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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I claims 1-15 and 20, and Species A wherein an influence of a cutting parameter on a workpiece processing operation by the laser is determined in the reply filed on 6/4/2024 is acknowledged.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains legal phraseology. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8/8/2025, with respect to 35 U.S.C 112(b) for claims 21 have been fully considered and are moot in light of the recent amendments to the claims. The rejection of 5/8/2025 has been withdrawn because the claims were amended.
Applicant's arguments filed 8/8/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the applicant’s arguments towards 35 USC 101, the examiner respectfully argues that the acts of conducting a plurality of linear laser processing operations and increasing a speed of advance remain mental processes because the applicant is not executing a method that contains physical structure. Moreover, the examiner maintains these acts to be abstract ideas. Applicant is reminded that abstract ideas cannot provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). Both Step 2A Prong 2 and Step 2B require an additional element, not an abstract idea, to provide a practical application or significantly more (e.g., an improvement). See Genetic Technologies Limited v. Merial LLC (Fed Cir 2016).
The examiner also argues that even if conducting and increasing speed were considered to be additional elements, instead of abstract ideas, that these additional elements would still amount to insignificant extra solution activity because they add activities incidental to the abstract process or product that are merely a nominal or tangential addition to the claim.
Further, the examiner would expect something to be done with the determined relationships, optimal value, and stored value such as performing laser operations based upon those relationships and values. That is, contrary to Applicant’s arguments, a limitation such as “operating the laser processing machine based on one or more of the stored values” (as described on page 13, lines 4-5 of the original specification) would be an additional element that could provide a practical application or significantly more.
Regarding applicant’s arguments towards 35 USC 103 for Jansson, Meyer, and Regaard, the examiner respectfully believes that in light of the 101 and 112(a) rejections herein that the claims are broad enough to be read on by the prior art of record.
Further, the examiner included pertinent art in the conclusion section of this rejection to promote compact prosecution and the examiner intends to use said prior art in subsequent rejections.
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, 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 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 1, 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 have 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, 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 recites at least one step or instruction for comparing a laser processing speed and length and determining an optimal value of a laser processing parameter, which is grouped as a mental process as concepts performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) 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, 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 recite an abstract idea.
Specifically, Claim 1 recites
An automated method for determining an optimal value of a laser processing parameter for a laser processing operation (involves an observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) – alternatively could be an additional element akin to insignificant extra-solution activity as a collecting data step) by a laser beam (additional element) in a laser processing machine (additional element), the method comprising:
conducting a plurality of linear laser processing operations, each with a different value of the laser processing parameter, increasing the speed of advance of the laser beam during the plurality of linear laser processing operations until a processing interruption occurs to determine a laser processing interruption speed for each of the plurality of linear laser processing operations (involves an observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) – alternatively could be an additional element akin to insignificant extra-solution activity as a collecting data step);
automatically determining a relationship between processing lengths, associated processing times, or associated laser processing interruption speeds of the laser beam during the plurality of linear laser processing operations and the laser processing parameter based on measured processing lengths, the associated processing times, or the associated laser processing interruption speeds of the linear laser processing operations (involves an observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) – alternatively could be an additional element akin to insignificant extra-solution activity as a collecting data step);
automatically determining an optimal value of the laser processing parameter for which the processing length, the associated processing time, or the associated laser processing interruption speed(involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); involves an observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) – alternatively could be an additional element akin to insignificant extra-solution activity as a collecting data step);
and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser processing length, the associated processing time, or the associated laser processing interruption speed, and of the optimal value of the laser processing parameter (involves managing interactions between people, namely, humans following rules, which is grouped as a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II)(C) and/or a judgement or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III); involves an observation or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) – alternatively could be an additional element akin to insignificant extra-solution activity as a collecting data step).
Further, dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 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 claimed functions/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 Claims 1 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements of a laser and laser processing machine, 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) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: a laser and laser processing machine are generically recited computer elements in independent Claims 1 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements 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). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 are not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer (e.g., a laser and laser processing machine as claimed). In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 1 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 are not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I).
