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
As noted in previous office action, present claims 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). Furthermore, examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” (MPEP 2115).
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 7-8 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.
With regard to claims 7-8, feature of the draft angle of the second channel is symmetric or asymmetric” ambiguous because it is unclear symmetric or asymmetric with respect to what? The recited incomplete language fails to clearly set forth the scope, rendering the claims indefinite. For purpose of examination and in accordance with broadest reasonable interpretation, the claim is taken to mean: the second channel comprises a draft angle.
Appropriate corrections are requested.
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 1, 5, 7-9, 11-17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick et al. (US 2020/0306869, hereafter “Hardwick”).
Regarding claim 1, Hardwick discloses a tool (figs. 3A-3K) for depositing solid state feedstock material, from metallic and metal-based composite materials in the form of bars, rods or wires, using a solid state manufacturing process [0025, 0069], the tool comprising: a first tool member 302 (fig. 3A) or 303 (fig. 3C) comprising a first inlet, a first outlet, and a first channel between the first inlet and the first outlet, wherein the first inlet is configured to receive a solid feedstock material; and a second tool member 303 (fig. 3A) or 334 (fig. 3C) comprising a second inlet, a second outlet, and a second channel between the second inlet and the second outlet, the second tool member configured to couple to the first tool member to permit solid feedstock material to be provided from the first tool member to the second tool member through the first channel and the first outlet of the first tool member into the second inlet and the second channel of the second tool member [0073, 0093, 0097]. Concerning the draft angle in the second tool member, Hardwick teaches several different embodiments of second channel and second outlet (see figs. 3E thru 3AJ), wherein one embodiment comprises the second channel 304B having a draft angle at the second outlet (see fig. 3AG, [0108]) to permit deposition of the solid feedstock material onto a surface without using any lubricant on the solid feedstock material. The split passageway with multiple outlets enable to cover wider area on the workpiece surface [0112]. The second tool member 303 comprises a face at the second outlet (see diagram below) that is configured to contact the surface during rotation of the tool to generate friction between the face and the contacted surface while applying force to the feedstock material to deform the feedstock material exiting the second channel at the second outlet without using any lubricant. Examiner notes that using additives such as lubricant is optional in Hardwick (optional injection ports- [0086]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to select the second channel outlet having a draft angle since such variation is encompassed within teachings of Hardwick and would only have yielded predictable results of depositing the feedstock material from the second outlet onto the surface. Artisan of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide split passageway into second outlets with draft angles in the tool in order to cover wider area on the workpiece surface, as suggested by Hardwick [0112].
PNG
media_image1.png
318
374
media_image1.png
Greyscale
As to claim 5, Hardwick discloses that the tool material can be selected from the group of tool steels, tungsten-based material, WC-based material or PCBN materials [0094]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to choose tool steel and tungsten-based materials for the first and second tool members in Hardwick as they are art-recognized tool materials.
As to claims 7-8, as best understood in light of indefinite language, Hardwick discloses the second channel comprises a draft angle.
As to claim 9, Hardwick shows that a cross-sectional shape of the first channel of the first tool member and a cross-sectional shape of the second channel of the second tool member are the same (figs. 3A, 3C).
As to claim 11, Hardwick shows that a diameter of the second channel 304B at the second outlet of the second tool member is greater than a diameter of the first channel at the first outlet of the first tool member (fig. 3AG).
As to claim 12, Hardwick shows that a diameter of the second channel 304B at the second outlet of the second tool member is greater than a diameter of the second channel at the second inlet of the second tool member (fig. 3AG).
As to claim 13, Hardwick discloses that each of the first tool member and the second tool member comprises an internal channel 304A/304B (fig. 3A).
As to claim 15, Hardwick shows that the second tool member comprises at least one friction boss 333 (nub- figs. 3C, 3AK, 3AM) configured to generate friction between a face of the tool and the surface during rotation of the tool while depositing the solid feedstock material onto the surface [0098-0099].
As to claim 19, Hardwick several different embodiments of first outlet and second outlet (see figs. 3E thru 3AJ), wherein one embodiment comprises an outer diameter of the first inlet being smaller than an outer diameter of the first outlet, wherein an outer diameter of the second inlet is smaller than an outer diameter of the second outlet. .
Claims 2 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hardwick as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Allison et al. (US 2023/0146110, “Allison”).
As to claims 2 and 18, Hardwick is silent in terms of tool member apertures or a fastener/coupler. However, utilizing a suitable fastener is within common knowledge and ordinary capabilities of skilled artisan. Allison (also directed to solid-state additive deposition tool- abstract, [0002]) teaches a tool comprising a first tool member 605 and a second tool member 610 that are joined by a coupling collar and a plurality of screws 625 that extend through apertures within the tool members (see fig.15); bolts or other suitable fasteners may be used to couple to tool members [0030], wherein bolts/screws are known reversible fasteners. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to provide aperture/holes necessary for mechanical coupling in the deposition tool of Hardwick, along with the motivation to securely hold & retain the second tool member to the first tool member, as suggested by Allison. Moreover, there is only a finite number of predictable options to couple the tool members: bolt/screws, links, apertures/holes, sliding or interference fit. In any scenario, the objective is to ensure stable connection between the two tool members. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason (ensuring stable coupling between tool members) to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense. KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007) (MPEP 2143- exemplary rationales).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 14, 16-17 and 20 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 and any intervening claims.
Response to Amendment and Arguments
Applicant's amendment and arguments filed 11/20/25 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Examiner notes that new 112 rejection has been made (claims 7-8) and previous 102 rejection(s) has been withdrawn in light of amendment. The 103 rejection under Hardwick is also modified given the amended claims. Certain dependent claims appear allowable over prior art as indicated above.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that Hardwick states the feeding units include injections ports designed to provide lubricants to the solid feedstock material. Thus, any solid feedstock material in the tool of Hardwick would be expected to included lubricant by the skilled person. In response, examiner respectfully disagrees and submits that injection ports for additives (e.g. lubricants, stabilizers) are optional in Hardwick [0086]. One skilled in the art would appreciate that the deposition tool of Hardwick is designed to work with a solid feedstock without any additive and not limited by lubricants.
Applicant also argues that term “spindle” is used in Hardwick to refer to a separate device that is designed to drive movement of the tool. Thus, the two components shown in fig. 3A are not first and second tool members.
In response, examiner contends that term “tool member” is generally broad and not limited by specific structure/geometry; any member/portion of the overall deposition tool meets “tool member”, including a spindle or a shaft. Moreover, examiner notes that fig. 3C of Hardwick teaches a first tool member 303 and a second tool member 334.
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.
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