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 .
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 03/16/2026, claims 1-3, 10, 12 and 15-18 are pending.
Claim 1 has been amended.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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, 2 and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warashina (US 20180161930 A1, previously cited) in view of in view of Fujiya (US 20120211476 A1, previously cited) and further in view of Sakamoto (US 20110300691 A1, newly cited)
Regarding claim 1, Warashina discloses
A laser processing device ( laser processing machine, see Fig. 1 and para.0009) that irradiates a processing region of a workpiece (processing region of a workpiece W, see fig.1)
with (laser light focused by the focus lens 24, see fig.1 and para.0013) through a liquid (water column 30, see fig.1) to subject the processing region (processing region of the workpiece W) to a laser peening process or a laser forming process (process of the laser processing machine which is equivalent to the claimed “a laser forming process”), comprising:
a laser irradiation unit (laser oscillator 14 and focus lens 24, see fig.1) including a laser oscillator (laser oscillator 14) that outputs the (laser light, see fig.1 and para. 0013: “ laser light from a laser oscillator 14”);
a water injection nozzle (housing 12, see fig.1) that includes, at a front end wall (see front end wall in annotated fig.1 below), an injection port (see injection port in annotated fig.1 below) through which the liquid (30) is injected to the processing region (processing region of the workpiece W),
PNG
media_image1.png
662
794
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Warashina
and accommodates the laser irradiation unit (laser oscillator 14 and focus lens 24) including the laser oscillator (14, see fig.1),
the pulsed laser light output from the laser oscillator (laser light outputs from the laser oscillator 14, see fig.1) is emitted to the processing region (processing region of a workpiece W) through the liquid (water column 30, see fig.1) that is injected from the injection port (see injection port in annotated fig.1 above and claim 2: “the nozzle ejects the liquid pressurized by the pump along an optical axis of a laser beam”),
the water injection nozzle (12, see fig.1) is a hollow body (see fig.1) having the front end wall (see front end wall in annotated fig.1 above) on which is formed the injection port (see injection port in annotated fig.1 above) configured to inject the liquid (30, see fig.1) and a rear end wall (see rear end wall in annotated fig.1 above), and the laser irradiation unit (combo laser oscillator 14 and focus lens 24) is arranged between the front end wall (see front end wall in annotated fig.1 above) and the rear end wall (see rear end wall in annotated fig.1 above),and
Warashina does not explicitly disclose
a pulsed laser light;
a pulse width of the pulsed laser light is 200 ps to 2 ns; and
an intensity of the pulsed laser light in the processing region is from 5 TW/m2 to 100 TW/m2.
Fujiya discloses a water jet cutting apparatus, comprising:
a pulsed laser light (see abstract: “a laser emitter (10) for emitting pulsed laser light”);
a pulse width of the pulsed laser light is 200 ps to 2 ns (see para.0021: “the laser light has a pulse width of no less than 1 fs and no more than 999 ps”, which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser oscillator of Warashina to include the teachings of Fujiya so that the laser oscillator outputs pulsed laser light and the pulse width of the pulsed laser light is 200 ps to 2 ns, for the purpose of decreasing processing cost and increasing the quality of a cut surface (see para.0021 of Fujiya: “…reducing an increase in processing cost and also reducing a decrease in the quality of the cut surface”), since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05).
Warashina in view of Fujiya discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except an intensity of the pulsed laser light in the processing region is from 5 TW/m2 to 100 TW/m2.
Sakamoto discloses a workpiece cutting method, comprising:
an intensity of the pulsed laser light in the processing region is from 5 TW/m2 to 100 TW/m2 (radiated with the laser light L …with a field intensity of at least 1.times.10.sup.8 (W/cm.sup.2)”, wherein at least 10.sup.8 (W/cm.sup.2) = at least 1 (TW/m2), which overlaps with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the intensity of the pulsed laser light in the processing region of Warashina in view of Fujiya to be “from 5 TW/m2 to 100 TW/m2” as taught by Sakamoto since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). Doing so allows for powerful and precise material removal, overcoming water's interference, and minimizing unwanted thermal effects.
