DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 06/02/2026 amending Claims 1, 3 – 5, 7 – 14, and 17 – 19. Claims 1 - 20 are examined.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of at least one of the electrode wire and the second wire” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claim 3. None of the original figures showed the shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of at least one of the electrode wire and the second wire. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the electrode wire and the second wire” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claims 7 and 9. None of the original figures showed the shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the electrode wire and the second wire. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shield gas nozzle has a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder within an outer cylinder, wherein the inner cylinder is concentric to the outer cylinder” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claim 10. None of the original figures showed the shield gas nozzle having a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder within an outer cylinder, wherein the inner cylinder is concentric to the outer cylinder. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “shield gas nozzle includes a coating” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claim 13. None of the original figures showed the shield gas nozzle nor the shield gas nozzle includes a coating. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more positioning sensors to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claim 16. None of the original figures showed the one or more positioning sensors to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more positioning sensors comprise an optical sensor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claim 17. None of the original figures showed the one or more positioning sensors comprises an optical sensor. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more positioning sensors comprise a force sensor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claim 18. None of the original figures showed the one or more positioning sensors comprises a force sensor. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “one or more positioning sensors comprise a thickness sensor” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claim 19. None of the original figures showed the one or more positioning sensors comprises a thickness sensor. No new matter should be entered.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “thickness sensor comprise a laser profile scanner” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claim 20. None of the original figures showed the thickness sensor comprises a laser profile scanner. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Specification
The specification is objected to as failing to provide proper antecedent basis for the claimed subject matter. See 37 CFR 1.75(d)(1) and MPEP § 608.01(o). Correction of the following is required:
Amended Claim 10 recites “a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder within an outer cylinder, wherein the inner cylinder is concentric to the outer cylinder”. The original Specification failed to disclose the limitations “inner cylinder” and “outer cylinder”. The original Specification failed to describe the claimed arrangement of “the inner cylinder is concentric to the outer cylinder”.
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 13 is 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 13, l. 1 recites the limitation "the shield gas nozzle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
Claims 1 and 2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978) in view of Martin et al. (2019/0040503A1), as evidenced by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), or alternatively, Kiser et al. (8,187,725).
Regarding Claim 1, Raudsepp teaches, in Figs. 1a – 7c, the invention as claimed, an additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source (16 – Col. 15, ll. 40 - 45) configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire (4) to create a weld pool (6 - Col. 15, ll. 25 – 30) on a workpiece (Col. 16, ll. 1 – 5); an electrode wire feeder (150 - Col. 17, ll. 55 - 65) configured to feed the electrode wire (4) into the weld pool (6) at a first feed rate (any feed rate) while an electrode wire end (end of 4 adjacent to 6) of the electrode wire (4) melts into the weld pool (6); and a wire feeder (150) configured to feed a second wire (12) into the weld pool (6) at a second feed rate (any feed rate) while a second wire end (end of 12 adjacent to 6) of the second wire (12) melts into the weld pool (6), wherein the wire feeder (150) is further configured to position the second wire end (end of 12 adjacent to 6) behind the center (around end of 22 adjacent to 6) of the weld pool (6) such that, as the weld pool (6) moves (20 – Fig. 6b) when in use, the second wire end (end of 12 adjacent to 6) follows behind the electrode wire end (end of 4 adjacent to 6).
Raudsepp is silent on the wire feeder configured to feed a second wire being a second wire feeder configured to feed the second wire.
