DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to Applicant’s arguments and amendments filed on 07/06/2026 amending Claims 1 – 10 and adding new Claims 11 – 18. Claims 1 – 18 are examined.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/06/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, l. 13 “pressure stabilizing unit” interpreted as ‘unit for pressure stabilizing’. MPEP2181(I)(A) stated that “unit for” was among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim 3, l. 2 limitation “cleaning unit for cleaning process gas” interpreted as ‘unit for cleaning process gas’. MPEP2181(I)(A) stated that “unit for” was among a list of non-structural generic placeholders that may invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 1, l. 13 limitation “pressure stabilizing unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph interpretation. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. A review of the written description revealed that the limitation “pressure stabilizing unit” was disclosed four times (Abstract, Paras. [0006], [0014], and [0038] of PGPub 2024/0123533) without any further details as to exactly what structures are encompassed by the limitation. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 13 – 15, and 18 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason. Applicant argued on Pg. 6, second paragraph that “At page 8, the specification discloses weighted buffer volume 10 as a pressure stabilization device. Further, Fig. 1 illustrates weighted buffer volume 10. Thus, in light of applicants' specification, "pressure stabilizing unit" would not be indefinite to one of ordinary skill in the art.”. This is not persuasive because Claim 1, l. 13 actually recites “the sucking device is connected to a buffer volume or a pressure stabilizing unit”. Specification Pg. 8, ll. 1 – 7 (or Para. [0034] of PGPub 2024/0123533) discloses “Further, a weighted buffer volume 10 or another pressure stabilization device is provided in the process gas recirculation circuit.” So Applicant’s argued weighted buffer volume (10) shown in Fig. 1 and discussed on Specification Pg. 8, ll. 1 – 7 provides support for the claimed “buffer volume” but fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the claimed “pressure stabilizing unit” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. Additionally, the original Specification disclosed two different terms “pressure stabilizing unit” (4 times) and “pressure stabilization device” (3 times). The Abstract, Paras. [0006], [0014], and [0038] of PGPub 2024/0123533 disclosed “pressure stabilizing unit”. Para. [0034] of PGPub 2024/0123533 disclosed “pressure stabilization device”. If Applicant’s position is that the “pressure stabilizing unit” (4 times) and the “pressure stabilization device” (3 times) describe the thing or group of things, then why did the original Specification use two different names for the same thing? MPEP 608.01(o) states "The use of a confusing variety of terms for the same thing should not be permitted”. Again Claim 1, l. 13 actually recites “the sucking device is connected to a buffer volume or a pressure stabilizing unit”. While the original Specification and Fig. 1 sufficiently described and showed, respectively, the weighted buffer volume (10) to support the claimed “buffer volume”, there is no support for the claimed “pressure stabilizing unit”. As disclosed and shown, the buffer volume and the pressure stabilizing unit are different devices. The Abstract, Paras. [0006], [0014], and [0038] of PGPub 2024/0123533 merely repeated the term “pressure stabilizing unit” four times without any further details as to exactly what structures are encompassed by the limitation. Para. [0038] disclosed “The pressure within the enclosure is maintained at a slight overpressure by a buffer volume, and in particular a weighted buffer volume, or another pressure stabilizing unit located in the recirculation circuit.” The Abstract, Paras. [0006], [0014], and [0038] failed to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the disclosed and claimed another “pressure stabilizing unit” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. As would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art, there are many different ways to effect the stabilization of pressure inside the enclosure. The specification does not provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand which mechanical structures perform(s) the claimed function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. The 112(b) rejections are maintained.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 4, 16, and 17 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 4 recited “The device according to claim 4, wherein the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone.” Since Claim 4 depends from itself, it is a circular loop and an improper dependent claim which is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. New Claims 16 and 17 depend from Claim 4 and are rejected for the same reasons.
New Claim 17 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. New Claim 17, l. 2 recited “the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone or…”. New Claim 17 depend from Claim 4. Claim 4 recited “The device according to claim 4, wherein the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone.”
