DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
Present claims 2-21 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). In the present case, configured to join a first workpiece…by additively forming part, configured to heat workpiece to a temperature less than.. (claim 2); configured to determine a controlled application rate (claim 3); configured to determine a controlled anchoring material temperature (claim 4) etc. appear to be functional limitations and concern intended use of the controller. Examiner further notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims” (MPEP 2115). For instance, to deposit molten droplets on the first workpiece via an opening in the second workpiece to build up a part (claims 2-5; to form a cap on the part (claim 8); and the first workpiece material is different than the second workpiece material (claim 19) relate to workpiece materials, which do not structurally limit the additive manufacturing tool or the controller.
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.
Claims 13-16 are 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 joint inventor(s) regards as the invention.
With respect to claims 13-16, feature of the controlled welding waveform lacks sufficient antecedent basis and is ambiguous because claim 2 does not mention any waveform. As explained in previous office action, limitations based on determining the controlled waveform do not seem to be supported by the original disclosure and constitute new matter. Unlike claims 2-5, it appears that Applicant may have overlooked to correct claims 13-16. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation consistent with specification, claims 13-16 are taken to mean as follows:
Claim 13. The additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein a first material melting temperature is lower than a second material melting temperature.
Claim 14. The additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the electric power comprises a short circuit welding waveform.
Claim 15. The additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the electric power comprises a controlled short circuit welding waveform.
Claim 16. The additive manufacturing system of claim 2, wherein the electric power comprises a pulsed welding waveform.
Appropriate corrections are required.
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 2-3, 5, 8-10, 12-13 and 17-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu et al. (US 7572403, hereafter “Gu”) in view of Harwell et al. (US 6143378, hereafter “Harwell”).
Regarding claims 2 and 5, Gu discloses an additive manufacturing system (figs. 1-6; col. 1, lines 18-25), comprising:
an additive manufacturing tool 12 (head- fig. 1) configured to receive one or more anchoring materials (powders, liquid and/or wires from feeders- figs. 1-2, 5; col. 3, lines 4-35);
power source(s) 24 (fig. 1) configured to provide electrical power to the one or more metallic anchoring materials to melt the metallic materials into a plurality of droplets (using power to melt material and form droplets- col. 3, lines 54-60), the additive tool 12 configured to deposit the plurality of droplets; and
a controller comprising executable instructions (computer 16 with its supporting software programs and controllers 18, 20, 22- fig. 1, col. 2, lines 60-65) configured to control the additive manufacturing tool and the power source to join first & second workpieces by additively forming a part from the anchoring material (col. 4, lines 4-33). Gu teaches that power sources are controlled by a power source control module 26 which is associated with the computer 16 (col. 2, lines 63-65); the power sources may include a laser source, multiple laser sources of differing wavelengths, infrared lamps or other power sources which can produce sufficient energy to melt the material being deposited (col. 3, lines 54-60). In this manner, the controller is configured to provide a welding waveform to heat one or more portions of the second workpiece and controlling the additive manufacturing tool to deposit a plurality of molten droplets to build up the part at least partially upon the first workpiece.
The manufacturing apparatus of Gu is well capable to form a joint between two same or different workpieces and doing so would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art in order to create a desired component/product. Nevertheless, disclosure of Harwell is cited herein regarding joining two workpieces. Harwell (also directed to additive manufacturing process- title) teaches that it has been known that additive manufacturing procedure can be adapted to form a single or multiple surface layers on a prefabricated component, an internal portion of a component, and for welding discrete pieces of a component together (Background- col. 1, lines 10-24, 61-65; col. 7, lines 25-32). Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize the controlled additive apparatus of Gu to fasten/join two workpieces of different materials with a built-up from plurality of droplets since joining discrete pieces to form a desired component/product is conventional in the art, as mentioned by Harwell.
Gu teaches using a computer implemented control system, wherein the composition may vary in different locations or regions of the object and one skilled in the art will appreciate that movement of the head/tool unit can be controlled in order to manufacture an object of a specific shape; the control algorithms necessary are well known, may be available commercially, and are well within ordinary skill in the art (col. 4, lines 4-19). The computer controller 16 is configured to control power sources through a power source control module 26 (col. 2, lines 63-65). Hence, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to apply droplets to a surface of a first workpiece through an opening in a second workpiece with a motivation of fabricating a component shape by joining two workpieces through the built up part. Examiner notes that features related to the type of workpieces (recess in workpieces) do not structurally limit the additive tool or controller
As to claims 3 and 9-10, Gu discloses that the controller (computer 16 with its supporting software programs and controllers 18, 20, 22- fig. 1, col. 2, lines 60-65) is configured to heat the anchoring material, to control both the application rate and application locations of plurality of molten droplets. Examiner takes 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, cited below) teaches automatic welding using multi-axis robot having a welding tool 26/28 and a feedback system 42 with controller 38 (fig. 1).
