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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 May 2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 15 May 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the claims have overcome one of the Drawing objections. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
The Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome one of the previous Claim objections. However, a new Claim objection have been added in the present Office action.
A new 35 USC 101 rejection has been added to the Office action.
Applicant’s amendments and persuasive arguments (see page 9 of the Arguments filed 15 May 2026) have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections. However, a new 35 USC 112 rejection has been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 May 2026, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being obvious in view of the prior art.
Claims 15-16 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, and if the Claim objection for claim 15 and the 35 USC 101 rejection for claim 15 were overcome.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 15 May 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-2, 6-7, 9, 11, and 15-17 have been amended. Claims 5, 10, and 13-14 have been cancelled. Claims 18-19 are new.
Claims 1-4, 6-9, 11-12, and 15-19 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 15, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…by adjusting relative positions of the origins and relative in-plane angles of rotation of the plurality of spatial coordinates to the machining state information and the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the intensity distribution information.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-4, 9, and 15-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of Claims has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of Claims 1-4, 9, and 15-18 recites at least one step or instruction for concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion), which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Accordingly, each of Claims 1-4, 9, and 15-18 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites a method for assessing dependence of laser machining on laser light intensity of a laser light from a light source (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), i.e., a method for “assessing” is deemed to be an observation, judgement or evaluation that can be performed in the human mind), the method comprising:
acquiring machining state information showing a machining state by the laser machining at one or each machining point on a workpiece, the machining state information including values of the machining state corresponding to a plurality of spatial coordinates within the one or each machining point (observation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), i.e., a “acquiring machining state information” is deemed to be an observation that can be performed in the human mind);
measuring the laser light intensity (observation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), i.e., a “measuring the laser light” is deemed to be an observation that can be performed in the human mind) as an actual measurement by a beam profiler (additional element), to acquire intensity distribution information including values of the laser light intensity at the plurality of spatial coordinates within the one or each machining point (observation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), i.e., a “acquiring intensity distribution information” is deemed to be an observation that can be performed in the human mind);
matching the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the machining state information and the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the intensity distribution information so as to associate the values of the machining state with the values of the laser light intensity at corresponding coordinates (evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), i.e., a “matching…coordinates” is deemed to be an evaluation that can be performed in the human mind); and
assessing, as an assessment result, dependence of the laser machining of the workpiece on the laser light intensity based on the values of the machining state information and the values of the laser light intensity associated with each other at the corresponding coordinates (judgement, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III), i.e., a “assessing” is deemed to be a judgement that can be performed in the human mind).
Further, dependent Claims 2-4, 9, and 15-18 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the process steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in each of independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent Claims 2-4, 9, and 15-18) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent Claim 1), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h).
More specifically, the additional element of a “beam profiler” does not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Accordingly, independent Claim 1 (and their respective dependent claims) are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claims 1-4, 9, and 15-18 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of: a “beam profiler.”
Per Applicant’s specification, the “so-called beam profiler” is described without structure or detailed drawings and is further described as a component that is well understood, routine and conventional (paragraph 0002 of the Specification).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional element in independent Claim 1 (and their dependent claims) does not add significantly more because it is simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the Claims 1-4, 9, and 15-18 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1-4, 9, and 15-18 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claim 19 is a post-solution activity that integrates the abstract idea of claim 1 into a practical application. The Applicant can overcome this rejection by incorporating claim 19 into claim 1.
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.
Claim 9 is 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.
The limitation: “…the position of the beam profiler is identical to that of the workpiece…” of claim 9 is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Although fig. 2 of the Drawings shows the position of the profiler 4 and the workpiece 10, these positions are not shown as being identical.
