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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1).
Regarding claim 1, Bor discloses a friction stir additive manufacturing system configured to extrude a material (through feeder tube 120), the system comprising: a spindle 130 configured to rotate about a central axis, the spindle comprising a conical portion 130 having a twisting helical shape, the twisting helical shape defined by a plurality of threads (can have more than one helical thread 132 (see computer translation about the helical ridges 132)) twisting in a longitudinal direction; a housing 110 configured to remain stationary relative to the spindle, the housing comprising a wire inlet 114 extending through a side wall of the housing, an interior surface of the side wall defining a truncated cone terminating at a material exit, the truncated cone configured to receive the conical portion of the spindle; and a feeding system configured to feed a wire through the wire inlet and into a gap between the spindle and the truncated cone of the housing (figures 1A-B).
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, 13-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaeinejad et al. (Solid-State Additive Manufacturing of AA6060 Employing Friction Screw Extrusion Additive Manufacturing, JOM Vol. 75, No. 10, 2023, from IDS) in view of Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1).
Regarding claim 1, Rezaeinejad discloses a friction stir additive manufacturing system configured to extrude a material, the system comprising: a spindle (rotating part inside housing, figure 1) configured to rotate about a central axis, the spindle comprising a conical portion; a housing (figure 1, where the spindle is located) configured to remain stationary relative to the spindle, the housing comprising a (rod-shaped feedstock material, pages 1-2) wire inlet (where the feedstock enters, figure 1) extending through a side wall of the housing, an interior surface of the side wall defining a truncated cone terminating at a material exit, the truncated cone configured to receive the conical portion of the spindle (figure 1); and a feeding system configured to feed a wire through the wire inlet and into a gap between the spindle and the truncated cone of the housing (figure 1).
Rezaeinejad does not specifically disclose that the conical portion has a twisting helical shape, the twisting helical shape defined by a plurality of threads twisting in a longitudinal direction. However, Bor discloses a friction stir additive manufacturing system configured to extrude a material (through feeder tube 120), the system comprising: a spindle 130 configured to rotate about a central axis, the spindle comprising a conical portion 130 having a twisting helical shape, the twisting helical shape defined by a plurality of threads (can have more than one helical thread 132 (see computer translation about the helical ridges 132)) twisting in a longitudinal direction. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a conical portion 130 having a twisting helical shape, the twisting helical shape defined by a plurality of threads because having more helical threads increases the lead distance per revolution. This could improve the material transport efficiency and plastic flow speed during deposition.
Regarding claim 13, Rezaeinejad discloses that the housing comprises a deposition surface surrounding the material exit, the deposition surface (bottom surface, support edges of housing) configured to contact one or more work surfaces as material is extruded from the material exit (figure 1).
Regarding claim 14, Rezaeinejad discloses that the deposition surface is configured to contact a surface of a single work-piece. As can be seen in figure 1, the support edges contact the previously applied layer; therefore, the support edges may contact the workpiece prior to the start or during the initial layer being placed. Therefore, the claim limitation is met. The material worked upon does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Regarding claim 15, Rezaeinejad discloses that the deposition surface is configured to contact a previously deposited layer of material when depositing an additional layer of material (figure 1).
Regarding claim 16, Rezaeinejad discloses that the deposition surface is configured to contact surfaces of two adjacent work-pieces. As can be seen in figure 1, the support edges contact the previously applied layer; therefore, the support edges may contact the workpiece prior to the start or during the initial layer being placed. Therefore, the claim limitation is met. The material worked upon does not further limit the structure of the apparatus.
Claim(s) 9-12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaeinejad et al. (Solid-State Additive Manufacturing of AA6060 Employing Friction Screw Extrusion Additive Manufacturing, JOM Vol. 75, No. 10, 2023, from IDS) in view of Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumagai et al. (2008/0006677A1).
Regarding claims 9-12, Rezaeinejad does not specifically disclose that the spindle is configured to move along the central axis between a flush position, a retracted position, and a protruding position during use. However, spindles (pins/probes) that retract and protrude from a tool are known in the friction stir art. Kumagai discloses a friction stir tool with a spindle and a housing wherein the spindle is configured to move along the central axis between a flush position (coplanar with the material exit of the cone), retracted position (the tip is retracted within the truncated cone), and protruding position (the spindle protrudes through the exit of the cone) (figures 3A-C). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have the spindle move between the retracted, flush and protruding positions during the process in order to effectively mix the layers being joined together to ensure a proper connection. Having the spindle retract prevents any holes to be left behind created by the spindle (paragraph 0063).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaeinejad et al. (Solid-State Additive Manufacturing of AA6060 Employing Friction Screw Extrusion Additive Manufacturing, JOM Vol. 75, No. 10, 2023, from IDS) in view of Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Subramanian et al. (2005/0045695A1).
Regarding claim 17, Rezaeinejad does not disclose that the housing comprises one or more cooling channels. However, Subramanian discloses a friction stir tool with cooling channels in the housing to cool the tool (paragraph 0019). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have cooling channels to prevent the spindle from overheating which could damage the spindle during use.
Claim(s) 22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1) in view of Werz et al. (2017/0312850A1).
Regarding claim 22, Bor discloses a system comprising: a friction stir additive manufacturing device comprising: a spindle 130 configured to rotate about a central axis and move along the central axis from a first position to a second position, the spindle comprising a conical portion having a plurality of threads 132 (more than one helical ridges), each thread curving from a first end of the conical portion to a second end of the conical portion; a housing 110 configured to receive at least a portion of the spindle 130, the housing configured to remain stationary relative to the spindle, the housing comprising a wire inlet 114 extending through a side wall of the housing; and a feeding system 120 configured to feed a wire through the wire inlet and into a gap between the spindle and the housing 110 (see computer English translation, figures 1a-b).
Bor does not specifically disclose a control system configured to move the friction stir additive manufacturing device during use. However, Werz discloses an additive manufacturing friction stir device with a wire inlet wherein a control device is used for controlling the additive manufacturing process (paragraph 0049). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a control system to ensure that the additive manufacturing process runs correctly. Control systems are well-known in the friction stir art for regulating multiple parameters required for the process.
Claim(s) 22, 25 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaeinejad et al. (Solid-State Additive Manufacturing of AA6060 Employing Friction Screw Extrusion Additive Manufacturing, JOM Vol. 75, No. 10, 2023, from IDS) in view of Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1) and Werz et al. (2017/0312850A1).
Regarding claim 22, Rezaeinejad discloses a system comprising: a friction stir additive manufacturing device comprising: a spindle (rotating part inside housing, figure 1) configured to rotate about a central axis and move along the central axis from a first position to a second position; a housing (shown in figure 1, where spindle is located) configured to receive at least a portion of the spindle, the housing configured to remain stationary relative to the spindle, the housing comprising a (rodshaped feedstock material, pages 1-2) wire inlet (where the feedstock enters, figure 1) extending through a side wall of the housing; and a feeding system configured to feed a wire through the wire inlet and into a gap between the spindle and the housing (figure 1).
Rezaeinejad does not specifically disclose that the conical portion has a twisting helical shape, the twisting helical shape defined by a plurality of threads twisting in a longitudinal direction. However, Bor discloses a friction stir additive manufacturing system configured to extrude a material (through feeder tube 120), the system comprising: a spindle 130 configured to rotate about a central axis, the spindle comprising a conical portion 130 having a twisting helical shape, the twisting helical shape defined by a plurality of threads (can have more than one helical thread 132 (see computer translation about the helical ridges 132)) twisting in a longitudinal direction. To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a conical portion 130 having a twisting helical shape, the twisting helical shape defined by a plurality of threads because having more helical threads increases the lead distance per revolution. This could improve the material transport efficiency and plastic flow speed during deposition.
Rezaeinejad does not specifically disclose a control system configured to move the friction stir additive manufacturing device during use. However, Werz discloses an additive manufacturing friction stir device with a wire inlet wherein a control device is used for controlling the additive manufacturing process (paragraph 0049). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to have a control system to ensure that the additive manufacturing process runs correctly. Control systems are well-known in the friction stir art for regulating multiple parameters required for the process.
Regarding claim 25, Rezaeinejad discloses that the friction stir additive manufacturing device is configured to deposit material in a direction opposite a direction of gravity (figure 1).
Claim(s) 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaeinejad et al. (Solid-State Additive Manufacturing of AA6060 Employing Friction Screw Extrusion Additive Manufacturing, JOM Vol. 75, No. 10, 2023, from IDS) in view of Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1) and Werz et al. (2017/0312850A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Morgenstern et al. (2014/0077668A1).
Regarding claims 23-24, Rezaeinejad does not disclose that the control system comprises a robotic arm or a gantry-based platform configured to move the friction stir additive manufacturing device during use. However, Morgenstern discloses a friction stir apparatus that uses either a robotic arm or a gantry system (paragraph 0030). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use either a robotic arm or a gantry system for moving the device as these are well-known assemblies in the friction stir art for controlling the precise movement of the tool to ensure that it is in the correct location during its use.
Claim(s) 26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaeinejad et al. (Solid-State Additive Manufacturing of AA6060 Employing Friction Screw Extrusion Additive Manufacturing, JOM Vol. 75, No. 10, 2023, from IDS) in view of Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1) and Werz et al. (2017/0312850A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Eller et al. (2021/0252632).
Regarding claim 26, Rezaeinejad does not specifically disclose one or more thermocouples configured to collect temperature data for a closed loop control of printing parameters. However, Eller discloses a friction stir apparatus that has thermocouples embedded in the mandrel (housing) assembly (paragraph 0071). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use thermocouples in the apparatus to provide temperature feedback to the processing controller and can increase or decrease cooling of the tool to a desired temperature. This would prevent overheating of the tool.
Claim(s) 27 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rezaeinejad et al. (Solid-State Additive Manufacturing of AA6060 Employing Friction Screw Extrusion Additive Manufacturing, JOM Vol. 75, No. 10, 2023, from IDS) in view of Bor et al. (WO2022/231423A1) and Werz et al. (2017/0312850A1) as applied to claim 22 above, and further in view of Zhao (CN111804910A).
Regarding claim 27, Rezaeinejad does not disclose a tooling system configured to move a part or structure being formed by the friction stir additive manufacturing device during use. However, Zhao discloses a friction stir additive manufacturing device with a movable working table 401 using servo motor 402 (figure 3). To one skilled in the art at the time of the invention it would have been obvious to use a movable working table to ensure proper alignment and movement of the workpiece surface during the process.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1, 9-17, 22-27 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection provided 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.
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
Prosecution Insights