As to claims 8 and 12-13, Gu discloses that the computer controller 16 is configured to control power sources through a power source control module 26 (col. 2, lines 63-65) and so, the additive system is configured to form a cap/flange on the part to resist separation of two workpieces. Examiner again notes that features related to the workpieces (i.e. edge geometry, melting temperature of the materials) do not structurally limit the additive tool or controller.
As to claims 17-18, Gu the power sources may include a laser source, multiple laser sources of differing wavelengths, infrared lamps or other power sources which can produce sufficient energy to melt the material being deposited (col. 3, lines 54-60). AC or DC power are within common knowledge of skilled artisan and either would provide sufficient energy to melt the material being deposited. Thus, it would have been obvious to select either AC or DC power in the additive manufacturing system in Gu in order to melty & deposit metallic material(s) to build a desired three-dimensional object.
As to claims 19-21, Gu discloses that anchoring materials may be composed of different materials (powders, liquid and/or wires from feeders- figs. 1-2, 5; col. 3, lines 4-35 (fig. 1). The type/composition of materials concerns workpieces and does not limit the additive apparatus. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to select same first material composition for the workpiece and the anchoring material in the additive manufacturing system in Gu because they would be metallurgical compatible, thereby resulting in stronger joint.
Claims 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Harwell as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Goldenberg et al. (US 6347259, “Goldenberg”) & Zaffino et al. (US 8367962, “Zaffino”).
As to claims 4 and 6, Gu is silent as to a position sensor. However, providing such sensor is 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 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).
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 a position sensor in the apparatus of Gu in order to provide position 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 on the part. Hence, combination of Gu, Harwell, Goldenberg & Zaffino includes a position sensor that measures a position of the additive manufacturing tool relative to any base material or part and a controller that receives the position as an input, and executes instructions to control the additive manufacturing tool or the power source based on the measured position.
Claims 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gu in view of Harwell as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Almeida (Process Control and Development in WAAM, PhD Thesis, 2012, NPL of record).
As to claims 14-16, Gu discloses other power sources, but does not mention power in the form of a pulsed welding waveform or short circuit 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). In non-adaptive control mode, metal transfer is dominated by random short circuit (SC) mechanism (pg. 209). In CMT, controlled metal transfer occurs by the short circuit phase (pg. 217). Reading the overall disclosure of Almeida, ordinary skilled artisan would recognize that pulsed welding waveform & controlled short circuit welding waveform are 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 waveform or a controlled short circuit 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.
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 filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c).
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should 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/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 2-21 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,833,623. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because patented claims 1-20 of US 11,833,623 discloses each of the recited features: Claim 1 teaches an additive manufacturing system, comprising: an additive manufacturing tool configured to receive metallic anchoring materials; a position sensor configured to measure a position of the additive manufacturing tool; a robotic system configured to move the additive manufacturing tool; a power source configured to provide DC or AC power to melt the metallic anchoring materials into a plurality of droplets; and a controller comprising executable instructions which, when executed, cause the position sensor to detect where a recess formed in a second workpiece is aligned with a first workpiece, cause the robotic system to move the additive manufacturing tool to a deposition position where the additive manufacturing tool can apply the plurality of droplets within the recess, so as to build up a part that is shaped to join the first & second workpieces, and cause the additive manufacturing tool to complete the part by forming a cap on the part that resists separation of the second workpiece from the first workpiece. Claim 10 of US ‘623 teaches that the controller is configured to provide power in the form of a pulsed welding waveform or a controlled short circuit welding waveform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7 and 11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including ALL of the limitations of the base claim(s). Applicant is requested to file eTerminal Disclaimer to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection noted above.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to amended claim(s) filed 11/24/25 have been considered but are moot in light of new grounds of rejection set forth above. Concerning claim 2, Applicant's arguments that none of Gu, Harwell nor Almeida discloses depositing molten droplets upon a first workpiece via an opening formed in second workpiece are not found persuasive because they relate to workpieces, which do not structurally limit the additive manufacturing tool (see Claim Interpretation above).
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/24/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Inquiry
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DEVANG R PATEL whose telephone number is (571) 270-3636. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 8am-5pm, EST.
To schedule an interview, Applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/laws/interview-practice. Communications via Internet email are at the discretion of Applicant. If Applicant wishes to communicate via email, a written authorization form must be filed by Applicant: Form PTO/SB/439, available at www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The form may be filed via the Patent Center and can be found using the document description Internet Communications, see https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/forms. In limited circumstances, the Applicant may make an oral authorization for Internet communication. See MPEP § 502.03.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Keith Walker can be reached on 571-272-3458. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Center. For more information, see https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. For questions, technical issues or troubleshooting, please contact the Patent Electronic Business Center at ebc@uspto.gov or 1-866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/DEVANG R PATEL/
Primary Examiner, AU 1735