Narayanan teaches, in Figs. 1 – 20D, a similar additive manufacturing system (Title and Col. 3, ll. 10 - 15) comprising: an electric power source (170 – Col. 3, ll. 50 - 55) configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire (140 – Figs. 10, 13, and 14) to create a weld pool (A – Figs. 2A to 2D, Col. 3, ll. 60 – 65 “puddle”) on a workpiece (115 - Col. 3, ll. 60 – 65); an electrode wire feeder (150 - Col. 3, ll. 55 - 60) configured to feed the electrode wire (140) into the weld pool; a second wire feeder (Col. 16, ll. 10 – 15 “Although not shown, each wire 140/140′ can be coupled to its own wire feeding apparatus to advance retract the respective wires 140/140′ as needed during manufacturing.”) configured to feed the second wire (140’ – Figs. 10, 13, and 14). Narayanan further teaches, in Col. 24, ll. 40 – 55 and Figs. 13 and 15, using four separate wire feeders controlled by a controller (195) to individually control the wire feed speed of four different wires (140, 140’, 140”, 140’’’).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp with the second wire feeder configured to feed the second wire arrangement, taught by Narayanan, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; and a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the electrode wire feeder and second wire feeder arrangement, taught by Narayanan, for the wire feeder arrangement of Raudsepp, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the electrode wire feeder would have fed the electrode wire into a weld pool at a first feed rate while the second wire feeder would have fed the second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate where a controller would have controlled the first feed rate and the second feed rate to be the same or different. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, as discussed above is silent on said electrode wire and said second wire comprising a nickel-chromium alloy.
Martin teaches, in Paras. [0003], [0006], [0027], [0091], and [0092], a similar additive manufacturing system (Para. [0027] “wire-directed energy deposition”) where the electrode wire comprised Inconel. As evidenced by AAPA, Specification Para. [0120] disclosed that “For example, the inventors discovered that, when the second wire 105 includes Inconel (Ni-Cr), the second wire 105 may be fed from behind the electrode wire 104.” Therefore, Inconel™ was the trademarked name a nickel-chromium alloy.
Alternatively, Kiser teaches, in Col. 1, ll. 35 – 40, Col. 1, l. 65 to Col. 2, l. 15, and Col. 2, ll. 15 – 40, a welding electrode wire comprising a nickel-chromium alloy.
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with said electrode wire and said second wire comprising Inconel (Ni-Cr = nickel-chromium alloy), taught by Martin, or alternatively, welding electrode wire comprising a nickel-chromium alloy, taught by Kiser, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the electrode wire comprised Inconel, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the Inconel (Ni-Cr = nickel-chromium alloy) electrode wire, taught by Martin, or alternatively, welding electrode wire comprising a nickel-chromium alloy, taught by Kiser, for the non-disclosed electrode wire material of Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the electrode wire feeder would have fed the Inconel (Ni-Cr) or alternatively, nickel-chromium alloy, electrode wire into a weld pool at a first feed rate while the second wire feeder would have fed the Inconel (Ni-Cr) or alternatively, nickel-chromium alloy, second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate where a controller would have controlled the first feed rate and the second feed rate to be the same or different. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). It was held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 2, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, as evidenced by AAPA, or Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Martin, and Kiser, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the second wire feeder is configured to feed the second wire end into a trailing edge of the weld pool. The “trailing edge of the weld pool” is not a structural part of the additive manufacturing system since the “weld pool” only existed temporarily on the metal workpiece when the electric power source was actively inputting electric power through the electrode wire to create the “weld pool” and its “trailing edge”. In other words, when the electric power source stopped actively inputting electric power through the electrode wire the “weld pool” would have cooled and solidified into a portion of the workpiece. So the “weld pool” and its “trailing edge” would have ceased to exist when the electric power source stopped actively inputting electric power.
MPEP2144.04(VI) Rearrangement of Parts cited caselaw that rearrangement of parts was an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, as evidenced by AAPA, or Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Martin, and Kiser, to have said second wire feeder rearranged to feed said second wire end into a trailing edge of said weld pool, because rearranging the location of said second wire end to said trailing edge of said weld pool of Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, as evidenced by AAPA, or Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Martin, and Kiser, was an obvious matter of design choice since said rearrangement would not have changed the operation of the additive manufacturing system since the “weld pool” and its “trailing edge” were temporary artifacts on said workpiece.
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978) in view of Martin et al. (2019/0040503A1), as evidenced by Applicant’s Admitted Prior Art (AAPA), or alternatively, Kiser et al. (8,187,725) as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (4,947,024).