Furthermore, it is unclear if the “a cyclone” recited in dependent Claim 17 is the same as the “cyclone” recited in Claim 4 or in addition to the “cyclone” recited in Claim 4.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
NEW Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. NEW Claim 16 recites “The device according to claim 4, wherein the cleaning unit comprises a filter”. Amended Claim 4 recites “The device according to claim 4, wherein the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone”. NEW Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It is improper for dependent Claim 16 to change the cleaning unit from a cyclone (recited in Claim 4) to a filter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
NEW Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. NEW Claim 17 recites “The device according to claim 4, wherein the sucking device comprises a pump or a compressor and the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone or a filter, and the cleaning unit is positioned upstream of the sucking device”. Amended Claim 4 recites “The device according to claim 4, wherein the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone”. NEW Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) as being of improper dependent form for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. It is improper for dependent Claim 17 to change the cleaning unit from a cyclone (recited in Claim 4) to a filter. Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 5 – 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidbauer (DE102008047491A1, cited in 08/17/2023 IDS) in view of Michael Fletcher, “More Manufacturers Take a Closer Look at Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)”, Fabricating & Metalworking, May 15, 2020 [accessed on 02/27/2026 at https://fabricatingandmetalworking.com/more-manufacturers-take-a-closer-look-at-wire-arc-additive-manufacturing-waam/], hereinafter “Fletcher”.
Regarding Claim 1, [Refer to the 112(b) rejections above.] Forseth teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5B, the invention as claimed, including a device (Fig.1) for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing (Col. 1, ll. 20 – 25 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 35), comprising:- a welding torch (Col. 6, l. 64 to Col. 7, l. 25 and Col. 7, l. 60 to Col. 8, l. 15) configured to generate an arc for generating a melt pool on a surface of a workpiece (Col. 8, ll. 5 - 15 “The metal wire is used as a consumable electrode and is melted in the plasma produced by the torch using an electric arc, and the melting consumable electrode is deposited onto the surface of or into a molten pool on the base material to add to, and to form, the near net shape metal bodies or workpieces.”), and - a wire feeder (Col. 7, ll. 25 - 35) configured to feed a wire towards the melt pool to generate a weld seam on said surface, and - an enclosure (100 – Fig. 1 and Col. 9, ll. 55 - 65) enclosing at least part of the workpiece (located inside 130 - Col. 18, ll. 40 - 45) and comprising a process atmosphere with a process gas (Col. 11, ll. 1 - 15), - a sucking device (200, 220 - Col. 24, ll. 15 - 25) configured to suck part of the process gas out of the enclosure (100, 130) and thereafter to re-introduce the process gas into the process atmosphere (via 240), wherein the sucking device (200, 220 - Col. 24, ll. 15 - 25) is connected to (when all the components were assembled, i.e., connected, together into the device for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing and during operation of the device the process atmosphere/gas would have connected the sucking device to the pressure stabilizing unit because both would have been fluidly connected to the process atmosphere/gas) a buffer volume or a pressure stabilizing unit (As discussed in the Claim Interpretation section above, the phrase ‘pressure stabilizing unit’ invokes 112(f) interpretation; however, as discussed in the 112(b) rejection above, the original disclosure fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function of the ‘unit for stabilizing pressure’ which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) interpretation. In the interest of compact prosecution the ‘unit for stabilizing pressure’ will be given the broadest reasonable interpretation of any device capable of performing the function. Forseth teaches, in Col. 10, l. 60 to Col. 11, l. 10, “Each chamber can be equipped with an individual flow controller that can measure and control the flow of gas into the chamber, such as a mass flow controller or volumetric flow controller. … The pressure in each chamber may also be independently monitored, controlled and maintained. … In embodiments in which a chamber is filled with an inert gas, such as argon, the pressure of that chamber is preferably maintained above atmospheric pressure.” Forseth further teaches, in Col. 28, ll. 15 - 30, any suitable inert gas blower that can blow at any flow rate that creates a pressure that is higher than the pressure outside the chamber so as to prevent any gasses from entering the chamber, e.g., maintained/stabilized the pressure. Forseth’s mass flow controller or volumetric flow controller, e.g., the inert gas blower, reads on the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claimed ‘unit for stabilizing pressure’.).
Forseth is silent on said enclosure comprises a flexible housing or a tent.