As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
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.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-4, 6-8, 11, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unrath et al. (US-20100059490-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Unrath teaches a method (method 500, fig. 5) for assessing dependence of laser machining (“processing a workpiece 120,” para 0041) on laser light intensity (“desired spatial intensity profile,” para 0041) of a laser light (beam 116, fig. 4) from a light source (“a laser source to generate an input laser beam,” claim 7), the method comprising:
acquiring machining state information (“Itarget ,” para 0049; “spatial intensity profile of the target reference beam,” para 0049; the control system acquires a spatial intensity profile for a target reference beam, which is construed as the claimed “machining state information,” paras 0048-0049), the machining state information including values of the machining state corresponding to a plurality of spatial coordinates within the one or each machining point (“I target=exp [−(a(x−x 0))2m−(b(y−y 0))2n],” para 0049; the intensity is measure is determined for spatial coordinates of a “target reference beam,” para 0049; each point in the beam is construed as being a claimed “each machining point”);
measuring the laser light intensity as an actual measurement by a beam profiler (“Icamera is the spatial intensity profile measured by the camera,” para 0049; a camera is construed as the claimed “beam profiler,” and the spatial intensity profile of the beam is construed as the claimed “laser light intensity”), to acquire intensity distribution information including values of the laser light intensity at the plurality of spatial coordinates within the one or each machining point (“Icamera(x, y)),” para 0049; construed as laser light intensity at coordinates, x and y);
matching (an RMS error signal is determined by matching the coordinates, para 0049) the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the machining state information (“Itarget ,” para 0049) and the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the intensity distribution information (“Icamera ,” para 0049) so as to associate the values of the machining state with the values of the laser light intensity at corresponding coordinates (the values are associated in the equation for “Esignal,” para 0049); and
assessing (step 516, fig. 5; “The control system 114 uses the error signal Esignal to adjust the inputs,” para 0050), as an assessment result (“Esignal,” para 0049), dependence of the laser machining of the workpiece on the laser light intensity based on the values of the machining state (Esignal is dependent on Itarget, para 0049).
Unrath, fig. 4
PNG
media_image1.png
596
650
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment, Unrath does not explicitly disclose a machining state by the laser machining at one or each machining point on a workpiece.
However, in a different embodiment, Unrath teaches a machining state by the laser machining at one or each machining point on a workpiece (“The control system 114 may be programmed, for example, to associate the first portion of the workpiece 120 with the first spatial intensity profile. In one embodiment, the first portion of the workpiece 120 may be associated with a type of feature (e.g., linear trench, curved trench, or material with a particular density),” para 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of figs. 4-5, in view of the teachings of the fig. 2 embodiment, by using the spatial intensity profile for a trench in a workpiece, as taught in fig. 2, as the intensity for the target reference beam, as taught in figs. 4-5, in order to generate a processing beam, where the characteristics of the beam can be selectively modified depending on the desired spatial intensity profile of a trench in a workpiece (para 0019).
Regarding claim 2, Unrath teaches wherein either or both of the machining state information and the intensity distribution information are information in n-dimensional directions for showing a position of the one or each machining point on the workpiece, where n is 2 or 3 (“the laser spot on the workpiece 120 may be imaged,” para 0048; the laser spot has two dimensions, x and y, para 0049; construed as n=2).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of the figs. 4-5 embodiment in view of the fig. 2 embodiment as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Unrath teaches wherein the machining state of the workpiece is a state in which a shape of the workpiece has been changed by machining (forming a “trench” in the workpiece is construed as changing the shape of the workpiece, para 0028).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of the figs. 4-5 embodiment in view of the fig. 2 embodiment as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 4. Specifically, Unrath teaches wherein the machining state of the workpiece is a state in which physical properties of the workpiece have been changed by machining (forming a “trench” in the workpiece is construed as changing the physical properties of the workpiece as a result of the laser machining that results in a trench, para 0028).