Accordingly, independent Claims 1 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 are each directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of Claim 1 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 laser and laser processing machine.
The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93.
Per Applicant’s specification, the laser and laser processing machine are, for example a CO2 laser, diode laser or solid-state laser as a laser beam generator 2, a (laser) processing head 3 displaceable in the X and Y directions, and a workpiece base or powder base 4 configured in this case as a workpiece base. Therefore, the examiner believes that a laser and laser processing machine are generic, well understood, and conventional
Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term a laser and laser processing machine are reasonably construed as a generic laser device. Like SAP America vs Investpic, LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved laser resources, just already available technology, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f).
Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the a laser and laser processing machine to perform the method disclosed in the instant application. This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit[ies]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible (TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)).
The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claim 1 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV, 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC, 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer.
A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO, Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution.
For at least the above reasons, the a laser and laser processing machine of Claims 1 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claims 1 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 do not add significantly more because they are 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). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). 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 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 amounts to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claims 1 and their respective dependent Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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 1 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 amended recitation of “increasing a speed of advance of the laser beam during the plurality of linear laser processing operations until a level of energy deposited into the workpiece at a given speed of advance is below a threshold such that a processing interruption occurs thereby determining a laser processing interruption speed for each of the plurality of linear laser processing operations” is considered new matter because the applicant has not disclosed in the specification how the applicant intends to determine a level of energy deposited into the workpiece in such a way that one of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of the limitations of the applicant’s invention.
Claims 3-9, 11-15, and 20-22 are also rejected due to their dependence to one or more of the above rejected independent claims.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 20, 21, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US20100276080A1 Jansson in view of US 20190111516 A1 Meyer in view of US 20160193692 A1 Regaard.
Regarding claim 1, Jansson teaches, except where struck through,
A method for determining an optimal value of a laser processing parameter for a laser processing operation by a laser beam (par. 38 teaches the laser beam travels from point A to point B within the same time when using both a short and a long focal distance, but a longer stretch when using a long focal distance) in a laser processing machine, the method comprising:
conducting a plurality of linear laser processing operations (par. 33 teaches “known from laser marking. In this technology, a laser beam is scanned at a high speed by means of galvo mirrors several times over a welding geometry” and par. 34 teaches “The speed and the working area of a scanner used in scanning-type welding are determined by the optics used. For example, a known diode laser apparatus which was used in one test achieved a working area of 100 mm×100 mm when a focal distance of 160 mm was used, in which working area the size of a focal point i.e. the width of the weld was 1.1 mm. When the focal distance was made longer, both the size of the working area and the size of the focal point increased linearly” which the examiner considered to be linear laser processing operations) a speed of advance of the laser beam during the plurality of linear laser processing operations until a level of energy deposited into the workpiece at a given speed of advance is below a threshold such that a processing interruption occurs thereby determining a laser processing interruption speed for each of the plurality of linear laser processing operations (par. 39 teaches interruption occurring when the accuracy is impaired “However, the increase of the moving speed in relation to the increase of the focal distance must be optimized because the welding accuracy of the scanners used becomes a limiting factor. As a main rule, the accuracy of scanners is impaired in the same ratio as the focal distance increases” which correlates to the energy deposited);
automatically determining a relationship between processing lengths, associated processing times, or associated laser processing interruption speeds of the laser beam during the plurality of linear laser processing operations and the laser processing parameter based on measured processing lengths, the associated processing times, or the associated laser processing interruption speeds of the linear laser processing operations [par. 39 teaches the relationship as being when the accuracy is impaired and that the relationship occurs when accuracy gets poorer “As a main rule, the accuracy of scanners is impaired in the same ratio as the focal distance increases. With a focal distance of 500 mm, the accuracy is 5 times poorer than with a focal distance of 100 mm.” where the examiner considers this to be a relationship); automatically determining an optimal value of the laser processing parameter for which the processing length, the associated processing time, or the associated laser processing interruption speed is maximal (par. 38 teaches (“With a focal distance of 100 mm, the maximum speed was V m/s and with a focal distance of 500 mm, the maximum speed was 5 times V m/s” and par. 39 teaches “in the test made it was found out that the moving speed of a laser beam can be increased even up to 50 to 100 m/s by increasing the focal distance. However, the increase of the moving speed in relation to the increase of the focal distance must be optimized because the welding accuracy of the scanners used becomes a limiting factor. As a main rule, the accuracy of scanners is impaired in the same ratio as the focal distance increases. With a focal distance of 500 mm, the accuracy is 5 times poorer than with a focal distance of 100 mm”, therefore, the prior art discloses the relationship between the maximum speed (processing time) and the focal distance (laser processing parameter). Processing time changes based on the laser processing parameter. Janson clearly states they are trying to optimize the focal length for increasing the processing speed, which would in turn decrease the processing time.);
Jansson does not teach and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser processing length, the associated processing time, or the associated laser processing interruption speed, and of the optimal value of the laser processing parameter.
