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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed July 9, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The “scanning pattern” claimed is defined within the specification as “may be any with which it is desired to irradiate the object to be processed by the apparatus.” The Kerekes reference uses the term “vectors” to define the scanning pattern in which the laser beam is moved to process an object. The rejections of claims 1 and 10 have been updated to reference paragraph 4 of Kerekes and the term “vectors”.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “adjusting the extension of the predetermined threshold area in different portions of the workpiece differently, so that the extension is lower near the sensitive portions of the workpiece than in other portions of the workpiece” and “repeating said pattern”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Features related to WO2014/037281 are not considered to be in the disclosure as originally filed.
The Kerekes reference discloses driving positional errors of the scanning encoder to zero, which implies the scanning encoders operating in an area that deviates from the expected scanning area. These errors are calculated by the processor (Ref. 103) in Kerekes.
The positions of the encoders, which control the scan position, are taken at each time step and are compared to the expected position, and this is equivalent to the actual and threshold patterns. If outside of the expected position, it would be considered a deviation from the expected scanning pattern, or “vector”, which would be considered a threshold area as defined in the applicant’s specification.
Similarly, the Kitai reference, Para. 95, discloses an error condition detected by image data. Having an error is evidence that the beam has deviated from the expected scan area, and that is within the “threshold” area as defined by the applicant’s specification.
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 10-11, filed July 9, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 8 under Kerekes have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Gabilondo et al. US 2015/0211083 A1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-3, 6, 7, 10-12, and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kerekes et al. US 20060215246 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Kerekes discloses a method for supervision of a scan of an energy beam (Para. 14), the method including the following steps: providing an apparatus configured to provide the energy beams (Fig. 1, Ref. 110) providing a scanner (Fig. 2, Ref. 103) configured to scan the energy beam (Para. 56), the scanner comprising a first mirror and a second mirror (Para. 56; Fig. 1, Refs. 146 and 147); operating the apparatus and the scanner such that the energy beam is provided while it is scanned (Para. 16) according to a predetermined scanning pattern (Para. 4, “vectors”); determining (Para. 16), by at least one processor of a computer device (Para. 55; Fig. 2, Ref. 140) or system, an actual scanning pattern of the energy beam (Para. 12), while both the apparatus and the scanner are operated (Para. 16), by processing measurements provided by encoders of the first mirror and the second mirror (Para. 58), comparing, by the at least one processor, the actual scanning pattern with a predetermined threshold area (Para. 69, “pre-analyzed and optimized vectors”); and determining, by the at least one processor, whether the scan of the energy beam is anomalous based on the comparison (Para. 19, wherein a position error is determined).
Regarding claim 2, Kerekes discloses wherein the predetermined threshold area or a majority thereof does not comprise an expected scanning pattern (Para. 33 wherein the scan is made up of instantaneous positions of the beam); and determining whether the scan of the energy beam is anomalous comprises determining that the scan is anomalous when at least part of the actual scanning pattern is outside of the predetermined threshold area (Para. 30 wherein an error in scanning is detected).
Regarding claim 3, Kerekes discloses wherein the predetermined threshold area comprises an expected scanning pattern (Para. 20 discloses scanning along the pre-analyzed route); and determining whether the scan of the energy beam is anomalous comprises determining that the scan is anomalous when at least part of the actual scanning pattern is inside of the predetermined threshold area (Para. 20 wherein suitable parameters are determined and controlled).
Regarding claim 6, Kerekes discloses wherein the scanner is operated such that each of a maximum angular coverage in a first direction and a maximum angular coverage in a second direction is greater than 0 degrees and equal to or less than 20 degrees (Para. 59 wherein the scanning resolution is 5 microradians or 0.017 degrees), the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (Para. 56 discloses wherein the galvanometer scanning mirrors are mounted perpendicularly and move in relation to each other).
Regarding claim 7, Kerekes discloses wherein each maximum angular coverage is equal to or less than 5 degrees (Para. 59 wherein the scanning resolution is 5 microradians or 0.017 degrees).