Re Claim 3, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, as evidenced by AAPA, or Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Martin, and Kiser, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising a shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of at least one of electrode wire and the second wire.
Anderson teaches, in Fig. 2, a shield gas nozzle (12) configured to introduce a shield gas (20) during deposition of at least one of electrode wire (16, 34) and the second wire.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, as evidenced by AAPA, or Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Martin, and Kiser, with the a shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of at least one of electrode wire and the second wire, taught by Anderson, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of at least one of electrode wire and the second wire, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., locating the shield gas nozzle to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the at least one of electrode wire and the second wire would have facilitated protecting the weld pool from atmospheric contamination creating defects in the weld by enveloping the at least one of electrode wire and the second wire by the shield gas which was typically an inert gas like argon. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 4, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, as evidenced by AAPA, or Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Martin, and Kiser, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein an insertion angle of the second wire end is between 30 degrees to 50 degrees with respect to the workpiece.
Anderson teaches, in Fig. 2, the insertion angle of the wire end (34) is between 30 degrees to 50 degrees (about 41° shown in Fig. 2) with respect to the workpiece (30).
PNG
media_image1.png
639
922
media_image1.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, as evidenced by AAPA, or Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Martin, and Kiser, with the insertion angle of the second wire end is between 30 degrees to 50 degrees with respect to the workpiece, taught by Anderson, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the insertion angle of the wire end was between 30 degrees to 50 degrees with respect to the workpiece, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., arranging the second wire end so that its insertion angle of would have been between 30 degrees to 50 degrees with respect to the workpiece would have facilitated melting the material of the second weld end into the weld pool during use without blocking the shield gas. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claims 5, 6, 11, 12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978).
Regarding Claim 5, Raudsepp teaches, in Figs. 1a – 7c, the invention as claimed, an additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source (16 – Col. 15, ll. 40 - 45) configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire (12) to create a weld pool (6 - Col. 15, ll. 25 – 30) on a workpiece (Col. 16, ll. 1 – 5); an electrode wire feeder (150 - Col. 17, ll. 55 - 65) configured to feed the electrode wire (12) into the weld pool (6) at a first feed rate (any feed rate) while an electrode wire end (end of 12 adjacent to 6) melts into the weld pool (6); and a wire feeder (150) configured to feed a second wire (4) into the weld pool (6) at a second feed rate (any feed rate) while a second wire end (end of 4 adjacent to 6) melts into the weld pool (6), wherein the second wire end (end of 4 adjacent to 6) is positioned ahead of the center (around end of 22 adjacent to 6) of the weld pool (6) such that, as the weld pool (6) moves (20 – Fig. 6b), the second wire end (end of 4 adjacent to 6) leads the electrode wire end (end of 12 adjacent to 6).
Raudsepp is silent on said electrode wire and said second wire comprising aluminum, the wire feeder configured to feed a second wire being a second wire feeder configured to feed the second wire.
Narayanan teaches, in Figs. 1 – 20D, a similar additive manufacturing system (Title and Col. 3, ll. 10 - 15) comprising: an electric power source (170 – Col. 3, ll. 50 - 55) configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire (140 – Figs. 10, 13, and 14) comprising aluminum (Col. 21, ll. 10 - 15) to create a weld pool (A – Figs. 2A to 2D, Col. 3, ll. 60 – 65 “puddle”) on a workpiece (115 - Col. 3, ll. 60 – 65); an electrode wire feeder (150 - Col. 3, ll. 55 - 60) configured to feed the electrode wire (140) into the weld pool; and a second wire feeder (Col. 16, ll. 10 – 15 “Although not shown, each wire 140/140′ can be coupled to its own wire feeding apparatus to advance retract the respective wires 140/140′ as needed during manufacturing.”) configured to feed the second wire (140’ – Figs. 10, 13, and 14) comprising aluminum (Col. 21, ll. 10 - 15). Narayanan further teaches, in Col. 24, ll. 40 – 55 and Figs. 13 and 15, using four separate wire feeders controlled by a controller (195) to individually control the wire feed speed of four different wires (140, 140’, 140”, 140’’’).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp with the electrode wire and the second wire comprising aluminum, the second wire feeder configured to feed the second wire arrangement, taught by Narayanan, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; the electrode wire and the second wire comprising aluminum, and a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the electrode wire feeder and second wire feeder arrangement, taught by Narayanan, for the wire feeder arrangement of Raudsepp, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the electrode wire feeder would have fed the aluminum electrode wire into a weld pool at a first feed rate while the second wire feeder would have fed the aluminum second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate where a controller would have controlled the first feed rate and the second feed rate to be the same or different. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). It was held that the selection of a known material based on its suitability for its intended use was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, In re Leshin, 227 F.2d 197, 125 USPQ 416 (CCPA 1960), MPEP 2144.07.