Meyer teaches, and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser processing length, the associated processing time, or the associated laser processing interruption speed, and of the optimal value of the laser processing parameter [par. 38 teaches “, the NC program supplies the control with the appropriate values for processing parameters such as cutting speed, laser power, nozzle distance, and focus position. These values are stored in so-called technology tables, which the controller can access. Furthermore, the machining parameters include workpiece-specific parameters such as tolerance limits of (e.g. sheet metal) edges and maximum possible motion speeds of the machining head relative to the workpiece and/or the speed of distance adjustment”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Jansson reference, to include and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser processing length, the associated processing time, or the associated laser processing interruption speed, and of the optimal value of the laser processing parameter, as suggested and taught by Meyer, for the purpose of providing data for a controller to access per par. 38.
With regards to being automatic, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
Regaard teaches, each with a different value of the laser processing parameter (par. 118 through 130 teach an open loop feedback where processing speeds v1 through v4 and lengths are determined based on testing feedback to find an optimal value of speed and length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Jansson reference, such that each with a different value of the laser processing parameter, as suggested and taught by Regaard, for the purpose of providing to test laser operations such that “to achieve the cutting front angle α remaining below the predetermined cutting front angle α.sub.G” (par. 119).
Regarding claim 3, Jansson teaches,
wherein the laser processing parameter is the speed of advance of the laser beam (par. 36 teaches “welding speeds of more than 10 m/s were examined, and the results obtained based on these were compared to the results obtained using a typical speed of 2 to 5 m/s. As the number of scanning times, 30 to 50 times per welded seam was used. The welded seam increased at every scanning time” where the examiner considers the speed of advance to be the welding speeds).
Regarding claim 4, Jansson teaches, except where struck through, the claimed invention except for the intended use of wherein the laser processing operation is cutting, the laser parameter is a cutting parameter, and wherein the method comprises: (Jansson discloses a method of welding (pars. 5 and 6) although not a cutting method per se, Jansson has all the structure set forth in the claims to meet the claimed method of instant application. The intended use in the preamble adds no patentable weight to the claims) conducting a plurality of linear laser cuts on a workpiece, each with a different value of the cutting parameter, wherein a cutting speed is increased in each of the plurality of the linear laser cuts until a cutting interruption occurs to determine a cutting interruption speed for each of the plurality of linear laser cutting operations; automatically [with regards to being automatic, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art] determining a relationship between cutting lengths, associated cutting times, or associated cutting interruption speeds of the laser cuts during the plurality of linear laser cuts and the cutting parameter based on measured cutting lengths, the associated cutting times, or the associated cutting interruption speeds of the laser cuts [previously discussed in the rejection of claim 1];
The examiner respectfully believes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the method of Jansson as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 in the method taught by Jansson because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of performing the methods of Jansson with a laser capable of cutting. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Jansson does not teach automatically determining an optimal value ofhte laser cutting parameter for which the cutting length, the associated cutting time, or the associated cutting interruption speed is maximal; and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser cutting length, the associated cutting time, or the associated cutting interruption speed, and ofhte optimal value of the laser cutting parameter.
