DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
As noted in previous office action, presently elected claims are drawn to an apparatus. "Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does." Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original). A claim containing a "recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus" if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987) (MPEP 2114). Examiner also notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (see MPEP 2115).
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 34-35 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.
With respect to claims 34-35, limitation of “a second mixer configured to combine the plurality of metallic anchoring materials together to form a second electrode” is ambiguous because it is not consistent with previous claim 1 which already combines the plurality metallic anchoring materials to form the first electrode. It is unclear how the same plurality of metallic wires are used to form both the firs electrode and the second electrode using different mixers. In other words, the metallic materials used in the second mixer would be distinct from those used in the first mixer and thus, they should be separately identified. As one alternative, the claim should identify a first mixer receiving a first plurality of metallic materials and a second mixer receiving a second plurality of metallic materials. The recited conflicting language lacks proper antecedent basis and fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claims are taken to mean: mixer configured to combine the plurality of metallic anchoring materials together to form an electrode. Appropriate corrections are requested.
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.
Claims 1-5, 10, 26-29, 32 and 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 7572403, hereafter “Gu”) in view of Bruck et al. (US 2013/0136868, “Bruck”).
Regarding claims 1-3, Gu discloses an additive manufacturing system (figs. 1-6), comprising:
one or more feeders (10A- fig. 2, 10B- fig. 4, 10C- fig. 5a) configured to supply a plurality of metallic anchoring materials (powders and/or wires- figs. 1-2, 5; col. 3, lines 4-35);
an additive manufacturing tool (head unit 12- fig. 6) configured to receive and combine the plurality of metallic anchoring materials (wires/powders) to form an electrode, wherein the tool comprises a mixer 54 configured to combine a plurality of metallic wires 52 together to form a resulting wire electrode 58 (fig. 5A; col. 3, lines 25-35), said tool is further configured to receive electrical power (power sources 24- figs. 1, 6) and apply the electrical power to the electrode to form a plurality of droplets used to build up a part (using power to melt material and form droplets- col. 3, lines 54-60), wherein each droplet of the plurality of droplets comprises at least two metallic anchoring materials/wires resulting from the electrode (col. 3, lines 25-27, 34-35); and
a controller comprising executable instructions (computer 16 with its supporting software programs and controllers 18, 20, 22- fig. 1) that causes the additive manufacturing tool to control the composition and application of each droplet to build up the part (col. 4, lines 4-35). Concerning power source being DC or AC power, Gu teaches that power source may include a laser source, multiple laser sources of differing wavelengths, infrared or UV lamps or other power sources which can produce sufficient energy to melt or otherwise alter the material being deposited; it is not intended to be limited to particular energy or source (col. 3, lines 54-60). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would understand this encompasses at least one of DC or AC power sources and thus, artisan would have found it obvious to employ any suitable DC or AC power source in the additive manufacturing system of Gu for the purpose of melting the material being deposited.
Although Gu is silent with respect to exact term “welding torch”, the head tool 12 (fig. 6) functions substantially as a welding torch because it forms and deposits droplets to build up the part. Anyhow, use of welding torch is known in the art. Bruck (also drawn to additive manufacturing process- abstract) teaches depositing welding wire filler/electrode 56 using a welding torch 54 onto a substrate 52 (fig. 3, [0029]). Analogous to Gu, Bruck also discloses depositing the wire filler deposited using an energy beam such as laser beam 64 (fig. 4, [0030]). Accordingly, artisan of ordinary skill would readily recognize that using any suitable welding torch/nozzle is known equivalent mechanism for depositing wire/electrode material. Given the torch 54 in Bruck, a torch can be similar to element 64, which processes the filler/electrode 52 as shown in fig. 5B of Gu. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to employ a welding torch in the apparatus of Gu (fig. 6) sinch using a torch to deposit materials is common knowledge in the additive manufacturing art, as evidenced by Bruck.
As to claims 4-5, Gu discloses that the mixer 54 (collector) is configured to receive and combine metallic anchoring wires 52 from feeders 50 by compressing them to form a wire electrode 58 (fig. 5A; col. 3, lines 25-27, 34-35).