Re Claim 6, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the second wire feeder is configured to feed the second wire end into a front edge of the weld pool. The “front edge of the weld pool” is not a structural part of the additive manufacturing system since the “weld pool” only existed temporarily on the metal workpiece when the electric power source was actively inputting electric power through the electrode wire to create the “weld pool” and its “front edge”. In other words, when the electric power source stopped actively inputting electric power through the electrode wire the “weld pool” would have cooled and solidified into a portion of the workpiece. So the “weld pool” and its “front edge” would have ceased to exist when the electric power source stopped actively inputting electric power.
MPEP2144.04(VI) Rearrangement of Parts cited caselaw that rearrangement of parts was an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, to have said second wire feeder rearranged to feed said second wire end into a front edge of said weld pool, because rearranging the location of said second wire end to said front edge of said weld pool of Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, was an obvious matter of design choice since said rearrangement would not have changed the operation of the additive manufacturing system since the “weld pool” and its “front edge” were temporary artifacts on said workpiece.
Re Claims 11 and 12, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 11) further comprising a print controller configured to direct one or more control signals to at least one of the electric power input, the electrode wire feeder, and the second wire feeder and (Claim 12) wherein the one or more control signals vary at least one of the input electric power, the first feed rate, and the second feed rate while the weld pool moves.
Narayanan further teaches, in Figs. 1 – 20D and Col. 4, l. 65 to Col. 5, l. 15, (Claim 11) further comprising a print controller (180, 195) configured to direct one or more control signals (solid lines running to from 180 and 195) to at least one of the electric power input (170), the electrode wire feeder (150), and the second wire feeder (Col. 16, ll. 10 – 15 “Although not shown, each wire 140/140′ can be coupled to its own wire feeding apparatus to advance retract the respective wires 140/140′ as needed during manufacturing.”) and (Claim 12) wherein the one or more control signals vary at least one of the input electric power (Col. 4, ll. 55 - 65), the first feed rate (Col. 24, ll. 40 – 55), and the second feed rate (Col. 24, ll. 40 – 55) while the weld pool moves. Narayanan teaches, in Col. 24, ll. 40 – 55 and Figs. 13 and 15, using four separate wire feeders controlled by a controller (195) to individually control the wire feed speed, e.g., first feed rate and second feed rate, of four different wires (140, 140’, 140”, 140’’’).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with the print controller configured to direct one or more control signals to at least one of the electric power input, the electrode wire feeder, and the second wire feeder and wherein the one or more control signals vary at least one of the input electric power, the first feed rate, and the second feed rate while the weld pool moves, further taught by Narayanan, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the print controller configured to direct one or more control signals to at least one of the electric power input, the electrode wire feeder, and the second wire feeder and wherein the one or more control signals vary at least one of the input electric power, the first feed rate, and the second feed rate while the weld pool moves, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the print controller would have facilitated directing one or more control signals to at least one of the electric power input, the electrode wire feeder, and the second wire feeder to vary at least one of the input electric power, the first feed rate, and the second feed rate while the weld pool moves to facilitate laying down a weld bead on a workpiece. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 15, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the second wire feeder is further configured to position the second wire such that it substantially contacts the workpiece ahead of the weld pool and the weld pool is moved onto the second wire end as the weld pool moves. The “ahead of the weld pool” is not a structural part of the additive manufacturing system since the “weld pool” only existed temporarily on the metal workpiece when the electric power source was actively inputting electric power through the electrode wire to create the “weld pool” and its “front edge” and therefore the “ahead of the weld pool”. In other words, when the electric power source stopped actively inputting electric power through the electrode wire the “weld pool” would have cooled and solidified