Regaard teaches, automatically determining an optimal value ofhte laser cutting parameter for which the cutting length, the associated cutting time, or the associated cutting interruption speed is maximal (par. 118 through 130 teach an open loop feedback where processing speeds v1 through v4 and lengths are determined based on testing feedback to find an optimal value of speed and length); and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser cutting length, the associated cutting time, or the associated cutting interruption speed, and ofhte optimal value of the laser cutting parameter (par. 118 through 130 teach an open loop feedback where processing speeds v1 through v4 and lengths are determined based on testing feedback to find an optimal value of speed and length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Jansson reference, to include/such that automatically determining an optimal value ofhte laser cutting parameter for which the cutting length, the associated cutting time, or the associated cutting interruption speed is maximal; and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser cutting length, the associated cutting time, or the associated cutting interruption speed, and ofhte optimal value of the laser cutting parameter, as suggested and taught by Regaard, for the purpose of providing to test laser operations such that “to achieve the cutting front angle α remaining below the predetermined cutting front angle α.sub.G” (par. 119).
Regarding claim 5, Jansson teaches, except where struck through, wherein the laser processing operation is welding, the laser processing parameter is a welding parameter and wherein the method comprises (The preamble is not a limitation on the claims if it merely states the purpose or intended use, and the remainder of the claim completely defines invention independent of preamble. On the other hand, if claims cannot be read independently of preamble, and preamble must be read to give meaning to claim or is essential to point out the invention, it constitutes a claim limitation. Stewart-Warner Corp v. City of Pontiac, Mich. 219 USPQ 1162; Marston v. J.C. Penny Co., Inc. 148 USPQ 25; and Kropa v. Robie and Mahlman, 88 USPQ 478.):
conducting a plurality of linear laser penetration welds on a workpiece each with a different value of the welding parameter, wherein a welding speed, is increased in each of the plurality of the linear laser penetration welds until a penetration welding interruption occurs (par. 33 teaches “known from laser marking. In this technology, a laser beam is scanned at a high speed by means of galvo mirrors several times over a welding geometry” and par. 34 teaches “The speed and the working area of a scanner used in scanning-type welding are determined by the optics used. For example, a known diode laser apparatus which was used in one test achieved a working area of 100 mm×100 mm when a focal distance of 160 mm was used, in which working area the size of a focal point i.e. the width of the weld was 1.1 mm. When the focal distance was made longer, both the size of the working area and the size of the focal point increased linearly” which the examiner considered to be increasing processing operations) to determine a penetration welding interruption speed for each of the plurality of linear laser penetration welding operations;
automatically determining a relationship between penetration welding lengths, associated welding times, or associated penetration welding interruption speeds of the laser penetration welds during the plurality of linear laser penetration welds, and the welding parameter based on measured penetration welding lengths, the associated welding times, or the associated penetration welding interruption speeds of the laser penetration welds (with regards to being automatic, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art; par. 39 teaches the relationship as being when the accuracy is impaired and that the relationship occurs when accuracy gets poorer “However, the increase of the moving speed in relation to the increase of the focal distance must be optimized because the welding accuracy of the scanners used becomes a limiting factor. As a main rule, the accuracy of scanners is impaired in the same ratio as the focal distance increases. With a focal distance of 500 mm, the accuracy is 5 times poorer than with a focal distance of 100 mm.”);
Jansson does not teach automatically determining an optimal value of the laser welding parameter for which the penetration welding length, the associated welding time, or the associated penetration welding interruption speed is maximal; and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser penetration welding length, the associated welding time, or the associated penetration welding interruption speed, and of the optimal value ofhte welding parameter.