Regarding claim 10, Kerekes discloses a system for supervision of a scan of an energy beam (Fig. 1, Ref. 100), comprising: an apparatus configured to provide the energy beam (Fig. 1, Ref. 110); a scanner (Fig. 2, Rf. 103) configured to scan the energy beam (Para. 56), the scanner comprising a first mirror and a second mirror(Para. 56; Fig. 1, Refs. 146 and 147), each mirror comprising at least one encoder (Para. 58 wherein the encoders are used to measure the change in galvanometer shafts), the scanner and the apparatus being configured to provide the energy beam while it is scanned (Para. 16) according to a predetermined scanning pattern (Para. 4, “vectors”); and a computing device or system comprising at least one processor (Para. 55; Fig. 2, Ref. 140); the at least one processor is configured to: determine an actual scanning pattern of the energy beam (Para. 69, “pre-analyzed and optimized vectors”), when both the apparatus and the scanner are operated (Para. 16), by processing measurements provided by the encoders of the first mirror and the second mirror (Para. 58); compare the actual scanning pattern with a predetermined threshold area (Para. 69, “pre-analyzed and optimized vectors”); and determine whether the scan of the energy beam is anomalous based on the comparison (Para. 19, wherein a position error is determined).
Regarding claim 11, Kerekes discloses wherein the predetermined threshold area or a majority thereof does not comprise an expected scanning pattern (Para. 33 wherein the scan is made up of instantaneous positions of the beam); and wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the scan of the energy beam is anomalous by determining that it is anomalous when at least part of the actual scanning pattern is outside of the predetermined threshold area (Para. 30 wherein an error in scanning is detected).
Regarding claim 12, Kerekes discloses wherein the predetermined threshold area comprises an expected scanning pattern (Para. 20 discloses scanning along the pre-analyzed route); and wherein the at least one processor is configured to determine whether the scan of the energy beam is anomalous by determining that it is anomalous when at least part of the actual scanning pattern is inside of the predetermined threshold area (Para. 20 wherein suitable parameters are determined and controlled).
Regarding claim 16, Kerekes discloses wherein the scanner is operated such that each of a maximum angular coverage in a first direction and a maximum angular coverage in a second direction is greater than 0 degrees and equal to or less than 20 degrees (Para. 59 wherein the scanning resolution is 5 microradians or 0.017 degrees), the first direction being perpendicular to the second direction (Para. 56 discloses wherein the galvanometer scanning mirrors are mounted perpendicularly and move in relation to each other).
Regarding claim 17, Kerekes discloses wherein each maximum angular coverage is equal to or less than 5 degrees (Para. 59 wherein the scanning resolution is 5 microradians or 0.017 degrees).
Regarding claim 18, Kerekes discloses wherein each maximum angular coverage is equal to or less than 1 degree (Para. 59 wherein the scanning resolution is 5 microradians or 0.017 degrees).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rajagopalan et al. US 2018/0117718 A1 in view of Kerekes et al. US 2006/0215246 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Rajagopalan discloses a method (Para. 17) for supervision of a scan of an energy beam (Para. 30), the method including the following steps: providing an apparatus configured to provide the energy beam (Para. 7), providing a scanner configured to scan the energy beam (Para. 273), operating the apparatus and the scanner such that the energy beam is provided while it is scanned according to a predetermined scanning pattern (Para. 31 wherein the scanner is operated based on the profile of the region between the pipes), determining, by at least one processor of a computer device or system, an actual scanning pattern of the energy beam (Para. 31 wherein the scanner is operated based on the profile of the region between the pipes), while both the apparatus and the scanner are operated, by processing measurements, comparing, by the at least one processor, the actual scanning pattern with a predetermined threshold area (Para. 31 wherein a person of ordinary skill would understand “undesirable characteristics” would be outside a threshold area of acceptable workmanship), and determining, by the at least one processor, whether the scan of the energy beam is anomalous based on the comparison (Para. 31).