Regarding claim 6, Unrath teaches a laser machining device (laser processing system 400, fig. 4) comprising:
a light source (“a laser source to generate an input laser beam,” claim 7) for radiating a laser light (beam 116, fig. 4) to a workpiece (workpiece 120, fig. 4) to perform laser machining;
a beam profiler (“camera,” para 0049) to measure a laser light distribution intensity as an actual measurement (“Icamera is the spatial intensity profile measured by the camera,” para 0049); and
a computer (control system 114, fig. 4; “computer,” para 0024; “With reference to FIGS. 4 and 5, para 0041; “…in a feedback loop, the control system 114…” para 0039), wherein the computer is configured to:
acquire machining state information (“Itarget ,” para 0049; “spatial intensity profile of the target reference beam,” para 0049; the control system acquires a spatial intensity profile for a target reference beam, which is construed as the claimed “machining state information,” paras 0048-0049), the machining state information including values of the machining state corresponding to a plurality of spatial coordinates within the one or each machining point (“I target=exp [−(a(x−x 0))2m−(b(y−y 0))2n],” para 0049; the intensity is measure is determined for spatial coordinates of a “target reference beam,” para 0049; each point in the beam is construed as being a claimed “each machining point”);
acquire intensity distribution information measured by the beam profiler (“Icamera is the spatial intensity profile measured by the camera,” para 0049; a camera is construed as the claimed “beam profiler,” and the spatial intensity profile of the beam is construed as the claimed “laser light intensity”), the intensity distribution information including values of the laser light intensity at the plurality of spatial coordinates within the one or each machining point (“Icamera(x, y)),” para 0049; construed as laser light intensity at coordinates, x and y);
match (an RMS error signal is determined by matching the coordinates, para 0049) the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the machining state information (“Itarget ,” para 0049) and the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the intensity distribution information (“Icamera ,” para 0049) so as to associate the values of the machining state with the values of the laser light intensity at corresponding coordinates (the values are associated in the equation for “Esignal,” para 0049); and
assess (step 516, fig. 5; “The control system 114 uses the error signal Esignal to adjust the inputs,” para 0050), as an assessment result (“Esignal,” para 0049), dependence of the laser machining of the workpiece on the laser light intensity based on the values of the machining state and the values of the laser light intensity associated with each other at the corresponding coordinates (Esignal is dependent on Itarget, para 0049, and is determined based on corresponding coordinates x,y).
In this embodiment, Unrath does not explicitly disclose a machining state by the laser machining at one or each machining point on a workpiece.
However, in a different embodiment, Unrath teaches a machining state by the laser machining at one or each machining point on a workpiece (“The control system 114 may be programmed, for example, to associate the first portion of the workpiece 120 with the first spatial intensity profile. In one embodiment, the first portion of the workpiece 120 may be associated with a type of feature (e.g., linear trench, curved trench, or material with a particular density),” para 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of figs. 5-6, in view of the teachings of the fig. 2 embodiment, by using the spatial intensity profile for a trench in a workpiece, as taught in fig. 2, as the intensity for the target reference beam, as taught in figs. 5-6, in order to generate a processing beam, where the characteristics of the beam can be selectively modified depending on the desired spatial intensity profile of a trench in a workpiece (para 0019).
Regarding claim 7, Unrath teaches a laser machining method (method 500, fig. 5) using the laser machining device according to claim 6 (please see the rejection for claim 6 above), the laser machining method comprising:
radiating the laser light (beam 116, fig. 4) to the workpiece (workpiece 120, fig. 4) from the light source (“laser source,” claim 7);
acquiring the machining state information (“Itarget ,” para 0049; “spatial intensity profile of the target reference beam,” para 0049; the control system acquires a spatial intensity profile for a target reference beam, which is construed as the claimed “machining state information,” paras 0048-0049), the machining state information including values of the machining state corresponding to a plurality of spatial coordinates within the one or each machining point (“I target=exp [−(a(x−x 0))2m−(b(y−y 0))2n],” para 0049; the intensity is measure is determined for spatial coordinates of a “target reference beam,” para 0049; each point in the beam is construed as being a claimed “each machining point”);
measuring the laser light intensity as the actual measurement by the beam profiler of the laser machining device (“Icamera is the spatial intensity profile measured by the camera,” para 0049; a camera is construed as the claimed “beam profiler,” and the spatial intensity profile of the beam is construed as the claimed “laser light intensity”), to acquire the intensity distribution information including values of the laser light intensity at the plurality of spatial coordinates within the one or each machining point (“Icamera(x, y)),” para 0049; construed as laser light intensity at coordinates, x and y); and
matching (an RMS error signal is determined by matching the coordinates, para 0049) the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the machining state information (“Itarget ,” para 0049) and the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the intensity distribution information (“Icamera ,” para 0049) so as to associate the values of the machining state with the values of the laser light intensity at corresponding coordinates (the values are associated in the equation for “Esignal,” para 0049, for each of the corresponding coordinates, x and y); and
assessing (“The control system 114 uses the error signal Esignal to adjust the inputs,” para 0050), as the assessment result (“Esignal,” para 0049), the dependence of the laser machining of the workpiece on the laser light intensity based on the values of the machining state and the values of the laser light intensity associated with each other at the corresponding coordinates (Esignal is dependent on Itarget , Icamera, and on x and y, para 0049), and obtaining the workpiece (“to obtain an output laser beam 118 for processing a workpiece 120,” para 0041) that is laser-machined by adjusting (step 516, fig. 5) the machining state according to the assessment result (“using feedback,” para 0041).
