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 the above application filed on 08/17/2023. Claims 1 – 20 are examined.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 05/13/2024 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. Applicant failed to supply a copy of foreign patent documents JP2004148367A and SG11202304465A1. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
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” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled Claims 3, 7, and 9 - 14. None of the original figures showed the shield gas nozzle and therefore none of the claimed arrangements or coatings. 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 comprises 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 comprises 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 comprises 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 comprises 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.
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.
Claims 1 – 4 and 7 - 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, l. 3 and l. 6 contains the trademark/trade name INCONEL. Where a trademark or trade name is used in a claim as a limitation to identify or describe a particular material or product, the claim does not comply with the requirements of 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. See Ex parte Simpson, 218 USPQ 1020 (Bd. App. 1982). The claim scope is uncertain since the trademark or trade name cannot be used properly to identify any particular material or product. A trademark or trade name is used to identify a source of goods, and not the goods themselves. Thus, a trademark or trade name does not identify or describe the goods associated with the trademark or trade name. In the present case, the trademark/trade name is used to identify/describe the source of the electrode wire material and, accordingly, the identification/description is indefinite. Claims 2 – 4 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
Claim 3, l. 2 recites the limitation "the weld material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4, l. 1 recites the limitation "the insertion angle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7, l. 2 recites the limitation "the weld material". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8, l. 1 recites the limitation "the insertion angle". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9, l. 2 recites the limitation "the weld material". 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).
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 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 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 Inconel.
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.
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, taught by Martin, 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 electrode wire, taught by Martin, 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 electrode wire into a weld pool at a first feed rate while the second wire feeder would have fed the Inconel 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, 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, 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, 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 applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (4,947,024).
Re Claim 3, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, 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 weld material, 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 weld material (when 16 was melted), 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 and Martin, with the shield gas nozzle configured to introduce a shield gas during deposition of the weld material, 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 weld material, 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 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. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 4, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan and Martin, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, wherein the 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, 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, 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 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 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.
Claim 7 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 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 weld material, 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 weld material (when 16 was melted), 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 weld material, 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 weld material, 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 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. 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 the 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).
Claims 9 - 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) in view of Golding (9,289,843) 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 weld material, 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 weld material (when 16 was melted), 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 weld material, 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 weld material, 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. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claims 10 - 14, Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Golding, and Anderson, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Anderson further teaches, in Figs. 1 - 3, (Claim 10) wherein the shield gas nozzle (12) has a coaxial shape (shown in Figs. 1 and 2) [Examiner notes that the phrase “so that the radius and volume of the shield gas is increased” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Golding, and Anderson can perform the function because Anderson taught the coaxial shaped shield gas nozzle.] so that the radius and volume of the shield gas is increased, (Claim 11) wherein the coaxial shape of the shield gas nozzle (12) [Examiner notes that the phrase “mitigates the shadowing due to the second wire” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Raudsepp, i.v., Narayanan, Golding, and Anderson can perform the function because Anderson taught the coaxial shaped shield gas nozzle.] mitigates the shadowing due to the second wire, (Claim 12) wherein the shield gas nozzle (12) includes a coating (Col. 4, ll. 5 - 35), (Claim 13) wherein 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).
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 comprises an optical sensor for monitoring the axial 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 axial 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 axial 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 comprises a thickness sensor configured to monitor the radial 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 radial 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 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 a thickness sensor comprises a laser profile scanner configured to monitor the radial 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 comprising a laser profile scanner in the additive manufacturing system would have facilitated monitoring the radial 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 comprises a force sensor configured to monitor the axial 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 axial 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 axial positioning of the electrode wire with respect to the workpiece. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
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