Rajagopalan does not specifically disclose wherein the scanner I comprises a first and second mirror.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kerekes teaches the scanner comprising a first mirror and a second mirror (Para. 56; Fig. 1, Refs. 146 and 147).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Rajagopalan with Kerekes to determine laser spot velocity and the power calibration curve is used to evaluate what level of power modulation is needed to make the laser power proportional to the laser spot velocity.
Regarding claim 10, Rajagopalan discloses a system (Para. 7) for supervision of a scan of an energy beam, comprising: an apparatus configured to provide the energy beam (Para. 7); a scanner configured to scan the energy beam (Para. 273), the scanner and the apparatus being configured to provide the energy beam while it is scanned according to a predetermined scanning pattern (Para. 31 wherein the scanner is operated based on the profile of the region between the pipes); and a computing device or system comprising at least one processor (Para. 18); the at least one processor is configured to: determine an actual scanning pattern of the energy beam (Para. 31 wherein the scanner is operated based on the profile of the region between the pipes), compare the actual scanning pattern with a predetermined threshold area (Para. 31 wherein a person of ordinary skill would understand “undesirable characteristics” would be outside a threshold area of acceptable workmanship); and determine whether the scan of the energy beam is anomalous based on the comparison (Para. 31).
Rajagopalan does not specifically disclose wherein the scanner comprising a first mirror and a second mirror, each mirror comprising at least one encoder, and when both the apparatus and the scanner are operated, by processing measurements provided by the encoders of the first mirror and the second mirror.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kerekes teaches the scanner comprising a first mirror and a second mirror(Para. 56; Fig. 1, Refs. 146 and 147), each mirror comprising at least one encoder (Para. 58 wherein the encoders are used to measure the change in galvanometer shafts), and by processing measurements provided by the encoders of the first mirror and the second mirror (Para. 58).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Rajagopalan with Kerekes to determine laser spot velocity and the power calibration curve is used to evaluate what level of power modulation is needed to make the laser power proportional to the laser spot velocity.
Claims 4, 9, 13, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerekes et al. US 2006/0215246 A1 in view of Kitai et al. US 2005/0205778 A1.
Regarding claim 4, Kerekes does not specifically disclose at least one of: indicating, when it is determined that the scan of the energy beam is anomalous, that an object that was processed by the apparatus is incorrectly processed; and/or stopping the apparatus when it is determined that the scan of the energy beam is anomalous.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kitai teaches at least one of: indicating, when it is determined that the scan of the energy beam is anomalous, that an object that was processed by the apparatus is incorrectly processed (Para. 95); and/or stopping the apparatus when it is determined that the scan of the energy beam is anomalous (Para. 95).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kerekes with Kitai to improve the accuracy when processing a substrate.
Regarding claim 9, Kerekes does not specifically disclose including the following steps: obtaining data indicative of the actual scanning pattern being different from the predetermined scanning pattern, and modifying the predetermined scanning pattern based on the data indicative of the actual scanning pattern.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kitai teaches including the following steps: obtaining data indicative of the actual scanning pattern being different from the predetermined scanning pattern (Para. 95), and modifying the predetermined scanning pattern based on the data indicative of the actual scanning pattern (Para. 95; Para. 259).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kerekes with Kitai to improve the accuracy when processing a substrate and using the calibration data for future analysis or to correct processes.
Regarding claim 13, Kerekes does not specifically disclose at least one of: indicating, when it is determined that the scan of the energy beam is anomalous, that an object that was processed by the apparatus is incorrectly processed; and/or stopping the apparatus when it is determined that the scan of the energy beam is anomalous.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kitai teaches at least one of: indicating, when it is determined that the scan of the energy beam is anomalous, that an object that was processed by the apparatus is incorrectly processed (Para. 95); and/or stopping the apparatus when it is determined that the scan of the energy beam is anomalous (Para. 95).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kerekes with Kitai to improve the accuracy when processing a substrate.