In this embodiment, Unrath does not explicitly disclose a machining state at one or each machining point on a workpiece.
However, in a different embodiment, Unrath teaches a machining state at one or each machining point on a workpiece (“The control system 114 may be programmed, for example, to associate the first portion of the workpiece 120 with the first spatial intensity profile. In one embodiment, the first portion of the workpiece 120 may be associated with a type of feature (e.g., linear trench, curved trench, or material with a particular density),” para 0028).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of figs. 4-5, in view of the teachings of the fig. 2 embodiment, by using the spatial intensity profile for a trench in a workpiece, as taught in fig. 2, as the intensity for the target reference beam, as taught in figs. 4-5, in order to generate a processing beam, where the characteristics of the beam can be selectively modified depending on the desired spatial intensity profile of a trench in a workpiece (para 0019).
Regarding claim 8, Unrath teaches a workpiece laser-machined (processing a workpiece 120,” para 0041) by the laser machining method according to claim 7 (not given any patentable weight; determination of patentability is based on the product itself and not its method of production, MPEP 2113)
Regarding claim 11, Unrath teaches wherein measuring the laser light intensity (“Icamera is the spatial intensity profile measured by the camera,” para 0049) comprises radiating the laser light (light 116, fig. 4) from the light source to a machining position of the workpiece (focus of beam 118 with workpiece 120 is construed as the claimed “machining position,” fig. 4; the light 118 produces a “spatial intensity profile” that is measured by the camera, para 0048).
Regarding claim 17, Unrath teaches wherein the step of assessing (step 516, fig. 5) uses actual measurement data of the laser light intensity acquired by the step of measuring (“the spatial intensity profile measured by the camera,” para 0049), rather than assuming any predetermined distribution of the laser light intensity (construed such that an actual, measured intensity profile is generated from the camera without make an assumption about the intensity distribution).
Regarding claim 18, the combination of the figs. 4-5 embodiment in view of the fig. 2 embodiment as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 18. Specifically, Unrath teaches wherein the one or each machining point is one or each concave portion (forming a “trench” in the workpiece is construed as forming a concave portion in the workpiece, para 0028) or hole (not explicitly disclosed) produced by machining by the laser light.
Regarding claim 19, Unrath teaches further comprising: adjusting a laser light output condition of the light source based on the assessment result (step 516, fig. 5); and obtaining a laser-machined workpiece based on the adjusting (“to obtain an output laser beam 118 for processing a workpiece 120,” para 0041).
