DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/20/2026 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 101 rejection has been accepted and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/18/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues in remarks filed 03/18/2026 regarding the terms “evaluation unit” and “control unit” and interpretation under 112f, that “Applicants' specification makes clear that these elements can be programmed or configured, thus confirming the understood structure of these controllers to a person of ordinary skill in the art” (Page 7 of applicant’s remarks filed 03/18/2026). However, simply having a device which is programmable or configurable does not provide sufficient structure for one of ordinary skill in the art to determine that these devices are necessarily controllers. There are devices which are programmable and configurable, such as FPGAs, that would not reasonably be considered a controller in the “electronic digital controller” sense that Applicant is arguing. Further, it is not sufficient for claimed subject matter to be “obvious” in view of undisclosed but known knowledge in the art. Written description is an inquiry into the “four corners of the specification” ( ‘possession as shown in the disclosure’ is a more complete formulation.” Ariad, 598 F.3d at 1351, 94 USPQ2d at 1172. Accordingly, “the test requires an objective inquiry into the four corners of the specification from the perspective of a person of ordinary skill in the art”). Thus, a device which is programmable and configurable is not inherently a controller, and thus the introduction of said controllers is considered new matter.
The applicant further argues regarding the 103 rejection that “Such a detection cannot be calculated trigonometrically from a cutting front angle and workpiece depth” (Page 12 of applicant’s remarks filed 03/18/2026). The applicant’s claims state that the cutting front length is determined “by detecting a length of a light appearance from a process zone or the interaction region of the machining beam with the workpiece”. Under broadest reasonable interpretation of the applicant’s claim limitations, the cutting front length must ultimately be determined as a result of detecting a length of a light appearance from a process zone. Paragraph 32 of Regaard teaches that intensity detection of a spatially restricted portion of the recorded image is evaluated for the purposes of determining the intensity value, or in other words “detecting a length of a light appearance from a process zone” to determine the cutting front angle. Thus, it is clear in the prior art that a length of a light appearance is detected. Paragraph 63 of Hesse teaches that the cutting front angle is trigonometrically related to the cutting front angle proportionally based on the thickness of the workpiece. Regaard additionally teaches that the cutting front angle can be deduced on the basis of the length of the emitting region in the kerf in the case of a known workpiece thickness (Regaard Paragraph 6). Since a length of a light appearance is detected during the process of determining a cutting front angle, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have also used said values during the process of determining a cutting front length, as the cutting front angle can be simply converted into a cutting front length. Since cutting front angle and cutting front length are related values, detecting one is equivalent to detecting the other given other known parameters. The control of cutting speed of Regaard based on the cutting front angle is a superset of the applicant’s claimed invention. One of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have used the cutting front length instead of cutting front angle as converting the cutting front angle to cutting front length could be performed by simple conversion of variables given that the thickness of the workpiece is known.
The applicant further argues that “Applicants’ claimed cutting front length is a length of the light appearance in the cutting direction” (Page 14 of applicant’s remarks filed 03/18/2026). However, under BRI, it is only required that the applicant’s claimed cutting front length is ultimately determined as a result of detecting a length of a light appearance from a process zone, not that the claimed cutting front length explicitly is the length captured in the image. The applicant is encouraged to further restrict the claim such as to recite “determining the cutting front length as a detected length of a light appearance from a process zone or the interaction region of the machining beam with the workpiece” such as to restrict the claim to the applicant’s interpretation.
The applicant further argues that “Regaard teaches away from using the length of the emitted region to deduce a cutting front angle” (Page 16 of applicant’s remarks filed 03/18/2026). However, paragraph 6 of Regaard provides additional support that the cutting front length and the cutting front angle are related values. Regaard does not teach away from determining a length of the emitting region, but that there are some difficulties with regard to the identifying the length of the emitting region in the kerf directly from the image. Furthermore, Regaard uses cutting front angle to perform correction. Since the cutting front angle and cutting front length are related values which can be converted to one another given known parameters, thus it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to have used cutting front length instead of cutting front angle.