Regarding claim 2, Warashina discloses the laser irradiation unit (laser oscillator 14 and focus lens 24, see fig.1) includes a condensing lens (focus lens 24, see fig.1) that condenses the pulsed laser light (laser light focused by the focus lens 24, see fig.1 and para.0013) generated by the laser oscillator (laser oscillator 14, see fig.1) to the processing region (processing region of the workpiece W, see fig.1), except the pulsed laser light.
Fujiya further discloses the pulsed laser light (see abstract: “a laser emitter (10) for emitting pulsed laser light”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser oscillator of Warashina, as modified by Fujiya and Sakamoto above, to include the pulsed laser light as taught by Fujiya, for the purpose of decreasing processing cost and increasing the quality of the cut surface (see para.0021 of Fujiya).
Regarding claim 16, Warashina further discloses
wherein the hollow body (12, see fig.1) has a peripheral wall (side wall of 12, see peripheral wall in annotated fig.1 below) connecting the front end wall and the rear end wall (see annotated fig.1 below), and a flow passage flowing the liquid water (28, see fig.1) is formed in the peripheral wall (see peripheral wall in annotated fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
683
794
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Warashina
Claims 3 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto as applied to claim(s) 1 and 2 respectively, and further in view of Dulaney’ 003
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the pulsed laser light is laser light of which a polarization state is unsteady.
Dulaney’ 003 discloses a peening process with reduction of dielectric breakdown to increase peak pressure pulse, comprising:
the pulsed laser light is laser light of which a polarization state is unsteady (see col.2, lines 24-28: “An alternate embodiment of the invention to reduce dielectric breakdown incorporates the use of a circularly polarized, elliptical polarized, varying polarized laser beam or mixtures thereof as opposed to a linearly polarized laser beam”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser system of Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto to include the pulsed laser light is laser light of which a polarization state is unsteady as taught by Dulaney’ 003. It provides “significantly increases the peak pressure of the shock wave applied to the workpiece” which enhancing or creating desired physical properties of the workpiece (see col.1 lines 13-19 and col.2, lines 18-28 of Dulaney).
Regarding claim 10, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2, except the pulsed laser light is laser light of which a polarization state is unsteady.
Dulaney’ 003 discloses a peening process with reduction of dielectric breakdown to increase peak pressure pulse, comprising:
the pulsed laser light is laser light of which a polarization state is unsteady (see col.2, lines 24-28: “An alternate embodiment of the invention to reduce dielectric breakdown incorporates the use of a circularly polarized, elliptical polarized, varying polarized laser beam or mixtures thereof as opposed to a linearly polarized laser beam”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser system of Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto to include the pulsed laser light is laser light of which a polarization state is unsteady as taught by Dulaney’ 003. It provides “significantly increases the peak pressure of the shock wave applied to the workpiece” which enhancing or creating desired physical properties of the workpiece (see col.1 lines 13-19 and col.2, lines 18-28 of Dulaney).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Taira (US2017/0358898A1
Regarding claim 12, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the laser oscillator includes a stacked body in which a plurality of heat sinks and a plurality of laser media are alternately stacked and a Q switch element.
However, Taira discloses a pulse laser apparatus in fig.2, comprising:
the laser oscillator includes a stacked body (see fig.2) in which a plurality of heat sinks (heat sinks 2 and 16, see fig.2) and a laser media 8, see fig.2) are alternately stacked and a Q switch element (saturable absorber 10 functions as Q switch 10, see fig.2)
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the laser oscillator of Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto to include the stacked body in which a plurality of heat sinks and a laser media are alternately stacked and the Q switch element as taught by Taira (fig.2). It helps “thermal resistance between the laser medium and the heat sink can be maintained low, and large thermal stress does not act on the laser medium that had been subjected to the bonding”; thus, the laser apparatus capable of emitting high intensity pulsed laser beam as necessary (see para.0015 of Taira).