Schmidbauer teaches, in the sole figure and Machine Translation Para. [0017], a similar device for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing having an enclosure (16) comprising a flexible housing/tent (Machine Translation Para. [0017] “The protective gas tent 16 is made of plastic, although other suitable flexible materials can also be used.”). Fletcher teaches, on Pg. 3, fourth from last paragraph, a similar device for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing [wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM)] having a flexible housing/tent enclosure because “Flexible enclosures cost less than 10% of a metal glove box and 2% that of a metal vacuum system.”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Forseth with the enclosure comprising a flexible housing or a tent, taught by Schmidbauer and Fletcher, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the enclosure and the flexible housing/tent enclosure, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the flexible housing or a tent, taught by Schmidbauer and Fletcher, for the enclosure of Forseth, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the flexible housing/tent enclosure would have facilitated maintaining the oxygen content inside said flexible enclosure well below 100 ppm (0.01%) which would have been low enough to prevent significant oxidation of sensitive alloys during welding and cooling. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). Fletcher teaches, on Pg. 3, fourth from last paragraph, “Flexible enclosures cost less than 10% of a metal glove box and 2% that of a metal vacuum system.”
Re Claim 5, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 22, ll. 20 - 35, wherein the sucking device (200, 220) is connected to a heat exchanger or a cooling unit (Col. 22, ll. 20 – 35 “Also, deposition chamber 130 can be equipped with temperature control devices. The temperature control devices can include an electric heater, a gas heater, a heat exchanger, chiller, an electric cooling system or a combination thereof.”) for cooling the process gas prior to re-introduction of the process gas into the process atmosphere.
Re Claim 6, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 23, ll. 40 - 45, wherein the sucking device comprises a pump (Col. 23, ll. 40 – 45 “The vents of deposition chamber 130 can be connected to separate vacuum pumps.”) or a compressor.
Regarding Claim 7, Forseth teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5B, the invention as claimed, including a method for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing (Col. 1, ll. 20 – 25 and Col. 7, ll. 25 - 35), of a workpiece (Col. 8, ll. 5 - 15 “The metal wire is used as a consumable electrode and is melted in the plasma produced by the torch using an electric arc, and the melting consumable electrode is deposited onto the surface of or into a molten pool on the base material to add to, and to form, the near net shape metal bodies or workpieces.”) layer by layer, comprising generating a melt pool (“molten pool”) on a surface of the workpiece to be formed and feeding a metal wire (Col. 7, ll. 25 - 35) towards the melt pool (“molten pool”) to generate a weld seam, wherein the melt pool (“molten pool”) is enclosed by an enclosure (100 – Fig. 1 and Col. 9, ll. 55 - 65) and a process atmosphere with a process gas (Col. 11, ll. 1 - 15) is provided within the enclosure, and wherein part of the process gas is withdrawn from the process atmosphere and subsequently re-introduced into the process atmosphere (Col. 24, ll. 15 - 25), and wherein the pressure within the enclosure is maintained at an over-pressure between 2 and 50 mbar (Col. 11, ll. 55 – 65 “…the chambers are maintained at or just above atmospheric pressure, thus a suitable material can include a material that is able to at least maintain physical integrity at least at atmospheric pressure or at a pressure that is from about 1 - 20 millibars above atmospheric pressure, or from about 1 - 10 millibars above atmospheric pressure, or about 2 - 8 millibars above atmospheric pressure.”).
Forseth is silent on said enclosure comprises a flexible housing or a tent.
Schmidbauer teaches, in the sole figure and Machine Translation Para. [0017], a similar device for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing having an enclosure (16) comprising a flexible housing/tent (Machine Translation Para. [0017] “The protective gas tent 16 is made of plastic, although other suitable flexible materials can also be used.”). Fletcher teaches, on Pg. 3, fourth from last paragraph, a similar device for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing [wire arc additive manufacturing (WAAM)] having a flexible housing/tent enclosure because “Flexible enclosures cost less than 10% of a metal glove box and 2% that of a metal vacuum system.”
It would have been obvious, to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Forseth with the enclosure comprising a flexible housing or a tent, taught by Schmidbauer and Fletcher, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the enclosure and the flexible housing/tent enclosure, were known in the art, and one skilled in the art could have substituted the flexible housing or a tent, taught by Schmidbauer and Fletcher, for the enclosure of Forseth, with no change in their respective functions, to yield predictable results, i.e., the flexible housing/tent enclosure would have facilitated maintaining the oxygen content inside said flexible enclosure well below 100 ppm (0.01%) which would have been low enough to prevent significant oxidation of sensitive alloys during welding and cooling. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(B). Fletcher teaches, on Pg. 3, fourth from last paragraph, “Flexible enclosures cost less than 10% of a metal glove box and 2% that of a metal vacuum system.”