into a portion of the workpiece. So the “weld pool” and its “front edge” would have ceased to exist when the electric power source stopped actively inputting electric power. Furthermore, the “ahead of the weld pool” distance would have changed because the size/diameter of the weld pool would have started out as non-existent when the additive manufacturing system was turned “Off”, i.e., the electric power source was not actively inputting electric power through the electrode wire. When the additive manufacturing system was turned “On”, i.e., the electric power source started actively inputting electric power through the electrode wire to start creating the “weld pool” on a portion of the workpiece. When the additive manufacturing system was turned “On” the size of the “weld pool” on a portion of the workpiece would have grown from nothing to a very small size where the second wire feeder would have positioned the second wire such that it substantially contacts the workpiece ahead of the weld pool edge because the second wire was spaced a distance from the electrode end that was creating the “weld pool”.
MPEP2144.04(VI) Rearrangement of Parts cited caselaw that rearrangement of parts was an obvious matter of design choice. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950) (Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.); In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553, 188 USPQ 7 (CCPA 1975) (the particular placement of a contact in a conductivity measuring device was held to be an obvious matter of design choice).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, to have said second wire feeder rearranged to position said second wire such that it substantially contacts the workpiece ahead of the weld pool, because rearranging the orientation of said second wire feeder to position said second wire such that it substantially contacts the workpiece ahead of the weld pool of Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, was an obvious matter of design choice since said rearrangement would not have changed the operation of the additive manufacturing system since the “weld pool” and its “front edge” and therefore the “ahead of the weld pool” were all temporary artifacts on said workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that in the combination of Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, when the additive manufacturing system was turned “On” and the “weld pool” was moving across a surface of the workpiece the weld pool would have moved onto the second wire end as the weld pool moves.
Claims 7, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Anderson (4,947,024).
Re Claim 7, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising a shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the electrode wire and the second wire, wherein the second wire feeder is configured to position the second wire so that, when in use, the second wire does not shadow the introduction of the shield gas to the weld pool.
Anderson teaches, in Fig. 2, a shield gas nozzle (12) configured to introduce a shield gas (20) during deposition of the wire (16), wherein the wire feeder (50) is configured to position the wire (16) so that, when in use, the wire (16) does not shadow the introduction of the shield gas (20) to the weld pool (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with the shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the wire, wherein the wire feeder is configured to position the wire so that, when in use, the wire does not shadow the introduction of the shield gas to the weld pool, taught by Anderson, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the wire, wherein the wire feeder is configured to position the wire so that, when in use, the wire does not shadow the introduction of the shield gas to the weld pool, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., locating the shield gas nozzle to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the electrode wire and the second wire, wherein the second wire feeder is positioned so that the second wire passed through the center of the shield gas nozzle so that, when in use, the second wire would not have shadowed the introduction of the shield gas to the weld pool (melted region on the workpiece) so that the shield gas would have facilitated protecting the weld pool from atmospheric contamination that would have created defects in the weld, by enveloping the at least one of electrode wire and the second wire by the shield gas which was typically an inert gas like argon. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claims 13 and 14, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 13) wherein the shield gas nozzle includes a coating, wherein the coating mitigates sticking of material to the shield gas nozzle from sputtering and/or smoking from the weld pool during deposition and (Claim 14) wherein the coating comprises boron nitride and/or graphite.
