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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of group I, claims 1-18 in the reply filed on 12/5/2025 is acknowledged.
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 8-11, 17-18 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.
The term “near the first end” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close it must be for it to be considered “near”. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
The term “near the second end” in claim 8 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close it must be for it to be considered “near”. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
Claim 11 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by “comprises an airfoil geometry”. How do openings have a geometry of a solid object? Is it each opening that has an airfoil geometry or the plurality of openings collectively have an airfoil geometry? Does the shape have to be a full airfoil geometry or only a geometry of a part of an airfoil, such as a similar angle or curve of an airfoil? Furthermore, there are many different shapes for airfoils. An airfoil can have a trailing edge that is convex, finite angle, cusped. An airfoil can be symmetrical or semi-symmetrical. There are many variations for an airfoil geometry, so it is unclear what is meant by this limitation. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
The term “near the first end” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close it must be for it to be considered “near”. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
The term “near the second end” in claim 17 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “near” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear how close it must be for it to be considered “near”. The Examiner requests that the Applicant please clarify.
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.
Claim(s) 1-9, 12-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick et al. (2020/0306869A1) in view of Larsson et al. (10,661,379) and Sato et al. (2009/0090700A1).
Regarding claim 1, Hardwick discloses an additive friction stir deposition device comprising: a shoulder configured to rotate about a central axis (paragraphs 0097-0106), the shoulder 303A comprising a channel 304A-B extending from a first end of the shoulder to a second end of the shoulder, the channel configured to allow a filler material to pass through the shoulder from the first end towards the second end, the shoulder further configured to deposit the filler material 319 as the device is advanced along a deposition surface (paragraphs 0093-0124, figure 3A-3AM).
Hardwick does not disclose a collar coupled to the shoulder, the collar comprising a plurality of openings through a first side of the collar; a wire brush skirt coupled to a second side of the collar opposite the first side of the collar; and a gas shroud comprising an inlet configured to direct pressurized gas through the plurality of openings in the collar, the pressurized gas configured to remove contaminants as the device is advanced along the deposition surface.
However, Larsson discloses a friction stir tool using a collar 430 coupled to the shoulder 284, the collar comprising a plurality of openings (bottom of brush portion, away from the tool); a brush skirt (top of brush portion that is attached the apparatus, figure 3A) coupled to a second side of the collar opposite the first side of the collar (figure 3A-4). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a brushing unit in order to remove any contaminates or excess material left on the surface after the friction stir process. While Larsson does not disclose that the brush skit is wire, it would have been obvious to use wire as the brush is used to move plasticized material. The brush would have to be suitable to be able to withstand the temperature of the plasticized metal.
Hardwick does not disclose a gas shroud comprising an inlet configured to direct pressurized gas through the plurality of openings in the collar, the pressurized gas configured to remove contaminants as the device is advanced along the deposition surface. However, Sato discloses a friction stir tool with a gas shroud 3 that surrounds the friction stir apparatus an applies an inert shielding gas to shield the workpiece during the stirring (paragraph 0019, figure 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a shroud as taught by Sato to prevent oxidation during the stirring (paragraph 0019). Since the brush is air permeable (column 2 lines 31-50 of Larsson), it would necessarily flow that the gas would enter at the plurality of openings of the collar.
Regarding claim 2, Larsson discloses that fixtures are used to couple the collar and the shoulder comprising an adapter (resilient or adjustable connection) configured to couple the collar to the shoulder (column 13 line 50 to column 14 line 3).
Regarding claim 3, Larsson discloses that the first side of the collar comprises an aperture configured to receive a portion of the shoulder (figure 3A).
Regarding claim 4, Larsson discloses that the plurality of openings (openings in the brush) are arranged around the aperture (figure 3A).
Regarding claim 5, Larsson discloses that the wire brush skirt is configured to scratch the deposition surface as the device is advanced along the deposition surface (column 13 line 51 to column 14 line 3).
Regarding claim 6, Larsson discloses that the wire brush skirt is semi-permeable air, so it would be semi-permeable to a gas flowing from the gas shroud (column 2 line 31-50).
Regarding claim 7, since the prior art teaches the claimed structure, the apparatus would be capable of performing the claimed function being configured to scratch the deposition surface as the gas shroud removes contaminants and the shoulder deposits filler material.