Re Claim 8, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 5 - 15, wherein the process gas is withdrawn from the process atmosphere and passed out of the enclosure (“Fan 220 can be used to intake the gas inside deposition chamber 130 and force it to pass through heat exchanger 230.” As shown in Fig. 3, the heat exchanger 230 was located outside of the enclosure 130).
Re Claim 9, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 5 - 15, wherein the process atmosphere comprises argon (“An exemplary inert gas is argon”), nitrogen and/or helium (“For example, a mixture of argon with any of helium, neon, xenon or krypton can be used”).
Re Claim 10, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 24, ll. 20 – 25, wherein the process gas is cleaned and/or cooled (Col. 24, ll. 20 – 25 “After passing through heat exchanger 230, the cooled gas is directed back into deposition chamber 130 by way of pipes and vent system 240.”) prior to being re-introduced into the process atmosphere.
Re Claim 11, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 55 – 65, wherein the enclosure is maintained at an over-pressure between 2 and 25 mbar. Forseth teaches an over-pressure between about 1 - 20 millibars or from about 1 - 10 millibars or about 2 - 8 millibars above atmospheric pressure which overlapped or falls within the claimed range. MPEP2144.05(I) “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re Claim 12, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 55 – 65, wherein the enclosure is maintained at an over-pressure between 5 and 20 mbar. Forseth teaches an over-pressure between about 1 - 20 millibars or from about 1 - 10 millibars or about 2 - 8 millibars above atmospheric pressure which overlapped or falls within the claimed range. MPEP2144.05(I) “In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Re Claim 13, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Schmidbauer further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0017], wherein the flexible housing or tent is made of material comprising rubber or plastics. Schmidbauer further teaches, in Machine Translation Para. [0017], “The protective gas tent 16 is made of plastic, although other suitable flexible materials can also be used.” It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, that the combination of Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, would have had the flexible housing or tent be made of material comprising rubber or plastics because it has been 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 18, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Fig. 3 and Col. 11, ll. 5 - 15, wherein the sucking device (200, 220) is connected to a heat exchanger (230) for cooling the process gas prior to re-introduction of the process gas (via 240) into the process atmosphere (inside 130), and wherein the heat exchanger (230) is positioned downstream of the sucking device (200, 220 – shown in Fig. 3). Forseth further teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 5 - 15, “Fan 220 can be used to intake the gas inside deposition chamber 130 and force it to pass through heat exchanger 230.”
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidbauer (DE102008047491A1, cited in 08/17/2023 IDS) in view of Michael Fletcher, “More Manufacturers Take a Closer Look at Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)”, Fabricating & Metalworking, May 15, 2020 [accessed on 02/27/2026 at https://fabricatingandmetalworking.com/more-manufacturers-take-a-closer-look-at-wire-arc-additive-manufacturing-waam/], hereinafter “Fletcher” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Anderson (4,947,024).
Re Claim 2, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 24, ll. 20 – 25, re-introducing the gas into the process atmosphere. (Col. 24, ll. 20 – 25 “After passing through heat exchanger 230, the cooled gas is directed back into deposition chamber 130 by way of pipes and vent system 240.”)
Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, as discussed above, is silent on a nozzle is provided for re-introducing the gas into the process atmosphere wherein the nozzle is placed next to the welding torch.