Anderson teaches, in Fig. 2, a shield gas nozzle (12) that includes a coating (Col. 4, ll. 5 - 35), wherein the coating mitigates sticking of material (Col. 4, ll. 5 – 35 “spatter-resistant…facilitates cleaning of weld spatter”) to the shield gas nozzle (12) from sputtering and/or smoking from the weld pool during deposition, and (Claim 14) wherein the coating comprises boron nitride and/or graphite (Col. 4, ll. 25 – 35).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with the shield gas nozzle includes a coating, wherein the coating mitigates sticking of material to the shield gas nozzle from sputtering and/or smoking from the weld pool during deposition and wherein the coating comprises boron nitride and/or graphite, taught by Anderson, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the shield gas nozzle includes a coating, wherein the coating mitigates sticking of material to the shield gas nozzle from sputtering and/or smoking from the weld pool during deposition and wherein the coating comprises boron nitride and/or graphite, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., locating the shield gas nozzle to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the electrode wire and the second wire, would have facilitated protecting the weld pool from atmospheric contamination that would have created defects in the weld, by enveloping the at least one of electrode wire and the second wire by the shield gas which was typically an inert gas like argon. Furthermore, as taught by Anderson, in Col. 4, ll. 5 – 35, the coating facilitated cleaning of weld spatter off of the shield gas nozzle. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978) as applied to Claim 5 above, and further in view of Golding (9,289,843).
Re Claim 8, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein an insertion angle of the second wire end is between 10 degrees to 20 degrees with respect to the workpiece.
Golding teaches, in Figs. 1 - 5, a similar additive manufacturing system having an insertion angle (θ - Fig. 3) of the wire end (Y distance) is between 10 degrees to 20 degrees (range of 15° to 90° - Col. 3, ll. 35 - 55) with respect to the workpiece (W).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with the insertion angle of the second wire end is between 10 degrees to 20 degrees (e.g., 15 degrees to 90 degrees) with respect to the workpiece, taught by Golding, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the insertion angle of the second wire end is between 10 degrees to 20 degrees with respect to the workpiece, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., arranging the second wire end so that its insertion angle would have been between 10 degrees and 20 degrees with respect to the workpiece would have facilitated melting the material of the second weld end into the weld pool during use without blocking the shield gas. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978) in view of Golding (9,289,843) as applied to Claim 8 above, and further in view of Anderson (4,947,024).
Re Claim 9, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Golding, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, further comprising a shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the electrode wire and the second wire, wherein the second wire feeder is configured to position the second wire end at the insertion angle such that the second wire does not substantially shadow the introduction of the shield gas to the weld pool.
Anderson teaches, in Fig. 2, a shield gas nozzle (12) configured to introduce a shield gas (20) during deposition of the wire (16), wherein the wire feeder (50) is configured to position the wire end (16) at an insertion angle such that the wire (16) does not substantially shadow the introduction of the shield gas (20) to the weld pool (40).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Golding, with the shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the wire, wherein the wire feeder is configured to position the wire end at the insertion angle such that the wire does not substantially shadow the introduction of the shield gas to the weld pool, taught by Anderson, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the electrode wire and the second wire, wherein the wire feeder is configured to position the wire end at the insertion angle such that the wire does not substantially shadow the introduction of the shield gas to the weld pool, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., locating the shield gas nozzle to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the weld material (melted electrode wire), wherein the second wire feeder is positioned so that the second wire passed through the center of the shield gas nozzle so that, when in use, the second wire would not have shadowed the introduction of the shield gas to the weld pool (melted region on the workpiece) so that the shield gas would have protected the weld pool from atmospheric contamination that would have created defects in the weld, by enveloping the at least one of electrode wire and the second wire by the shield gas which was typically an inert gas like argon. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978) in view of Golding (9,289,843) in view of Anderson (4,947,024) as applied to Claim 9 above, and further in view of Lesnewich (2,929,912).
Re Claim 10, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Golding, and Anderson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the shield gas nozzle has a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder within an outer cylinder, wherein the inner cylinder is concentric to the outer cylinder.
Lesnewich teaches, in Figs. 1 – 7, a shield gas nozzle (best seen in Figs. 2 and 7) has a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder (38) within an outer cylinder (39), wherein the inner cylinder (38) is concentric to the outer cylinder (39 – Col. 3, ll. 60 - 70).