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unrath et al. (US-20100059490-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kramer et al. (US-20180029164-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Unrath teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a position of the beam profiler is identical to that of the workpiece arranged for machining such that the beam profiler acquires the intensity distribution information about the laser light at a machining position of the workpiece (Unrath does not explicitly disclose the position of the camera).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting, Kramer teaches wherein a position (horizontal position, fig. 2) of the beam profiler (sensor 34, fig. 2; “CCD camera or CMOS sensor,” para 0086) is identical (same horizontal position, i.e., the sensor 34 is positioned over the processing region 17 in fig. 2, similar to what is disclosed in fig. 2 of the Instant Application) to that of the workpiece arranged for machining (processing region 17, fig. 2) such that the beam profiler acquires the intensity distribution information (“diameter,” para 0088; “intensity distribution,” para 0088) about the laser light at a machining position of the workpiece (“of the laser beam focus 12 in the processing region 17,” para 0088).
Kramer, fig. 2
PNG
media_image2.png
1134
787
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Unrath, in view of the teachings of Kramer, by positioning the camera, as taught by Unrath, directly over the processing region, as taught by Kramer, in order to transmit the reflected beam in a straight direction for analysis by the sensor, which allows for analysis of the beam by a diagnostic device (Kramer, para 0067).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Unrath et al. (US-20100059490-A1) as applied to claim 6 above and further in view of Bruneel et al. (US-20210034798-A1).
Regarding claim 12, Unrath teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the computer acquires the machining state information from a microscope.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting, Bruneel teaches wherein the computer (“computer program,” para 0128; para 0006) acquires the machining state information from a microscope (“optical or electron microscope,” para 0157; para 0278).
Bruneel, fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
950
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Unrath, in view of the teachings of Bruneel, by using the D2 method for calculating threshold fluence values, as taught by Bruneel, which is then used as the spatial intensity profile of the target reference beam, as taught by Unrath, in order to use an ablation threshold determination method that is widely accepted and used for determining the ablation threshold for various types of materials (Bruneel, para 0148).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 15-16 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, and if the Claim objection for claim 15 and the 35 USC 101 rejection for claim 15 were overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “wherein the step of assessing matching includes a step of matching two-dimensional coordinates of the intensity distribution information and two-dimensional coordinates of the machining state information by adjusting relative positions of the origins and relative in-plane angles of rotation” between “the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the machining state information and the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the intensity distribution information,” as required in claims 1 and 15.
The examiner has relied on the Specification and figs. 4-6 from the Drawings in order to understand this limitation. Specifically, fig. 4 shows the “two-dimensional coordinates of the intensity distribution information,” and fig. 5 shows the “two-dimensional coordinates of the machining state information.” Figure 6 shows how the two images are matched or aligned by “adjusting relative positions of the origins and relative in-plane angles of rotation” between figs. 4-5.
The closest prior art of record (Unrath/ US20100059490A1) teaches adjusting for the error between an intensity distribution for a camera and another intensity distribution for a target beam. However, this reference does not teach “adjusting relative positions of the origins and relative in-plane angles of rotation.” Instead, the reference teaches adjusting the voltages of the inputs (paragraph 0050).
Another reference was also considered (Bruneel/ US20210034798A1). However, this reference does not teach “the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the machining state information and the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the intensity distribution information,” as required in claim 1. The examiner was persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments regarding the Bruneel reference on pages 11-14 and 17-18 (i.e., the exhibit) of the arguments filed 15 May 2026.
An additional reference was also considered (Sluyterman/US-20160346118-A1). In determining a desired ablation profile for eye surgery, this reference teaches a “shifting” to a coordinate system and references WO2001085075A1. However, the shift in coordinate systems is between the Cartesian coordinate system and a polar coordinate system, where the center is the optical axis is the center of the eye. This is different from the requirements of the claim, where adjustments are made for the “relative positions of the origins and relative in-plane angles of rotation” for “the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the machining state information and the plurality of spatial coordinates corresponding to the intensity distribution information” in order to complete the claimed “matching” step, as required in claim 1.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claims.
Response to Argument
Applicant' s arguments filed 15 May 2026 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Unrath.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Mrochen et al. (US-7544194-B2) teach a method for rotation using a coordinate system.
Miller et al. (US-8029501-B2) teach ablation profiles.
Mishima et al. (US-20110318530-A1) teach ablation profiles.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights