xu to incorporate the teachings of Fujita and include two shaping modules. The purpose, as stated by Fujita, being the controller controls the first shaping unit and the second shaping unit to repeatedly perform the processes ([0076]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adrien J Bernard whose telephone number is (571)272-1384. The examiner can normally be reached M-R, from 7:30a.m.-4:30p.m..
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, Alison L Hindenlang can be reached at 571 270-7001. 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.
/A.B./Examiner, Art Unit 1741 /JACOB T MINSKEY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1748
Prosecution Insights