The applicant further argues that “Regaard reference primarily teaches that it is desired for the advance speed to be equal to the maximum advance speed”. However, at least one embodiment of Regaard teaches that the cutting speed is corrected based on the maximum advance speed, and thus reads upon the applicant’s claimed invention (Regaard Paragraph 119).
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification, as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “focusing unit for focusing a machining beam or a laser beam” in independent claim 26 and “an image acquisition unit for detecting a region to be monitored” in independent claim 26.
Regarding the term “focusing unit for focusing a machining beam or a laser beam” in independent claim 26, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of a lens (per page 9 lines 1-6).
Regarding the term “an image acquisition unit for detecting a region to be monitored” in independent claim 26, because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of a camera (per page 9).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 26-29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 26, and the claims depending from this claim are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. As described above, the disclosure does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed function of “a first controller configured to determine, based on the detected interaction region, a cutting front length” and “a second controller configured to use a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed”. The specification does not demonstrate that applicant has made an invention that achieves the claimed function as claimed because the invention is not described with sufficient detail that one of ordinary skill in the art can reasonably conclude that the inventor had possession of the claimed invention. Specifically, the broad terms “a first controller configured to determine, based on the detected interaction region, a cutting front length” and “a second controller configured to use a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed”, are not defined nor specifically shown with sufficient structure in applicant’s claims or specification. The lack of definition of the terms “a first controller configured to determine, based on the detected interaction region, a cutting front length” and “a second controller configured to use a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed” within the specification and the specification does not provide adequate defined structure to perform the claimed functions in all possible claimed structures. A review of the specification and drawing found no specific description or drawing of the claimed structure, and as no physical description of the element is provided and no detail is shown, described, or provided thus it is unclear what exactly is considered or would fall under the terms “a first controller configured to determine, based on the detected interaction region, a cutting front length” and “a second controller configured to use a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed”.
Claim 29 is recites the limitation "said control unit". There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 13-29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KESLER (DE 102012216928 A1) in view of BEA (DE 102016215019 A1), Schulz (US 20120290276 A1), Stork (US 20120188365 A1), Hesse (US 20130319980 A1), and Regaard (US 20160193692 A1).
Regarding claim 13, KESLER (DE 102012216928 A1) teaches a method for monitoring or controlling a cutting process on a workpiece (Figure 5), the method comprising:
focusing a machining beam or a laser beam on the workpiece (Figures 1-2 Paragraph 38, focus position of the laser beam on the workpiece 4);
detecting a region of the workpiece to be monitored, the region including an interaction region in which the machining beam interacts with the workpiece (Figures 1-6b Paragraphs 32-33, plurality of individual images 20 of the processing area 3 are taken one after another with the camera 7);
in a laser cutting process, determining, based on the detected interaction region, a cutting front length of a cutting front formed at a kerf during the cutting process (Paragraph 35, length 22a of brightness maximum 22), as a characteristic variable of the cutting process (Figure 5 Paragraph 38, continuously generating diagnostic images and determining laser processing parameters including length 22a to be tracked in a temporally and spatially resolved manner);
determining the cutting front length by detecting a length of a light appearance from a process zone or the interaction region of the machining beam with the workpiece (Figure 5 Paragraph 35, length 22a of the central maximum 22 wherein the central maximum is defined as a brightness maximum is determined as a laser processing parameter);
improving the determination of the cutting front length by averaging individual images of the interaction region recorded by an image acquisition unit (Paragraph 9, diagnostic image is generated from a plurality of individual images by averaging several individual images so that the process relevant information can be incorporated into the generated average image and said averaging is beneficial as it reduces fluctuations between individual images); and
adjusting, with a controller, at least one parameter of the cutting process to influence the introduction of energy into the workpiece (Paragraph 29, laser processing parameters are fed to a control device 16 which then adjusts process parameters of the laser processing process based on a comparison with a reference parameter; Paragraph 35, length 22a and width 22b are determined as laser processing parameters; Paragraph 38, process parameter such as laser power or focal position is adjusted based on deviation of the laser processing parameters from a reference setpoint such as to regulate them; Hesse (US 20130319980 A1))
KESLER fails to teach:
a fusion cutting process
using a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed to determine a dependence of the cutting front length on the cutting speed, and carrying out the fusion cutting process at a cutting speed being less than the incomplete cutting speed;
determining a weighted mean value for the averaging
adjusting, with a controller, at least one parameter of the cutting process based on the improved determined cutting front length
BEA (DE 102016215019 A1) teaches laser cutting metallic workpieces, comprising
a fusion cutting process (Paragraphs 3 and 20, fusion cutting process is used)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with BEA and have the laser cutting be fusion cutting. This would have been done to avoid the formation of cracks and pores in the weld seam by obtaining oxide free cut faces without needing post-processing as evidenced by Paragraphs 5 and 10-13 of Schulz (US 20120290276 A1).
KESLER modified with BEA fails to teach:
using a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed to determine a dependence of the cutting front length on the cutting speed, and carrying out the fusion cutting process at a cutting speed being less than the incomplete cutting speed; and
determining a weighted mean value for the averaging
adjusting, with a controller, at least one parameter of the cutting process based on the improved determined cutting front length
Stork (US 20120188365 A1) teaches a monitoring method for a laser cutting device, wherein:
determining a weighted mean value for the averaging (Paragraphs 35-36, sequential image recording with a camera wherein the summation and averaging of individual images of a plurality of images of an image sequence wherein the averaging occurs in a weighted fashion).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with Stork and have the images be weighted when averaging. This would have been done to obtain images more effectively (Stork Paragraph 35).
While KESLER as modified fails to explicitly teach “using a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed to determine a dependence of the cutting front length on the cutting speed, and carrying out the fusion cutting process at a cutting speed being less than the incomplete cutting speed” and “adjusting, with a controller, at least one parameter of the cutting process based on the improved determined cutting front length”, Hesse (US 20130319980 A1) teaches a device and method for monitoring a laser cutting process on a workpiece wherein a cutting front length distance A4 is trigonometrically related to a cutting front angle depending on a thickness d of the workpiece, which is a predetermined value (Hesse Paragraph 63). Regaard (US 20160193692 A1) teaches a device and method for monitoring and regulating a cutting process, specifically a fusion cutting process (Regaard Paragraph 72), wherein an open loop and closed loop control apparatus sets the advance speed of the cutting process to a suitable value depending on the current cutting front angle determined by the evaluation apparatus, wherein the cutting front angle is associated with an advance speed of 100% which is the maximum advance speed at which a good cut is still possible, which indicates that it could potentially result in incomplete cuts. Regaard further teaches that the maximum advance speed is a guide value that is associated with a specific process task and wherein the advance speed v can also be reduced to a value below the maximum advance speed v.sub.max when necessary, in order to prevent an overshoot of the predetermined (maximum) cutting front angle α.sub.G (Regaard Paragraphs 117-120), which provides further support that the maximum advance speed could reasonably result in incomplete cuts. Regaard provides various cutting speed percentages, or ratios, and their associated effects on the cutting front angle (Regaard Figures 6A-6D Paragraph 117-118). Since Regaard teaches that the predetermined cutting front angle α.sub.G is associated with an advance speed v of 100%, which serves as a guide value, and wherein the advance speed is set or regulated on the basis of the cutting front angle such as to be lower than the advance speed, and Hesse teaches that a cutting front length distance A4 is trigonometrically related a cutting front angle, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with Hesse and Regaard and determined a dependence of a cutting front length distance on cutting speed using a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed as well as carrying out a fusion cutting process at a cutting speed being less than the incomplete cutting speed. This would have been done such as to ensure that a good cut is present in the workpiece (Regaard Paragraph 117) by adjusting various process parameters includes cutting speed, and thus the introduction of energy, into the workpiece (Regaard Paragraph 26).
Regarding claim 14, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13, which further comprises
using an observation beam path extending coaxially to a beam axis of the machining beam for detecting the region to be monitored (Figure 1 Paragraph 27-28, laser beam 2a used to irradiate the workpiece shares the same beam path as reflected laser radiation 2b which is directed toward the camera 7).
