DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
This is in response to the above application filed on 08/17/2023 which is a 371 of PCT/EP2022/025058 filed on 02/21/2022 which claims foreign priority to EPO application EP21020086.1 filed on 02/22/2021. Claims 1 – 10 are examined.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in EPO on 02/22/2021. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the EP21020086.1 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “7” has been used to designate both the gas nozzle and the flexible enclosure. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 2 – 6 and 8 – 10 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2, l. 1 “Device according to” is believed to be in error for –The device
Claim 3, l. 1 “Device according to” is believed to be in error for –The device
Claim 4, l. 1 “Device according to” is believed to be in error for –The device
Claim 5, l. 1 “Device according to” is believed to be in error for –The device
Claim 6, l. 1 “Device according to” is believed to be in error for –The device
Claim 8, l. 1 “Method according to” is believed to be in error for –The method
Claim 9, l. 1 “Method according to claim 1, wherein” is believed to be in error for –The method 7, wherein-- because the preamble recites a method; however, Claim 1 is an apparatus.
Claim 10, l. 1 “Method according to claim 1, wherein” is believed to be in error for –The method 7, wherein-- because the preamble recites a method; however, Claim 1 is an apparatus.
Appropriate correction is required.
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” interpreted as ‘unit for cleaning’. 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.
Claims 1 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1, l. 12 and Claim 7, l. 8 recite “the enclosure comprises or consists of a flexible housing or a tent” 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 (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. It is improper for a claim to recite both the open-ended transitional phrase “comprises” and the closed-ended transitional phrase “consists of” because the scope of the claimed invention is unclear. MPEP2111.03(I) stated “The transitional term "comprising", which is synonymous with "including," "containing," or "characterized by," is inclusive or open-ended and does not exclude additional, unrecited elements or method steps.” MPEP2111.03(II) stated “When the phrase "consisting of" appears in a clause of the body of a claim, rather than immediately following the preamble, there is an "exceptionally strong presumption that a claim term set off with ‘consisting of’ is closed to unrecited elements." Multilayer Stretch Cling Film Holdings, Inc. v. Berry Plastics Corp., 831 F.3d 1350, 1359, 119 USPQ2d 1773, 1781 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (a layer "selected from the group consisting of" specific resins is closed to resins other than those listed)”. Claims 2 – 6, 9, and 10 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason. Claim 8 depends from Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason.
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. 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 three times (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 – 6, 9, and 10 depend from Claim 1 and are rejected for the same reason.
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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, Claim 7 recites the broad recitation “between 2 and 50 mbar”, and the claim also recites “preferably between 2 and 25 mbar” and “preferably between 5 and 20 mbar” which are narrower statements of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 8 depends from Claim 7 and is rejected for the same reason.
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 – 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forseth et al. (10,738,378) in view of 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), in particular for wire-arc additive manufacturing (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), characterized in that the sucking device (200, 220 - Col. 24, ll. 15 - 25) is connected to a buffer volume or a pressure stabilizing unit (Col. 10, l. 60 to Col. 11, l. 10).
Forseth is silent on said enclosure comprises or consists of 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 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.
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.
Regarding Claim 7, [Refer to the 112(b) rejections above.] Forseth teaches, in Figs. 1 – 5B, the invention as claimed, including a method for direct energy deposition additive manufacturing (Col. 1, ll. 20 - 25), in particular for wire-arc additive manufacturing (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, wherein a melt pool (“molten pool”) is generated on a surface of the workpiece to be formed and a metal wire is fed (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), characterized in that the pressure within the enclosure is maintained at an over-pressure between 2 and 50 mbar, preferably between 2 and 25 mbar, preferably between 5 and 20 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 or consists of 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).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forseth et al. (10,738,378) in view of 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 cleaning unit comprises a cyclone, 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 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).
Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Forseth et al. (10,738,378) in view of 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 into the process atmosphere and (Claim 4) 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).
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