Regarding claim 8, Hardwick discloses that shoulder comprises an outer diameter that decreases from an upper portion at or near the first end to a lower portion at or near the second end, the upper portion of the shoulder having a first diameter, a middle portion of the shoulder having a second diameter, and the lower portion of the shoulder having a third diameter (figure 3G).
Regarding claim 9, Hardwick with Larsson and Sato disclose that the collar is coupled to the lower portion of the shoulder and the gas shroud is positioned around the middle portion of the shoulder (figure 3A of Larsson and figure 1 of Sato). Since the collar is coupled to the tool, it would be coupled to the lower portion of the shoulder.
Regarding claim 12, Hardwick discloses an additive friction stir deposition device comprising: a shoulder 303a configured to rotate about a central axis, the shoulder comprising a channel 304a-b extending from a first end of the shoulder to a second end of the shoulder, the channel configured to allow a filler material 319 to pass through the shoulder from the first end towards the second end, the shoulder further configured to deposit the filler material as the device is advanced along a deposition surface (paragraphs 0093-0124, figure 3A-3AM).
Hardwick does not disclose a wire brush skirt configured to co-rotate with the shoulder and contact the deposition surface as the device is advanced along the deposition surface; and a gas shroud configured to direct pressurized gas toward the deposition surface and remove contaminants as the device is advanced along the deposition surface.
However, Larsson discloses a friction stir tool using a brush (bottom portion of 430) configured to co-rotate with the shoulder and contact the deposition surface as the device is advanced along the deposition surface (column 8 line 50-63, column 13 line 51 to column 14 line 3, figure 3A). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a brushing unit in order to remove any contaminates or excess material left on the surface after the friction stir process. While Larsson does not disclose that the brush skit is wire, it would have been obvious to use wire as the brush is used to move plasticized material. The brush would have to be suitable to be able to withstand the temperature of the plasticized metal.
Hardwick does not disclose a gas shroud configured to direct pressurized gas toward the deposition surface and remove contaminants as the device is advanced along the deposition surface. However, Sato discloses a friction stir tool with a gas shroud 3 that surrounds the friction stir apparatus an applies an inert shielding gas to shield the workpiece at an area of the stirring (paragraph 0019, figure 1). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a shroud as taught by Sato to prevent oxidation during the stirring (paragraph 0019). Since the brush is air permeable (column 2 lines 31-50 of Larsson), it would necessarily flow that the gas would enter at the plurality of openings of the collar.
Regarding claim 13, Larsson discloses that fixtures are used to couple the collar and the shoulder comprising an adapter (resilient or adjustable connection) configured to couple the collar to the shoulder (column 13 line 50 to column 14 line 3).
Regarding claim 14, Larsson discloses a collar 430 configured to couple the wire brush skirt to the shoulder (figure 3A).
Regarding claims 15, 16, Larsson discloses connecting by a resilient or adjustable connection. Based on the current specification, there can be many ways to join the collar and shoulder. There is no criticality to any of the embodiments. It would appear that this is a design choice. With that being said, it would have been obvious to determine the ideal/best way to connect the collar and shoulder to prevent any movement or misalignment that would prevent the friction stirring process from being performed correctly.
Regarding claim 17, Hardwick discloses that shoulder comprises an outer diameter that decreases from an upper portion at or near the first end to a lower portion at or near the second end, the upper portion of the shoulder having a first diameter, a middle portion of the shoulder having a second diameter, and the lower portion of the shoulder having a third diameter (figure 3G).
Regarding claim 18, Hardwick with Larsson and Sato disclose that the collar is coupled to the lower portion of the shoulder and the gas shroud is positioned around the middle portion of the shoulder (figure 3A of Larsson and figure 1 of Sato). Since the collar is coupled to the tool, it would be coupled to the lower portion of the shoulder.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 10 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Prior art was not found that taught or suggested the limitations of claims 1, 8, and 9 along with further comprising a first seal positioned between a first surface of the gas shroud and the first side of the collar and a second seal positioned around the middle portion of the shoulder between a second surface of the gas shroud and a ledge of the upper portion of the shoulder.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIN B SAAD whose telephone number is (571)270-3634. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30a-6p.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 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 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.
/ERIN B SAAD/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1735