Regarding claim 15, Kerekes does not specifically disclose including the following steps: obtaining data indicative of the actual scanning pattern being different from the predetermined scanning pattern, and modifying the predetermined scanning pattern based on the data indicative of the actual scanning pattern.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kitai teaches including the following steps: obtaining data indicative of the actual scanning pattern being different from the predetermined scanning pattern (Para. 95), and modifying the predetermined scanning pattern based on the data indicative of the actual scanning pattern (Para. 95; Para. 259).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kerekes with Kitai to improve the accuracy when processing a substrate and using the calibration data for future analysis or to correct processes.
Claims 5 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerekes et al. US 2006/0215246 A1 in view of Bor et al. US 2013/0211390 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Kerekes does not specifically disclose wherein the encoders of the first mirror and the second mirror provide the measurements with a frequency equal to or greater than 10 kHz.
However in the same field of endeavor, Bor teaches wherein the encoders of the first mirror and the second mirror provide the measurements with a frequency equal to or greater than 10 kHz (Para. 31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kerekes with Bor to increase the laser scanning rate while improving control.
Regarding claim 14, Kerekes does not specifically disclose wherein the encoders of the first mirror and the second mirror provide the measurements with a frequency equal to or greater than 10 kHz.
However in the same field of endeavor, Bor teaches wherein the encoders of the first mirror and the second mirror provide the measurements with a frequency equal to or greater than 10 kHz (Para. 31).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kerekes with Bor to increase the laser scanning rate while improving control.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kerekes et al. US 2006/0215246 A1 in view of Gabilondo et al. US 2015/0211083 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Kerekes does not specifically disclose wherein the energy beam is scanned at a speed whereby the predetermined scanning pattern is repeated thirty or more times per second.
However in the same field of endeavor, Gabilondo teaches wherein the energy beam is scanned at a speed whereby the predetermined scanning pattern is repeated thirty or more times per second (Para 67).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kerekes with Gabilondo to increase the possibilities of adapting the energy distribution as much as possible to the characteristics of the surface being hardened.
Claims 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kitai et al. US 2005/0205778 A1 in view of Kerekes et al. US 2006/0215246 A1.
Regarding claim 19, Kitai discloses a computer-readable storage medium comprising instructions (Para. 86; Fig. 9a, Ref. 550b) which, when executed by a computing device or system (Para. 86; Fig. 9a, Ref. 550 wherein the system controllers directs the operation of the entire system), cause the computing device or system to perform the steps of: operating an apparatus (Para. 86) and a scanner such that an energy beam thereof is provided while it is scanned with the scanner (Para. 88) according to a predetermined scanning pattern (Para. 6); determining an actual scanning pattern of the energy beam (Para. 95), when both the apparatus and the scanner are operated; comparing the actual scanning pattern with a predetermined threshold area (Para. 95); determining whether a scan of the energy beam is anomalous based on the comparison (Para. 95).
Kitai does not specifically disclose by processing measurements provided by encoders of a first mirror and a second mirror of the scanner.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kerekes teaches by processing measurements provided by encoders of a first mirror and a second mirror of the scanner (Para. 58).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kitai with Kerekes to have a high angular resolution of mirror measurements.
Regarding claim 20, Kitai discloses wherein the instructions further cause the computing device or system to perform the steps of: obtaining data indicative of the actual scanning pattern being different from the predetermined scanning pattern (Para. 95); modifying the predetermined scanning pattern based on the data indicative of the actual scanning pattern (Para. 95; Para. 259).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Diaz et al. US 2017/0239724 A1 - METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR ADDITIVE MANUFACTURING USING A LIGHT BEAM
Singh US 2014/0375794 A1 - APPARATUSES AND METHODS FOR ACCURATE STRUCTURE MARKING AND MARKING-ASSISTED STRUCTURE LOCATING
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday, Wednesday, and Thursday 7:00 am-11:00 am and Tuesday 8:00 am-3:30 pm.
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 on (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.
/K.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761