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Golding, and Anderson, with the shield gas nozzle has a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder within an outer cylinder, wherein the inner cylinder is concentric to the outer cylinder arrangement, taught by Lesnewich, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; and the shield gas nozzle has a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder within an outer cylinder, wherein the inner cylinder is concentric to the outer cylinder, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the shield gas nozzle has a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder within an outer cylinder, wherein the inner cylinder is concentric to the outer cylinder arrangement, taught by Lesnewich, for the shield gas nozzle arrangement of Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Golding, and Anderson, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the shield gas nozzle having a coaxial shape comprising an inner cylinder within an outer cylinder would have facilitated channeling at least one annular shield gas flow around the electrode wire end, the second wire end, and the weld pool to facilitate protecting the weld pool from atmospheric contamination that would have created defects in the weld. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B).
Claims 16, 17, 19, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978) in view of Soh et al. (WO2021/054894A1).
Re Claims 16 and 17, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 16) further comprising one or more positioning sensors to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire and (Claim 17) wherein the one or more positioning sensors comprise an optical sensor for monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece.
Soh teaches, in Figs. 1A – 9D, a similar additive manufacturing system (100, 200, and 400, Para. [0002] “Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)”) having one or more positioning sensors (130, 132) to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire (from 122) and wherein the one or more positioning sensors (130, 132) comprises an optical sensor (Para. [00022] “optical sensor”) for monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire (from 122) with respect to the workpiece (104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with the one or more positioning sensors comprises an optical sensor for monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece, taught by Soh, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the one or more positioning sensors comprises an optical sensor for monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating one or more optical sensors in the additive manufacturing system would have facilitated monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claims 16, 19, and 20, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 16) further comprising one or more positioning sensors to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire, (Claim 19) wherein the one or more positioning sensors comprise a thickness sensor configured to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece and (Claim 20) wherein the thickness sensor comprises a laser profile scanner.
Soh teaches, in Figs. 1A – 9D, a similar additive manufacturing system (100, 200, and 400, Para. [0002] “Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)”) having one or more positioning sensors (130, 132) to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire (from 122), and wherein the one or more positioning sensors comprises a thickness sensor (Para. [00024] “…the sensor arrangement 130 may scan the surface 104 of the deposited layer of the material 102 and generate surface topology data including, but not limited to, thickness, height, surface roughness, positions, etc., for the entire surface 104.”) configured to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece (104), and wherein the thickness sensor comprises a laser profile scanner (Para. [00066] “…the sensor arrangement 130 of the apparatus 400 may include at least one laser sensor in the form of a 2D laser scanner 432 (MICRO-EPSILON SCANCONTROL 2910-100).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with the one or more positioning sensors to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire, wherein the one or more positioning sensors comprise a thickness sensor configured to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece and wherein the thickness sensor comprises a laser profile scanner, taught by Soh, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the one or more positioning sensors comprise a thickness sensor comprises a laser profile scanner configured to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating one or more sensors comprising a laser profile scanner in the additive manufacturing system would have facilitated monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claims 16 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Raudsepp et al. (10,137,521) in view of Narayanan et al. (9,839,978) in view of Artelsmair et al. (6,831,251).
Re Claims 16 and 18, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 16) further comprising one or more positioning sensors to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire and (Claim 18) wherein the one or more positioning sensors comprise a force sensor configured to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece.