Anderson teaches, in Figs. 1 – 3, a similar welding device having a nozzle (12) provided for introducing a gas (20) into the process atmosphere (around the weld arc) wherein the nozzle (20) was placed next to the welding torch (34, 52).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, with the nozzle is provided for introducing a shielding gas into the process atmosphere wherein the nozzle is placed next to the welding torch, taught by Anderson, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the device for wire-arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), comprising: a welding torch, a wire feeder, and an enclosure enclosing at least part of the workpiece and comprising a process atmosphere with a process gas, a sucking device configured to suck part of the process gas out of the enclosure and thereafter to re-introduce the process gas into the process atmosphere, and the nozzle is placed next to the welding torch for introducing a shield gas into the process atmosphere around the weld arc, 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., placing the nozzle next to the welding torch would have facilitated re-introducing the process/shield gas into the process atmosphere to envelop the weld arc thereby preventing significant oxidation during welding of sensitive alloys since the inert process/shield gas would have kept oxygen atoms away from the weld arc. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Claims 2, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidbauer (DE102008047491A1, cited in 08/17/2023 IDS) in view of Michael Fletcher, “More Manufacturers Take a Closer Look at Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)”, Fabricating & Metalworking, May 15, 2020 [accessed on 02/27/2026 at https://fabricatingandmetalworking.com/more-manufacturers-take-a-closer-look-at-wire-arc-additive-manufacturing-waam/], hereinafter “Fletcher” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Rudnicki et al. (5,900,167).
Re Claim 2, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Forseth further teaches, in Col. 24, ll. 20 – 25, re-introducing the gas into the process atmosphere. (Col. 24, ll. 20 – 25 “After passing through heat exchanger 230, the cooled gas is directed back into deposition chamber 130 by way of pipes and vent system 240.”)
Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, as discussed above, is silent on a nozzle is provided for re-introducing the gas into the process atmosphere wherein the nozzle is placed next to the welding torch.
Rudnicki teaches, in Col. 4, ll. 24 – 40 and Figs. 3 and 3a, a similar welding device having a nozzle (230 and 232) provided for introducing a gas (shielding gas from 234) into the process atmosphere (around the weld arc) wherein the nozzle (230 and 232) was placed next to a welding torch (212, 222).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, with the nozzle is provided for introducing the shielding gas into a process atmosphere wherein the nozzle is placed next to the welding torch, taught by Rudnicki, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the device for wire-arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), comprising: a welding torch, a wire feeder, and an enclosure enclosing at least part of the workpiece and comprising a process atmosphere with a process gas, a sucking device configured to suck part of the process gas out of the enclosure and thereafter to re-introduce the process gas into the process atmosphere, and the nozzle is placed next to the welding torch for introducing a shield gas into the process atmosphere around the weld arc, 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., placing the nozzle next to the welding torch would have facilitated re-introducing the process/shield gas into the process atmosphere to envelop the weld arc thereby preventing significant oxidation during welding of sensitive alloys since the inert process/shield gas would have kept oxygen atoms away from the weld arc. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 14, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Rudnicki further teaches, in Fig. 3, wherein the nozzle (230 and 232) was spaced apart from the welding torch (212, 222) by a distance (shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, with the nozzle was spaced apart from the welding torch by a distance, further taught by Rudnicki, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the device for wire-arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), comprising: a welding torch, a wire feeder, and an enclosure enclosing at least part of the workpiece and comprising a process atmosphere with a process gas, a sucking device configured to suck part of the process gas out of the enclosure and thereafter to re-introduce the process gas into the process atmosphere, and the nozzle was spaced apart from the welding torch by a distance, 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., spacing the nozzle a distance from the welding torch would have facilitated directing the process/shield gas to surround the weld arc thereby preventing significant oxidation during welding of sensitive alloys. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, as discussed above, is silent on said distance being within the range of from 10 mm to 200 mm.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, to have said distance be within the range of from 10 mm to 200 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that said “distance being within the range of from 10 mm to 200 mm” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Para. [0024] disclosed “Preferably, in an embodiment, the nozzle is spaced apart from the welding torch by a distance that lies in the range from 10 mm to 200 mm, particularly in the range from 50 mm to 100 mm”. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the distance shown in Rudnicki – Fig. 3 because Rudnicki teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 25 – 30, that providing shielding gas facilitated yielding good quality welds.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 14.
Re Claim 15, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, and Rudnicki further teaches, in Fig. 3, wherein the nozzle (230 and 232) was spaced apart from the welding torch (212, 222) by a distance (shown in Fig. 3).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, with the nozzle was spaced apart from the welding torch by a distance, further taught by Rudnicki, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the device for wire-arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), comprising: a welding torch, a wire feeder, and an enclosure enclosing at least part of the workpiece and comprising a process atmosphere with a process gas, a sucking device configured to suck part of the process gas out of the enclosure and thereafter to re-introduce the process gas into the process atmosphere, and the nozzle was spaced apart from the welding torch by a distance, 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., spacing the nozzle a distance from the welding torch would have facilitated directing the process/shield gas to surround the weld arc thereby preventing significant oxidation during welding of sensitive alloys. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, as discussed above, is silent on said distance being within the range of from 50 mm to 100 mm.