As to claim 10, Gu teaches that power source may include a laser source, multiple laser sources of differing wavelengths, infrared or UV lamps or other power sources which can produce sufficient energy to melt or otherwise alter the material being deposited (col. 3, lines 54-60). Accordingly, one skilled in the art would understand this encompasses at least DC or AC power source and thus, one would have found it obvious to employ any suitable DC or AC power source in the additive manufacturing system of Gu. The power output is provided at the tool/head 12 (fig. 6- power sources 24 at the tool/heard 12; fig. 1- see fiber optic cables connected to the head 12).
As to claim 26, Gu discloses that the electrode coming out from the collector (54) in the tool comprises a mixed composition (figs. 2, 6; col. 3, lines 15-19, 62-66).
As to claims 27-29, Gu teaches at least two or more different types of feeders materials to create a mixed composition (col. 3, lines 4-19). Therefore, artisan of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to form a mixed electrode from two different compositions in additive manufacturing system of Gu for the purpose of creating a target component/composite with desired properties. It is also noted that any difference in materials (e.g. two different grades of metal wire with at least one different constituent) meets “different” composition.
As to claims 32 and 34-35, Gu shows that the mixer 34 is configured to combine the plurality of metallic anchoring materials/wires together to form the wire electrode 58 by compressing the wires (fig. 5A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Bruck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Almeida (Process Control and Development in WAAM, PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, 2012, NPL of record).
As to claim 7, Gu discloses other power sources, but does not mention power in the form of a pulsed welding waveform. However, such technique is known in the art. Almeida is directed to fundamental research and optimization methods for different wire and arc additive manufacturing (WAAM) systems (pg. 1- Introduction). One of the specific objectives was to investigate and study the relationship between arc welding parameters and weld bead geometry in multi-layer deposits (pg. 10- section 1.5- Aims and objective). Almeida discloses considering waveform modulations for developing process control model for WAAM (pg. 79- fig. 2.23); experiments were performed to obtain insight on the waveform of the welding current pulse parameters and effect on the weld surface quality (pg. 98-99, 101- 3.8.2.2; pg. 103- fig. 3.16). Almeida teaches that prior studies have shown the importance of different waveform shapes and dynamic control response on bead and fusion characteristics; one important goal of the study was the optimization of the waveform pulse parameters for improving the control and overall system performance in WAAM (paragraph bridging pg. 205-206). Consequently, this understanding would enable the selection of suitable and robust combination of pulse waveform parameters for WAAM additive manufacturing (pg. 209- 5.2.1.3). Reading the disclosure of Almeida, ordinary skilled artisan would recognize that pulsed welding waveform is known for additive manufacturing. Before the effective filing date of the invention, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to utilize a pulsed welding waveform in the additive manufacturing apparatus of Gu because doing so would provide better, finer control over the parameters in additive deposition process and thereby improve weld fusion layers quality, as suggested by Almeida.
Claims 8-9 and 30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Bruck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Goldenberg et al. (US 6347259, “Goldenberg”) & Zaffino et al. (US 8367962, “Zaffino”).
As to claims 8-9 and 30, Gu is silent as to a position sensor or a temperature sensor. However, providing such sensors are known in the art. Goldenberg discloses a high precision apparatus useful for microelectronic manufacturing and rapid prototyping (Background- col. 1, lines 34-36). Goldenberg teaches a control system for controlling movement of the dispenser head/tool 12 (fig. 1), wherein position sensors 28 (optical sensors) or sensors 155 (fig. 18) are used to obtain positional feedback information (col. 5, lines 9-25), which positional feedback is used to determine control parameters and including movement of dispensing head in x, y and/or z directions (col. 10, lines 26-32). Such position sensor can track and measure position of the additive manufacturing tool relative to the part. Similarly, Zaffino (directed to automatic welding) discloses a multi-axis robot having a welding tool 26/28 and a feedback system 42 with controller 38 (fig. 1), wherein various sensors are provided- 54 (feed rate sensor), 56 (voltage sensor), 58 (force sensor), 61 (other sensors) (col. 3, line 60 thru col. 4, line 12). Zaffino teaches that other sensors 61 may include an optical sensor to determine the position of the tool 28 (position sensor) relative to the workpiece and make adjustments to accommodate for variations; the temperature sensor 44 may also provide feedback to account for thermal growth and to make adjustments to the desired weld shape or electrode position (col. 4, lines 37-49). The weld shape is produced by deposited weld bead materials 74/76 using the tool 28 (fig. 4). Gu already discloses a controller comprising executable instructions (computer 16 with its supporting software programs and controllers 18, 20, 22- fig. 1) to control droplets deposition.
Given teachings of Goldenberg & Zaffino, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate position sensor & temperature sensor in the apparatus of Gu in order to provide position & temperature feedback which would allow to more efficiently control the additive manufacturing process with precise tool movement, thereby eliminating inaccurate positioning of the tool resulting in faulty built-up of droplets and adjusting desired weld shape on the part. One skilled in the art would be motivated to utilize a temperature sensor in the system of Gu because it would enable to track thermal growth of the part being built and make necessary adjustments to the three-dimensional shape. Hence, combination of Gu, Harwell, Goldenberg & Zaffino discloses a temperature sensor and the controller configured to execute instructions based on temperature measured by the temperature sensor, which includes indication of any burn through. Hence, Gu as modified by Goldenberg & Zaffino includes a position sensor that measures a position of the additive manufacturing tool relative to any base material or part, a temperature sensor configured to measure temperature of the part being built, and a controller configured to control the power output instructions based on the measured position and/or temperature.
Claim 33 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Bruck as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Voice et al. (US 9902018).
As to claim 33, Gu or Bruck does not disclose a shielding gas supplied to the additive tool. However, such feature is known in the art. Voice (also drawn to multi-wire feeder system for additive manufacturing- title) teaches a multi-wire feeder head/tool H depositing material on a workpiece surface 18 (fig. 1), wherein the deposition head/tool is operated in an inert gas atmosphere shield in order to minimize the exposure of molten or heated alloys to contamination and prevent uncontrolled reaction or oxidation (col. 15, lines 7-12). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide a shielding gas supply to the additive tool in Gu because doing so would prevent uncontrolled reaction or oxidation and minimize the exposure of molten electrode or droplets to contamination.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp.
Claims 1-4 and 7-10 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-10 of U.S. Patent No. 10,543,549 issue to Albrecht et al. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims of the issued patent discloses every feature of instant claims. The additive manufacturing system in claims 1-3 of the ‘549 patent comprises a tool configured to receive a plurality of metallic anchoring materials to form an electrode; a power source configured to provide DC or AC output in a controlled waveform so as to melt the electrode and apply the plurality of drops to build up a part; a position sensor configured to measure tool position; a temperature sensor; and a controller including executable instructions to cause the power source to adjust the power output.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 31 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including ALL of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. None of prior art appears to disclose or suggest the mixer configured to combine the metallic materials by melting or sintering them to form the wire electrode as recited.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments (filed 4/20/26) with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for reasons explained below. Arguments with respect to new claims 32-35 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Examiner notes that claim 31 appears allowable.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues:
Though it might be true that welding torches are known for depositing wire material, Gu is preferably directed to using material other than wire (i.e., powder and liquid), and welding torches are not well known as an equivalent mechanism for depositing materials other than wire (i.e., powder and/or liquid).
Applicant submits that Gu's apparatus would not work at all if Gu's liquid material was attempted to be used as an electrode in Bruck's are welding torch.
Applicant additionally notes that, even with respect to Gu's wire material, it would not have been obvious to use Bruck's welding torch with Gu's wire material, at least because Gu contemplates using non-metallic wire material. See, e.g., Gu at ("The wire used may be ... plastic, metal or ceramic material.") (emphasis added). A person of ordinary skill would understand that Bruck's arc welding torch requires metallic wire material to conduct the arc, and thus would not work with Gu's non-metallic (i.e., plastic and/or ceramic) wire material.
As modifying Gu to include the arc welding torch of Bruck would render Gu unsatisfactory for its intended purpose, there is no suggestion or motivation to modify the apparatus of Gu with the arc welding torch of Bruck.
In response, examiner submits that Gu is not limited to only powder and liquid, or only plastic or ceramic materials as argued above. Rather, Gu clearly teaches using metallic wire material: “The wire used may be a filament or multifilament of any suitable material such as plastic, metal or ceramic material” (col. 3, lines 34-35). Consequently, this line of argument is not convincing. Moreover, examiner clarifies that the modification does not require using an arc welding torch or forming an arc at all - the combination of Gu & Bruck is open to any torch or nozzle that receives the plurality of wire materials and heats/melts them to deposit on a substrate/part as desired by both Gu and Bruck.
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.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735
Prosecution Insights