The Office further notes that use of an observation beam path extend coaxially with beam axis of a machining beam is well known in the art as evidenced by Schindhelm (US 20130319980 A1).
Regarding claim 15, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13.
BEA further teaches:
providing a nozzle opening of a machining nozzle for passage of a cutting gas jet with a maximum extension of at least 7 mm (Paragraph 16, nozzle diameter is between 7mm and 12mm).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with BEA and have the nozzle opening for the cutting gas jet have a nozzle diameter of between 7mm and 12mm. This would have been done to facilitate cutting workpieces with a thickness of more than 2mm (BEA Paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 16, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 15.
BEA further teaches:
providing the maximum extension to be between 7 mm and 12 mm (Paragraph 16, nozzle diameter is between 7mm and 12mm).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with BEA and have the nozzle opening for the cutting gas jet have a nozzle diameter of between 7mm and 12mm. This would have been done to facilitate cutting workpieces with a thickness of more than 2mm (BEA Paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 17, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13.
BEA further teaches:
carrying out the fusion cutting process at a cutting gas pressure of less than 10 bar (Paragraph 16, cutting gas pressure is between 1 bar and 6 bar).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with BEA and have the nozzle opening for the cutting gas jet have a nozzle diameter of between 1 bar and 6 bar. This would have been done to facilitate cutting workpieces with a thickness of more than 2mm (BEA Paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 18, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13.
BEA further teaches:
carrying out the fusion cutting process at a cutting gas pressure of greater than 1 bar and less than 10 bar (Paragraph 16, cutting gas pressure is between 1 bar and 6 bar).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with BEA and have the nozzle opening for the cutting gas jet have a nozzle diameter of between 1 bar and 6 bar. This would have been done to facilitate cutting workpieces with a thickness of more than 2mm (BEA Paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 19, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13.
BEA further teaches:
carrying out the fusion cutting process at a cutting gas pressure of at least 2 bar and less than 6 bar (Paragraph 16, cutting gas pressure is between 1 bar and 6 bar).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with BEA and have the nozzle opening for the cutting gas jet have a nozzle diameter of between 1 bar and 6 bar. This would have been done to facilitate cutting workpieces with a thickness of more than 2mm (BEA Paragraph 16).
Regarding claim 20, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13.
Ragaard further teaches:
carrying out the fusion cutting process at a cutting speed which is at least 80% of the incomplete cutting speed (Paragraphs 117-119, the advance speed v can also be reduced to a value below the maximum advance speed v.sub.max when necessary, in order to prevent an overshoot of the predetermined (maximum) cutting front angle α.sub.G; Figures 6A-6D Paragraphs 117-118, cutting speed of 100% of an advance speed associated with the predetermined cutting front angle provides a good cut).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 21, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13.
Ragaard further teaches:
carrying out the fusion cutting process at a cutting speed which is at least 90% of the incomplete cutting speed (Paragraphs 117-119, the advance speed v can also be reduced to a value below the maximum advance speed v.sub.max when necessary, in order to prevent an overshoot of the predetermined (maximum) cutting front angle α.sub.G; Figures 6A-6D Paragraphs 117-118, cutting speed of 100% of an advance speed associated with the predetermined cutting front angle provides a good cut).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 22, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13, which further comprises
determining the cutting front length from an image of the interaction region as a length between two points along a profile section of the interaction region extending in a cutting direction (Figure 5 Paragraph 38, continuously generating diagnostic images and determining laser processing parameters including a length 22a of brightness maximum 22 which extends between two points along a profile section of the interaction region extending in the feed direction 18).
Regarding claim 23, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13, which further comprises
defining the two points as points at which a brightness falls below a brightness threshold value (Paragraph 10, image areas are identified whose pixels have a brightness value within a defined value range wherein pixels with a brightness value above a first threshold and below a second threshold are assigned to an image area; Paragraph 11, various features such as the length and width of the processing location can be determined using this method of identification; Paragraph 35, the length 22a is defined as the length of a brightness maximum 22 which by definition means that the points from which the length 22a are measured are points which fall below the brightness threshold value for the brightness maximum 22).