Artelsmair teaches, in Figs. 1 – 8, a similar additive manufacturing system (1) having one or more positioning sensors (31) to monitor the positioning of an electrode wire (13), wherein the one or more positioning sensors comprises a force sensor (31) configured to monitor the positioning of the electrode wire (13) with respect to the workpiece (16). Artelsmair teaches, in Col. 12, ll. 50 – 65 “Method of monitoring a feed force on a welding wire as the welding wire (13) is fed from a wire supply reel (14) to a welding torch (10), the feed force being implied by at least one welding wire feeder (27) and another welding wire feeder (28) for applying the feed force acting on the welding wire (13) in a feed direction…the feed force is detected in a tubular sensor (31) between the at least one welding wire feeder (27) and the other welding wire feeder (28)…”. Artelsmair teaches, in Col. 14, ll. 1 – 10, “Device for monitoring a feed force on a welding wire (13) as the welding wire (13) is fed from a wire supply reel (14) to a welding torch (10), comprising a first welding wire feeder (27), another welding wire feeder (28) for enhancing the feed force, a tubular sensor (31) for detecting the feed force…”.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, with the one or more positioning sensors comprises a force sensor for monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece, taught by Artelsmair, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the additive manufacturing system comprising: an electric power source configured to provide an input electric power through an electrode wire to create a weld pool on a workpiece; an electrode wire feeder configured to feed the electrode wire into the weld pool at a first feed rate while an electrode end of the electrode wire melts into the weld pool; a second wire feeder configured to feed a second wire into the weld pool at a second feed rate while a second wire end of the second wire melts into the weld pool; and the one or more positioning sensors comprises a force sensor for monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece, were known in the art, in combination each one of the components would perform the same function as it did separately, and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., integrating one or more force sensors would have facilitated monitoring the positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Conclusion
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant’s arguments on Pgs. 2 – 4 regarding the Drawing Objections are not persuasive. Applicant argues that the claimed structural limitations do not need to be shown because the Specification incorporates by reference several patent applications and thus provides Written Description support. The drawings and the Specification are separate parts of the original disclosure that have separate requirements. Issues with the specification would be addressed by 35 USC §112 rejection(s), not drawing objections. Conversely, issues with the original drawings would be addressed by drawing objections, not 35 USC §112 rejection(s). The drawing objections clearly stated “The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims.” In other words, structural limitations or arrangements of structural limitations that are important enough to be recited by the claims MUST be shown in the drawings of the instant application, NOT the drawings in another application. There are ten drawing objections for Claims 3, 7, 9, 10, 13, and 16 – 20, so half of the 20 claims recite structural limitations or arrangements of structural limitations that were not shown in the original drawings. Therefore, whether or not one or more different applications may or may not have shown the structural limitations or arrangements of structural limitations is irrelevant to the drawing objections of the instant application. 37 CFR 1.83(a) clearly stated “(a) The drawing in a nonprovisional application MUST SHOW every feature of the invention specified in the claims. However, conventional features disclosed in the description and claims, where their detailed illustration is not essential for a proper understanding of the invention, should be illustrated in the drawing in the form of a graphical drawing symbol or a labeled representation (e.g., a labeled rectangular box). In addition, tables that are included in the specification and sequences that are included in sequence listings should not be duplicated in the drawings.
(b) When the invention consists of an improvement on an old machine the drawing must when possible exhibit, in one or more views, the improved portion itself, disconnected from the old structure, and also in another view, so much only of the old structure as will suffice to show the connection of the invention therewith.
(c) Where the drawings in a nonprovisional application do not comply with the requirements of paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section, the examiner shall require such additional illustration within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof. Such corrections are subject to the requirements of § 1.81(d).”.
The drawing objections are maintained.
In response to applicant's argument on Pgs. 5 – 6 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., that the second wire is fed without the input electric power into the weld pool) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Independent Claims 1 and 5 both recite “comprising” as the transition phrase. MPEP2111.03(I) stated “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps. See, e.g., Mars Inc. v. H.J. Heinz Co., 377 F.3d 1369, 1376, 71 USPQ2d 1837, 1843 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("[L]ike the term ‘comprising,’ the terms ‘containing’ and ‘mixture’ are open-ended.").” Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments independent Claims 1 and 5 both failed to positively recite that the second wire is fed without the input electric power into the weld pool. It has been held that “During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2111.01. Consequently, the combination of the applied prior art discussed above reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed invention. The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. 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.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights