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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 9/3/25 has been entered.
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.
Claim 2 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.
With respect to claim 2, limitation of “each droplet of the plurality of droplets comprises at least one metallic anchoring material” is ambiguous because it is not consistent with previous claim 1 which combines at least two metallic anchoring materials to form an electrode. In other words, each droplet resulting from the electrode comprises at least two metallic materials; at least one is inadequate. The recited inconsistent language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claim indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with the specification, the claim is taken to mean: each droplet of the plurality of droplets comprises at least two metallic anchoring materials. Appropriate correction is 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 1-6, 10 and 25-29 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 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 a 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 to form a wire electrode 58 (fig. 5A; col. 3, lines 25-27, 34-35).
As to claim 6, examiner maintains official notice with respect to using a robot to move the additive tool since use of a robot to maneuver a joining tool is conventionally known and within common knowledge of ordinary skill in the art. As one evidence, Zaffino (US 8367962) teaches automatic welding using multi-axis robot having a welding tool 26/28 and a feedback system 42 with a controller 38 (fig. 1).
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 25, Gu discloses the electrode being a welding wire (fig. 5).
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.
Claims 7 and 21 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 Almeida (Process Control and Development in WAAM, PhD Thesis, Cranfield University, 2012, NPL of record).
As to claims 7 and 21, 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.
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. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
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 1-10 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.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's arguments with respect to amended claim 1 have been fully considered but they are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Current 103 rejection is based on combination of Gu & Bruck and addresses the added matter in the amendment. It is also noted that claim 2 should be corrected.
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