Regaard teaches, automatically determining an optimal value of the laser welding parameter for which the penetration welding length, the associated welding time, or the associated penetration welding interruption speed is maximal (par. 118 through 130 teach an open loop feedback where processing speeds v1 through v4 and lengths are determined based on testing feedback to find an optimal value of speed and length); and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser penetration welding length, the associated welding time, or the associated penetration welding interruption speed, and of the optimal value ofhte welding parameter (par. 118 through 130 teach an open loop feedback where processing speeds v1 through v4 and lengths are determined based on testing feedback to find an optimal value of speed and length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Jansson reference, to include automatically determining an optimal value of the laser welding parameter for which the penetration welding length, the associated welding time, or the associated penetration welding interruption speed is maximal; and automatically storing a value of one or more of the laser penetration welding length, the associated welding time, or the associated penetration welding interruption speed, and of the optimal value ofhte welding parameter, as suggested and taught by Regaard, for the purpose of providing to test laser operations such that “to achieve the cutting front angle α remaining below the predetermined cutting front angle α.sub.G” (par. 119).
Regarding claim 6, Jansson teaches the claimed invention except for the intended use of wherein the laser processing operation is laser fusion of metal powder, the laser processing parameter is a fusion parameter (Jansson discloses a method of welding (pars. 5 and 6) although not a fusion welding method per se, Jansson has all the structure set forth in the claims to meet the claimed method of instant application. The intended use in the preamble adds no patentable weight to the claims), and wherein the method comprises: producing a plurality of linear melting tracks with different value of the fusion parameter, wherein a speed of advance of the laser beam, is increased in the plurality of the linear melting tracks until a melting track interruption occurs to determine a fusion interruption speed for each of the plurality of linear laser fusion operations; automatically determining a relationship between melting track lengths, associated fusion times, or associated melting track interruption speeds of the melting tracks during the plurality of the linear melting tracks and the laser fusion parameter using one or more of the measured melting track lengths, the associated fusion times, or the associated melting track interruption speeds of the melting tracks;
The examiner respectfully believes that it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use the method of Jansson as discussed in the rejection of claim 1 in the method taught by Jansson because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of performing the methods of Jansson with a laser capable of fusion welding. "The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regaard teaches, automatically determining an optimal value of the laser fusion parameter for which the melting track length, the associated fusion time, or the associated melting track interruption speed is maximal (par. 118 through 130 teach an open loop feedback where processing speeds v1 through v4 and lengths are determined based on testing feedback to find an optimal value of speed and length); and automatically storing a value of one or more of the melting track length, the associated fusion time, or the associated penetration melting track interruption speed, and of the optimal value of the fusion parameter (par. 118 through 130 teach an open loop feedback where processing speeds v1 through v4 and lengths are determined based on testing feedback to find an optimal value of speed and length).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Jansson reference, to include automatically determining an optimal value of the laser fusion parameter for which the melting track length, the associated fusion time, or the associated melting track interruption speed is maximal; and automatically storing a value of one or more of the melting track length, the associated fusion time, or the associated penetration melting track interruption speed, and of the optimal value of the fusion parameter, as suggested and taught by Regaard, for the purpose of providing to test laser operations such that “to achieve the cutting front angle α remaining below the predetermined cutting front angle α.sub.G” (par. 119).