Even though the modification of Warashina in view of Fujiya, Sakamoto and Taira discloses the claimed features as set forth, Taira, in the embodiment as shown in fig.2 above, does not explicitly disclose a plurality of laser media.
However, in fig.7, Taira discloses a plurality of laser media (plurality of laser media 8, see fig.7); and
the stacked body in which a plurality of heat sinks (heat sinks 2, see fig.7) and the plurality of laser media (plurality of laser media 8) are alternately stacked (see fig.7).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the laser oscillator of Warashina in view of Fujiya, Sakamoto and Taura (fig.2), by duplicating the laser media 8 (fig.2) of Taira, to align the plurality of laser media 8 linearly in multiple as taught/suggested in Fig. 7 of Taira and to obtain a multilevel laser amplifier. Doing so would help to amplify the laser beam input to output (see para.0073 of Taira: “Each of the laser media 8 emits light when excitation beam and input beam (seed light) enter therein, and amplified laser beam of the input beam is output”), and it has been held that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04).
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Ogura (US 20180009063 A1)
Regarding claim 15, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 1, except the hollow body has an optical window between the front end wall and the laser irradiation unit .
Ogura discloses a method for cleaning a nozzle of a laser machining apparatus to work on a work piece to be processed by a laser beam introduced within a jet liquid column and the laser machining apparatus, comprising:
the hollow body (15, see fig. 1 and para.0016) has an optical window (20, see fig.1 and para.0016: “)This window 20 is made of such a transparent and highly strong material as sapphire glass”) between the front end wall (see front end wall in annotated fig.1 below) and the laser irradiation unit (combo 11 and 17, see fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
763
766
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig. 1 of Ogura
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the hollow body of Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto to incorporate the optical window between the front end wall and the laser irradiation unit as taught by Ogura. The optical window prevents contamination, such as: water or debris, from reaching the lens; thus, the optical window extends the lifespan of the laser processing device.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warashina in view of Fujiya, Sakamoto and Ogura as applied to claim 15, and further in view of Takayoshi (JP 2008030098 A)
Regarding claim 17, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 15, except an inner surface of the hollow body being directly in contact with a side surface of the laser oscillator.
Takayoshi discloses a laser beam machining apparatus, comprising:
an inner surface of the hollow body (inner surface of 4, see annotated fig.1 below) being directly in contact with a side surface of the laser oscillator (side surface of 6, see fig.1).
PNG
media_image4.png
637
603
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Takayoshi
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the laser oscillator of Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto so as “an inner surface of the hollow body being directly in contact with a side surface of the laser oscillator” as taught by Takayoshi. The modification contributes to a more compact experimental setup, saving space and potentially simplifying the overall system design.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto as applied to claim 16, and further in view of Takayoshi (JP 2008030098 A)
Regarding claim 18, the modification discloses substantially all the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 16, except an inner surface of the hollow body ()being directly in contact with a side surface of the laser oscillator.
Takayoshi discloses a laser beam machining apparatus, comprising:
an inner surface of the hollow body (inner surface of 4, see annotated fig.1 above of Takayoshi in claim 17) being directly in contact with a side surface of the laser oscillator (side surface of 6, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to rearrange the laser oscillator of Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto so as “an inner surface of the hollow body being directly in contact with a side surface of the laser oscillator” as taught by Takayoshi. The modification contributes to a more compact experimental setup, saving space and potentially simplifying the overall system design.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 03/16/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 103 rejections have been fully considered and are persuasive in light of amendments. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of by the modification of Warashina in view of Fujiya and Sakamoto, wherein Sakamoto (newly cited) teaches the amended limitation of claim 1: “an intensity of the pulsed laser light in the processing region is from 5 TW/m2 to 100 TW/m2.”
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 TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights