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
Examiner notes that 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). Functional limitations are usually followed by a linking term “for”, “configured to”, “performing”, “carry out”, “execute” and concerns operation of the apparatus. In the instant case, feed rod for additive manufacturing (claim 1); for moving the modular tool, configured to receive a desired feed rod, to receive force information, etc. (claim 16) appear to be functional limitations which do not structurally contribute to the apparatus.
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 1-9, 11 and 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan et al. (CN 113001008-A, hereafter “Wan”, see attached document) in view of Subramanian et al. (US 2004/0238599, hereafter “Subramanian”).
Regarding claim 1, Wan discloses an apparatus for additive manufacturing (figs. 1, 4), comprising: a modular tool positioned in a spaced apart relationship with a rotatable head 6 holding a feed rod for additive manufacturing, the modular tool comprising: a first portion 3 (fig. 1- see diagram below) having a first aperture that slidably allows the feed rod to pass through, a second portion 4 coupled with the first portion, the second portion having a second aperture aligned with the first aperture, the second aperture slidably allows the feed rod to pass through, and a bearing coupled with at least the second portion (see diagram below). Examiner notes that “coupled with” does not require direct attachment and indirect connection meets this feature.
PNG
media_image1.png
528
688
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Wan is silent with respect to material or melting point of the second portion and the first portion. Analogous to Wan, Subramanian is also directed friction welding apparatus 100 (fig. 1) and discloses a modular tool comprising a first portion 106 (pin portion) and a second portion 104 (shoulder). Subramanian teaches that the first portion is made of tungsten-based refractory material including solid-solution strengthening element such as molybdenum, niobium, tantalum and rhenium [0016-0017], while the second portion is made of substantially different material, which would have a melting point lower than the tungsten-based refractory material [0020]. Such tool material has been shown to b effective in joining high-temperature materials such as titanium alloys [0018]. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to utilize tungsten based-refractory material for the first portion in the tool of Wan because doing so would enable the tool to deposit and join high-temperature feedstock materials such as titanium alloys. Thus, Wan as modified by Subramanian discloses the tool second portion made of material having a lower melting point than the tungsten based-refractory material of the first portion.
As to claim 2, Wan shows that the second portion 4 includes a recess, and wherein the first portion 3 is press fit into the recess (figs. 1, 4).
As to claim 3, Wan shows that the second portion 4 includes a recess and at least a portion of sidewalls of the recess are threaded (fig. 1). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have at least a portion of an outer surface of the first portion threaded with a motivation to provide strong, interference fit with the threaded recess in the second portion in Wan.
As to claim 4, Wan does not explicitly mention clamps. However, there is only a finite number of predictable options for coupling the first portion with the second portion: suitable fasteners such as bolts, clamps, screws, threads or adhesives. The goal is to ensure reliable, unfailing coupling. The claim would have been obvious because a person of ordinary skill has good reason (unfailing coupling) to pursue the known options, including clamps, within his or her technical grasp to couple the two portions of the modular tool in Wan. 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).
As to claims 5-7, Wan as modified by Subramanian above discloses that wherein the first portion of the tool is made of tungsten-based refractory metal, including rhenium. Applicant’s specification discloses that using different materials for the first portion and second portion creates a thermal barrier at the interface [0053]. Accordingly, the combination of Wan & Subramanian having different materials for the first portion and second portion intrinsically creates a thermal barrier in the modular tool.
As to claim 8, in the modular tool of Wan, the first aperture and the second aperture are sized such that rotation of the feed rod imparts some rotational force to sidewalls of the first aperture and the second aperture (figs. 1, 4).
As to claim 9, Wan shows that the second portion includes a first member (sloped member at bottom side) and a shoulder member wider (top side wider member) than the first member (see fig. 1 diagram), wherein the bearing is coupled with the first member, and wherein the first portion is coupled with the shoulder member of the second portion (figs. 1, 4). It is noted that “coupled with” does not require direct attachment and indirect connection of the first portion and the second portion meets this feature
As to claim 11, Wan shows the apparatus further comprising: a feed mechanism coupled with the rotatable head 6, the feed mechanism configured to move the rotatable head in relation to the modular tool using motor 5 (fig. 1).
As to claims 13-14, the specific features relating to feed rod size or shape concerns workpiece material, which does not structurally limit the claimed apparatus. Examiner notes that, “inclusion of material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims.” See MPEP 2115. The rotatable head of Wan is configured to process recited feed rod.
Claims 12 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wan in view of Subramanian as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Lalande et al. (US 2024/0109245, “Lalande”).
As to claim 12, Wan discloses that the feed mechanism includes a motor 5 coupled with the feed mechanism, the movement of the motor causing the feed mechanism to move the rotatable head in relation to the modular tool (fig. 1), but fails to mention a force sensor for sensing a force with which the feed rod extending out of the modular tool is pressed against a substrate positioned below the modular tool. Lalande (also directed to additive manufacturing feeding and controls systems) discloses an additive manufacturing system depositing fillers/feedstock [0011], and teaches employing multiple sensors as integral parts of the process control system [0018], including a force-sensor for monitoring and controlling the down force in the feeding section as well as the tool force in x, y, z directions ([0051-0052], [0184-0185]). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate a force sensor sensing a force with which the feed rod is pressed against a substrate below the modular tool in Wan in order to improve process control while depositing the feedstock as suggested by Lalande.
As to claim 15, Lalande discloses the feeding system including pairs of rollers which are heated to different temperatures to enable softening of the filler/feedstock materials and enable easier stirring on the workpiece surface [0392-0393]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to provide any suitable heating element below the modular tool in Wan because doing so would assist with softening and deposition of the feed rod during additive manufacturing and would also likely reduce energy requirement of the rotatable head.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10 and 16-19 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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/3/25 complies with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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
Prosecution Insights