Regarding claim 7, Jansson teaches,
wherein the laser processing parameter is a laser beam-related parameter, (i) wherein the laser beam-related parameter is at least one of wavelength, beam quality, intensity distribution, focal position in the beam direction (z), focal diameter, or laser power, or (ii) wherein the laser processing parameter is a gas-dynamic parameter for a predetermined gas composition determined by nozzle type, nozzle diameter, distance of the nozzle and the workpiece (par. 39 teaches the relationship as being when the accuracy is impaired and that the relationship occurs when accuracy gets poorer “However, the increase of the moving speed in relation to the increase of the focal distance must be optimized because the welding accuracy of the scanners used becomes a limiting factor. As a main rule, the accuracy of scanners is impaired in the same ratio as the focal distance increases. With a focal distance of 500 mm, the accuracy is 5 times poorer than with a focal distance of 100 mm.”) or (iii) both (a) wherein the laser processing parameter is a laser beam-related parameter, wherein the laser beam-related parameter is at least one of wavelength, beam quality, intensity distribution, focal position in the beam direction (z), focal diameter, or laser power, and (b) wherein the laser processing parameter is a gas-dynamic parameter for a predetermined gas composition determined by nozzle type, nozzle diameter, distance of the nozzle and the workpiece [see 112b above].
Regarding claim 8, Jansson teaches,
wherein the speed of advance is increased stepwise or continuously (par. 40 teaches to methods where the speed is increased at 2 intervals “In the tests made, for example, a welded seam of 150 mm could be welded in 0.75 seconds using the scanning-type welding of the invention when as the welding speed, 10 m/s was used and the welded seam was scanned 50 times. Similarly, a similar welded seam could be welded in 0.3 seconds when as the welding speed, 25 m/s was used and the number of scanning times was 50. The corresponding welding times with the previously known methods were 3 and 1.5 seconds when as the welding speed 2.5 m/s and 5 m/s were used”).
Regarding claim 9, Jansson teaches wherein the laser beam is automatically turned off when reaching the processing interruption (with regards to being automatic, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art; par. 38 teaches “the laser beam travels from point A to point B within the same time when using both a short and a long focal distance, but a longer stretch when using a long focal distance”, it is therefore anticipated that the laser beam of Jansson is deactivated after the laser reaches point B as that is the path of the laser defined In Jansson).
Regarding claim 11, Jansson teaches,
wherein the optimal parameter value of the laser processing parameter is automatically determined by interpolation of the processing lengths of the laser processing operations, of the associated processing times, or of the interruption speeds (with regards to being automatic, In re Venner, 262 F.2d 91, 95, 120 USPQ 193, 194 (CCPA 1958) the court held that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art; par. 38 teaches (“With a focal distance of 100 mm, the maximum speed was V m/s and with a focal distance of 500 mm, the maximum speed was 5 times V m/s” and par. 39 teaches “in the test made it was found out that the moving speed of a laser beam can be increased even up to 50 to 100 m/s by increasing the focal distance. However, the increase of the moving speed in relation to the increase of the focal distance must be optimized because the welding accuracy of the scanners used becomes a limiting factor. As a main rule, the accuracy of scanners is impaired in the same ratio as the focal distance increases. With a focal distance of 500 mm, the accuracy is 5 times poorer than with a focal distance of 100 mm”, therefore the examiner considers this to be an interpolation of focal distance vs processing speed).
Regarding claim 12, Jansson teaches,
wherein the optimal value of the laser processing parameter is a value of an optimal focal position of the laser beam in the beam direction, and wherein the laser processing operations are carried out with different focal positions of the laser beam in the beam direction (“With a focal distance of 100 mm, the maximum speed was V m/s and with a focal distance of 500 mm, the maximum speed was 5 times V m/s” and par. 39 teaches “in the test made it was found out that the moving speed of a laser beam can be increased even up to 50 to 100 m/s by increasing the focal distance. However, the increase of the moving speed in relation to the increase of the focal distance must be optimized because the welding accuracy of the scanners used becomes a limiting factor. As a main rule, the accuracy of scanners is impaired in the same ratio as the focal distance increases. With a focal distance of 500 mm, the accuracy is 5 times poorer than with a focal distance of 100 mm”, therefore the examiner considers this to be carrying out a laser processing operation with different focal positions).
Regarding claim 20, Jansson teaches the claimed method except for the use of a controller. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a controller in the method taught by Jansson and Krishnan because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been able to carry out such a substitution to achieve the predictable result of controlling a method such that A computer progr