The Office further notes that identifying a length between two points having a brightness fall below a brightness threshold value is known in the art as evidenced by Schulz (US 20080000888 A1).
Regarding claim 24, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13, which further comprises
controlling the cutting front length to a predetermined target length by influencing at least one adjustment parameter of the cutting process (Paragraph 29, laser processing parameters are fed to a control device 16 which then adjusts process parameters of the laser processing process based on a comparison with a reference parameter; Paragraph 35, length 22a and width 22b are determined as laser processing parameters; Paragraph 38, process parameter such as laser power or focal position is adjusted based on deviation of the laser processing parameters from a reference setpoint such as to regulate them).
Regarding claim 25, KESLER as modified teaches the method according to claim 13, which further comprises
influencing at least one of a cutting speed between the machining beam and the workpiece or a power of the machining beam, as adjustment parameters for controlling the cutting front length (Paragraph 38, feed speed and laser power are regulated based on the determined laser processing parameters and their deviation from a reference setpoint).
Regarding claim 26, KESLER (DE 102012216928 A1) teaches a device for monitoring or controlling a cutting process on a workpiece (Figure 5), the device comprising:
a focusing unit (Figure 1, lens used to focus the laser 2a from the processing optics)1 for focusing a machining beam or a laser beam on the workpiece (Figures 1-2 Paragraph 38, focus position of the laser beam on the workpiece 4);
an image acquisition unit (camera 7) for detecting a region to be monitored on the workpiece, the region to be monitored including an interaction region of the machining beam with the workpiece (Figures 1-6b Paragraph 32, plurality of individual images 20 of the processing area 3 of the workpiece 4 are taken one after another with the camera 7 wherein the laser interacts with the workpiece); and
a first controller (Figure 1 Paragraph 29, image preparation device 13 and the image processing device are parts of an evaluation system 15 of the device 1) configured to determine, based on the detected interaction region, a cutting front length of a cutting front formed at a kerf during the cutting process (Paragraph 35, length 22a of brightness maximum 22), as a characteristic variable of the cutting process (Figure 5 Paragraph 38, continuously generating diagnostic images and determining laser processing parameters including length 22a to be tracked in a temporally and spatially resolved manner), the determination of the cutting front length being improved by averaging individual images of the interaction region recorded by said image acquisition unit (Paragraph 9, diagnostic image is generated from a plurality of individual images by averaging several individual images so that the process relevant information can be incorporated into the generated average image and said averaging is beneficial as it reduces fluctuations between individual images),
and the cutting front length being determined by detecting a length of a light appearance from a process zone or the interaction region of the machining beam with the workpiece (Figure 5 Paragraph 35, length 22a of the central maximum 22 wherein the central maximum is defined as a brightness maximum is determined as a laser processing parameter).
KESLER fails to teach:
and a weighted mean value being determined for the averaging
a second controller configured to use a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed to determine a dependence of the cutting front length on the cutting speed for carrying out a fusion cutting process at a cutting speed being less than the incomplete cutting speed
BEA (DE 102016215019 A1) teaches laser cutting metallic workpieces, comprising
carrying out a fusion cutting process (Paragraphs 3 and 20, fusion cutting process is used)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with BEA and have the laser cutting be fusion cutting. This would have been done to avoid the formation of cracks and pores in the weld seam by obtaining oxide free cut faces without needing post-processing as evidenced by Paragraphs 5 and 10-13 of Schulz (US 20120290276 A1).
KESLER modified with BEA fails to teach:
and a weighted mean value being determined for the averaging
a second controller configured to use a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed to determine a dependence of the cutting front length on the cutting speed for carrying out a cutting process at a cutting speed being less than the incomplete cutting speed
Stork (US 20120188365 A1) teaches a monitoring method for a laser cutting device, wherein:
a weighted mean value being determined for the averaging (Paragraphs 35-36, sequential image recording with a camera wherein the summation and averaging of individual images of a plurality of images of an image sequence wherein the averaging occurs in a weighted fashion).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with Stork and have the images be weighted when averaging. This would have been done to obtain images more effectively (Stork Paragraph 35).
While KESLER as modified fails to explicitly teach “a second controller configured to use a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed to determine a dependence of the cutting front length on the cutting speed for carrying out a cutting process at a cutting speed being less than the incomplete cutting speed”, Hesse (US 20130319980 A1) teaches a device and method for monitoring a laser cutting process on a workpiece wherein a cutting front length distance A4 is trigonometrically related to a cutting front angle depending on a thickness d of the workpiece, which is a predetermined value (Hesse Paragraph 63). Regaard (US 20160193692 A1) teaches a device and method for monitoring and regulating a cutting process, specifically a fusion cutting process (Regaard Paragraph 72), wherein an open loop and closed loop control apparatus sets the advance speed of the cutting process to a suitable value depending on the current cutting front angle determined by the evaluation apparatus, wherein the cutting front angle is associated with an advance speed of 100% which is the maximum advance speed at which a good cut is still possible, which indicates that it could potentially result in incomplete cuts. Regaard further teaches that the maximum advance speed is a guide value that is associated with a specific process task and wherein the advance speed v can also be reduced to a value below the maximum advance speed v.sub.max when necessary, in order to prevent an overshoot of the predetermined (maximum) cutting front angle α.sub.G (Regaard Paragraphs 117-120), which provides further support that the maximum advance speed could reasonably result in incomplete cuts. Regaard provides various cutting speed percentages, or ratios, and their associated effects on the cutting front angle (Regaard Figures 6A-6D Paragraph 117-118). Since Regaard teaches that the predetermined cutting front angle α.sub.G is associated with an advance speed v of 100%, which serves as a guide value, and wherein the advance speed is set or regulated on the basis of the cutting front angle such as to be lower than the advance speed, and Hesse teaches that a cutting front length distance A4 is trigonometrically related a cutting front angle, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified KESLER with Hesse and Regaard and used a control apparatus to determine a dependence of a cutting front length distance on cutting speed using a ratio of a cutting speed to an incomplete cutting speed as well as carrying out a fusion cutting process at a cutting speed being less than the incomplete cutting speed. This would have been done such as to ensure that a good cut is present in the workpiece (Regaard Paragraph 117).
Regarding claim 27, KESLER as modified teaches the device according to claim 26, which further comprises
a second controller for controlling the cutting front length to a predetermined target length by influencing at least one adjustment parameter of the cutting process (Paragraph 29, laser processing parameters are fed to a control device 16 which then adjusts process parameters of the laser processing process based on a comparison with a reference parameter; Paragraph 35, length 22a and width 22b are determined as laser processing parameters; Paragraph 38, process parameter such as laser power or focal position is adjusted based on deviation of the laser processing parameters from a reference setpoint such as to regulate them).
Regarding claim 28, KESLER as modified teaches the device according to claim 27.
Ragaard further teaches:
a second controller is configured to control the cutting front length to the target length, at which the cutting speed is at least 80% of the incomplete cut speed (Paragraphs 117-119, the advance speed v can also be reduced to a value below the maximum advance speed v.sub.max when necessary, in order to prevent an overshoot of the predetermined (maximum) cutting front angle α.sub.G using the control apparatus; Figures 6A-6D Paragraphs 117-118, cutting speed of 100% of an advance speed associated with the predetermined cutting front angle provides a good cut).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 29, KESLER as modified teaches the device according to claim 27.
Ragaard further teaches:
said control unit is configured to control the cutting front length to the target length, at which the cutting speed is at least 90% of the incomplete cut speed (Paragraphs 117-119, the advance speed v can also be reduced to a value below the maximum advance speed v.sub.max when necessary, in order to prevent an overshoot of the predetermined (maximum) cutting front angle α.sub.G using the control apparatus; Figures 6A-6D Paragraphs 117-118, cutting speed of 100% of an advance speed associated with the predetermined cutting front angle provides a good cut).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office further notes that it is well known in the art to use lenses for focusing a laser beam onto a workpiece as evidenced by Schindhelm (US 20130319980 A1).
Prosecution Insights