At the time the invention was made, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, to have said distance be within the range of from 50 mm to 100 mm because Applicant has not disclosed that said “distance being within the range of from 50 mm to 100 mm” provides an advantage, is used for a particular purpose, or solves a stated problem. In fact, Para. [0024] disclosed “Preferably, in an embodiment, the nozzle is spaced apart from the welding torch by a distance that lies in the range from 10 mm to 200 mm, particularly in the range from 50 mm to 100 mm”. One of ordinary skill furthermore, would have expected Applicant’s invention to perform equally well with the distance shown in Rudnicki – Fig. 3 because Rudnicki teaches, in Col. 2, ll. 25 – 30, that providing shielding gas facilitated yielding good quality welds.
Therefore, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Rudnicki, to obtain the invention as specified in Claim 15.
Claims 3, 4, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schmidbauer (DE102008047491A1, cited in 08/17/2023 IDS) in view of Michael Fletcher, “More Manufacturers Take a Closer Look at Wire Arc Additive Manufacturing (WAAM)”, Fabricating & Metalworking, May 15, 2020 [accessed on 02/27/2026 at https://fabricatingandmetalworking.com/more-manufacturers-take-a-closer-look-at-wire-arc-additive-manufacturing-waam/], hereinafter “Fletcher” as applied to Claim 1 above, and further in view of Premel et al. (4,694,782).
Re Claims 3 and 4, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except, (Claim 3) wherein said sucking device is connected to a cleaning unit for cleaning the process gas prior to re-introduction of the process gas into the process atmosphere and (Claim 4) [As discussed in the 112(b) rejection above, Claim 4 depends from itself which is a circular loop and an improper dependent claim rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) because the scope of the claimed invention is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, Claim 4 is interpreted as depending from Claim 3.] wherein the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone.
Premel teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 35 – 45 and Figs. 1 and 2, using a cyclone separator (11) to clean process gas (10) before said process gas proceeded to a heat exchanger (E).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer and Fletcher, with the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone, taught by Premel, because all the claimed elements, i.e., the device for wire-arc additive manufacturing (WAAM), comprising: a welding torch, a wire feeder, and an enclosure enclosing at least part of the workpiece and comprising a process atmosphere with a process gas, a sucking device configured to suck part of the process gas out of the enclosure and thereafter to re-introduce the process gas into the process atmosphere, and the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone, 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 the cyclone separator into the recirculation system upstream of the sucking device would have facilitated reducing damage to the sucking device by separating out solid debris, i.e., dust and weld splatter, from the process gas before said cleaned process gas would be sucked into said sucking device. KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1395; MPEP 2143(A).
Re Claim 17, Forseth, i.v., Schmidbauer, Fletcher, and Premel, teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above, including wherein the sucking device (200, 220 - Col. 24, ll. 15 - 25) comprises a pump (a fan was technically a type of low-pressure gas pump) or a compressor and the cleaning unit comprises a cyclone or a filter, and the cleaning unit is positioned upstream of the sucking device, discussed in the Claims 3 and 4 rejections above.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered. To the extent possible they have been addressed in the rejections above at the appropriate locations, and furthermore they were found not persuasive for the following reasons.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7, first to fifth paragraphs that “The recirculation system 200 shown in Fig. 3 does not include a buffer volume or a pressure stabilizing unit. Thus, the sucking device, i.e., fan 220, of the recirculation system 200 is not disclosed as connected to a buffer volume or a pressure stabilizing unit.” Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Applicant is arguing a narrow interpretation of Claim 1 that isn’t supported by the claim language. It has been held that “During examination, the claims must be interpreted as broadly as their terms reasonably allow”. In re American Academy of Science Tech Center, 367 F.3d 1359, 1369, 70 USPQ2d 1827, 1834 (Fed. Cir. 2004); MPEP 2111.01. Claim 1, l. 13 merely recites “…the sucking device is connected to a buffer volume or a pressure stabilizing unit”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language reads on the assembled device for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing where all the structural components are connected together to form the whole/assembled device. The broadest reasonable interpretation of the claim language also reads on the process atmosphere/gas would have connected the sucking device to the pressure stabilizing unit because both would have been fluidly connected to the process atmosphere/gas during operation of the device. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 7, second to last paragraph continuing on to Pg. 9 that “…the proposed modification to replace one of more of the chambers of the chamber system of Forseth et al. would be contrary to the intended function and purpose of the Forseth et al. invention” and that “Further, it is evident such a modification would impact the principle of operation of Forseth et al.'s invention.” These arguments are not persuasive because Applicant is arguing the wrong embodiment of Forseth while ignoring the embodiment of Forseth applied in the rejections. Applicant’s arguments are based on the “vacuum embodiment” of Forseth that was not applied in the rejections. As discussed in the 35 USC §103 rejections, the “inert gas embodiment” of Forseth was applied in the rejections where an inert process gas was maintained at a pressure above atmospheric pressure (Col. 10, l. 60 to Col. 11, l. 10) to create a process atmosphere inside the enclosure to facilitate high quality welds by maintain a low oxygen concentration inside said enclosure. Forseth explicitly teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 1 – 10, “Maintaining the pressure of a chamber above atmospheric pressure will assist in preventing oxygen or other gases from outside the chamber from leaking into the chamber.” Consequently Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive because Forseth teaches an “inert gas embodiment” which is similar to Applicant’s disclosed and claimed invention where a process gas, e.g., an inert gas like argon, was used to create a process atmosphere inside the enclosure at an over-pressure, i.e., pressure above atmospheric pressure between 2 and 25 mbar. Forseth further teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 5 - 15, wherein the process atmosphere comprises argon (“An exemplary inert gas is argon”). Forseth further teaches, in Col. 11, ll. 55 – 65, wherein the enclosure is maintained at an over-pressure between about 1 - 20 millibars or from about 1 - 10 millibars or about 2 - 8 millibars above atmospheric pressure which overlapped or falls within the claimed range. Therefore, contrary to Applicant’s arguments the proposed modification of Forseth would NOT be “…contrary to the intended function and purpose of the Forseth et al. invention” and would NOT “…impact the principle of operation of Forseth et al.'s invention” because Forseth teaches an embodiment similar to Applicant’s disclosed and claimed invention. The rejections are maintained.
Applicant argues on Pg. 10, third to last paragraph that “Premel et al. is completely devoid of any disclosure or relevance to direct energy deposition additive manufacturing. As such, Premel et al. provides no suggestion as to how to clean process gas used in direct energy deposition additive manufacturing”. These arguments are not persuasive because Premel teaches, in Col. 3, ll. 35 – 45 and Figs. 1 and 2, using a cyclone separator (11) to clean process gas (10) before said process gas proceeded to a heat exchanger (E) which is exactly what Applicant claimed. In KSR, the Supreme Court particularly emphasized “the need for caution in granting a patent based on the combination of elements found in the prior art,” Id. at 415, 82 USPQ2d at 1395, and discussed circumstances in which a patent might be determined to be obvious. Importantly, the Supreme Court reaffirmed principles based on its precedent that “[t]he combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results.” Id. at 415-16, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. Applicant failed to disclose, claim, and argue any unexpected results from using a cyclone separator to clean process gas. The Supreme Court cited “[I]n Sakraida v. AG Pro, Inc., the Court derived . . . the conclusion that when a patent simply arranges old elements with each performing the same function it had been known to perform and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement, the combination is obvious.” Id. at 417, 82 USPQ2d at 1395-96 (Internal quotations omitted.) In this case, Applicant’s claimed invention simply arranges old elements (welding torch, workpiece, wire feeder, flexible enclosure enclosing at least part of the workpiece and comprising a process atmosphere with a process gas, a sucking device, a pressure stabilizing unit, a cleaning unit comprises a cyclone, etc.) with each performing the same function it had been known to perform (every structural device functions as designed and intended) and yields no more than one would expect from such an arrangement (Applicant’s disclosure failed to describe any unexpected results), therefore the combination is obvious. The rejections are maintained.
Correspondence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LORNE E MEADE whose telephone number is (571)270-7570. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached at 571-270-5426. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LORNE E MEADE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights