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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 10/08/2025 has been entered.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 17, and 19-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387) and Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190).
Regarding claim 1, Sano discloses a laser peening processing apparatus comprising:
a laser oscillator (Fig. 13 #11 laser oscillator) that oscillates laser light;
a condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) that condenses the laser light on a surface to be processed of an object;
an optical element (Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror), consisting of a prism or a mirror, that changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the condensing lens;
and a beam expander (Fig. 13 #91 beam expander) that adjusts a magnifying ratio of a beam diameter of the laser light entering into the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens), the adjusting the magnifying ratio making a beam diameter of the laser light irradiating the surface to be processed become a diameter required for laser peening processing of the surface to be processed, the adjusting the magnifying ratio also preventing the laser light, having an excess beam diameter causing damage of the optical element (Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror), from entering into the optical element (Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror) (Examiner notes that the phrase “adjusts a magnifying ratio of a beam diameter of the laser light entering into the condensing lens, the adjusting the magnifying ratio making a beam diameter of the laser light irradiating the surface to be processed become a diameter required for laser peening processing of the surface to be processed, the adjusting the magnifying ratio also preventing the laser light, having an excess beam diameter causing damage of the optical element, from entering into the optical element” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Sano can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Examiner’s note: Examiner understands the beam expander to be a passive element. The laser oscillator is an active element, controllable by the operator. The diameter of the beam is controlled by the laser output of the laser oscillator..
However, Sano does not teach a liquid tank that inputs the laser light, of which the travelling direction has been changed by the optical element, into liquid, the liquid tank having an outlet port for emitting and ejecting both the input laser light and the liquid from the outlet port to the surface to be processed.
Nonetheless, Kobier teaches a liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) that inputs the laser light, of which the travelling direction has been changed by the optical element, into liquid, the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) having an outlet port (Fig. 1 #17 nozzle) for emitting and ejecting both the input laser light and the liquid from the outlet port to the surface to be processed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano by incorporating the liquid tank of Kobier for the purpose of providing a wave guide.
However, Sano in view of Kobier does not teach the optical element being positioned downstream of the condensing lens with respect to laser light travel such that the optical element changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the upstream positioned condensing lens.
Nonetheless, Tamura in the same field of endeavor being laser processing apparatuses teaches the optical element (Fig. 2A #17 reflecting mirror) being positioned downstream of the condensing lens (Fig. 2A #16 condenser lens) with respect to laser light travel such that the optical element (Fig. 2A #17 reflecting mirror) changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the upstream positioned condensing lens (Fig. 2A #16 condenser lens).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the optical element positioned downstream of the condensing lens, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 2, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Sano teaches wherein the magnifying ratio of the beam diameter by the beam expander (Fig. 13 #91 beam expander) is restricted within a range less than a magnifying ratio of a beam diameter of the laser light oscillated from the laser oscillator (Fig. 13 #11 laser oscillator) and not less than a lower limit determined for preventing the optical element from being damaged by the laser light (Examiner notes that the phrase “the magnifying ratio of the beam diameter by the beam expander is restricted within a range less than a magnifying ratio of a beam diameter of the laser light oscillated from the laser oscillator and not less than a lower limit determined for preventing the optical element from being damaged by the laser light” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Sano can perform the intended function. A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.).
Regarding claim 4, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura discloses a method of laser peening processing comprising:
producing a product or a semi-product by the laser peening processing of the object using the laser peening processing apparatus according to claim 1 (Abstract) (See the rejection of claim 1, which discloses the structure of the laser peening apparatus.).
Regarding claim 5, Sano discloses a method of laser peening processing comprising: producing a product or a semi-product by the laser peening processing of an object using a laser peening processing apparatus (Abstract), the laser peening processing apparatus including:
a laser oscillator (Fig. 13 #11 laser oscillator) that oscillates laser light;
a condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) that condenses the laser light on a surface to be processed of the object;
an optical element (Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror), consisting of a prism or a mirror, that changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens);
and wherein a magnifying ratio of a beam diameter of the laser light entering into the condensing lens is adjusted by a beam expander, the adjusting the magnifying ratio making a beam diameter of the laser light irradiating the surface to be processed become a diameter required for laser peening processing of the surface to be processed, the adjusting the magnifying ratio also preventing the laser light, having an excess beam diameter causing damage of the optical element, from entering into the optical element (No specific magnifying ratio is claimed by Applicant. The magnifying ratio will be chosen by the operator. The operator chooses the beam diameter of the laser light entering into the condensing lens, the curvature of the condensing lens, and the size of the optical element.).
However, Sano does not disclose a liquid tank that inputs the laser light, of which the travelling direction has been changed by the optical element, into liquid, the liquid tank having an outlet port for emitting and ejecting both the input laser light and the liquid from the outlet port to the surface to be processed.
Nonetheless, Kobier teaches a liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) that inputs the laser light, of which the travelling direction has been changed by the optical element, into liquid, the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) having an outlet port (Fig. 1 #17 nozzle) for emitting and ejecting both the input laser light and the liquid from the outlet port to the surface to be processed.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano by incorporating the liquid tank of Kobier for the purpose of providing a wave guide.
However, Sano in view of Kobier does not teach an optical element positioned downstream of the condensing lens with respect to laser light travel such that the optical element changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the upstream positioned condensing lens.
Nonetheless, Tamura teaches a total reflecting mirror (Fig. 2A #17 reflecting mirror) being positioned downstream of the condensing lens (Fig. 2A #16 condenser lens) with respect to laser light travel such that the total reflecting mirror (Fig. 2A #17 reflecting mirror) changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the upstream positioned condensing lens (Fig. 2A #16 condenser lens).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the total reflecting mirror positioned downstream of the condensing lens, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Regarding claim 17, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Kobier teaches wherein the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) with the outlet port defines a first liquid tank, and Sano teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a second liquid tank (Fig. 13 #21 vessel) which is configured to define an upper liquid surface (Fig. 13 #23 liquid surface) that extends over the object (Fig. 13 #41 workpiece), and which upper liquid surface (Fig. 13 #23 liquid surface) is positioned such the a column of the laser light and liquid exiting the outlet port of the first liquid tank travels through the liquid of the second tank in reaching the surface to be processed (Fig. 13 shows the second liquid tank positioned below the laser.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the second liquid tank as taught by Sano for the purpose of housing the liquid for preventing floating of fine particles during processing.
Regarding claim 19, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Kobier teaches wherein the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) with the outlet port defines a first liquid tank, and Sano teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a second liquid tank (Fig. 13 #21 vessel) which is configured to define an upper liquid surface (Fig. 13 #23 liquid surface) that extends over the object (Fig. 13 #41 workpiece), and which upper liquid surface (Fig. 13 #23 liquid surface) is positioned such the a column of the laser light and liquid exiting the outlet port of the first liquid tank travels through the liquid of the second tank in reaching the surface to be processed (Fig. 13 shows the second liquid tank positioned below the laser.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify method of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the second liquid tank as taught by Sano for the purpose of housing the liquid for preventing floating of fine particles during processing.
Regarding claim 20, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Sano teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a nozzle (Fig. 13 #10 laser irradiation apparatus) comprised of a casing (Fig. 13 #17 irradiation head) that supports the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) such that light emitted from the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) travels in a direction of elongation of the casing (Fig. 13 #17 irradiation head) until the light emitted from the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) is redirected by the optical element and passed through the liquid tank and out a nozzle tip of the nozzle.
Claim(s) 3, 18, and 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387), Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190), and Eizumi et al (US 2020/0198053).
Regarding claim 3, Sano discloses a laser peening processing apparatus comprising:
a laser oscillator (Fig. 13 #11 laser oscillator) that oscillates laser light;
a condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) that condenses the laser light on a surface to be processed of an object;
a total reflection mirror (Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror) that changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens).
However, Sano does not teach a liquid tank that inputs the laser light, of which the travelling direction has been changed by the optical element, into liquid, the liquid tank having an outlet port for emitting and ejecting both the input laser light and the liquid from the outlet port to the surface to be processed, wherein the liquid tank has an incident window plate for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank, each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film.
Nonetheless, Kobier teaches a liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) that inputs the laser light, of which the travelling direction has been changed by the optical element, into liquid, the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) having an outlet port (Fig. 1 #17 nozzle) for emitting and ejecting both the input laser light and the liquid from the outlet port (Fig. 1 #17 nozzle) to the surface to be processed, wherein the liquid tank has an incident window plate (Fig. 1 #18 window) for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano by incorporating the liquid tank having a window of Kobier for the purpose of providing a wave guide.
However, However, Sano in view of Kobier does not teach a total reflection mirror positioned downstream of the condensing lens with respect to laser light travel such that the total reflection mirror changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the upstream positioned condensing lens.
Nonetheless, Tamura teaches a total reflecting mirror (Fig. 2A #17 reflecting mirror) being positioned downstream of the condensing lens (Fig. 2A #16 condenser lens) with respect to laser light travel such that the total reflecting mirror (Fig. 2A #17 reflecting mirror) changes a travelling direction of the laser light emitted from the upstream positioned condensing lens (Fig. 2A #16 condenser lens).
Nonetheless, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the total reflecting mirror positioned downstream of the condensing lens, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.04 V. C.
Furthermore, Eizumi teaches each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film ([0031] lines 4-9 ---" Besides, it is preferable that there is an antireflection film (unillustrated) provided that prevents reflection of illumination light from illumination light source 81 and return light from laser emission end face 61, on the inner and outer surfaces of cover glass 27 inserted into transmission window 26.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the antireflective film as taught by Eizumi for the purpose of preventing reflection of illuminated light.
Regarding claim 18, Sano in view of Kobier, Tamura, and Eizumi teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), and Kobier teaches wherein the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) with the outlet port defines a first liquid tank, and Sano teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a second liquid tank (Fig. 13 #21 vessel) which is configured to define an upper liquid surface (Fig. 13 #23 liquid surface) that extends over the object (Fig. 13 #41 workpiece), and which upper liquid surface (Fig. 13 #23 liquid surface) is positioned such the a column of the laser light and liquid exiting the outlet port of the first liquid tank travels through the liquid of the second tank in reaching the surface to be processed (Fig. 13 shows the second liquid tank positioned below the laser.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier, Tamura, and Eizumi by incorporating the second liquid tank as taught by Sano for the purpose of housing the liquid for preventing floating of fine particles during processing.
Regarding claim 21, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), and Sano teaches wherein the apparatus further comprises a nozzle (Fig. 13 #10 laser irradiation apparatus) comprised of a casing (Fig. 13 #17 irradiation head) that supports the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) such that light emitted from the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) travels in a direction of elongation of the casing (Fig. 13 #17 irradiation head) until the light emitted from the condensing lens (Fig. 13 #93 cylindrical convex lens) is redirected by the optical element and passed through the liquid tank and out a nozzle tip of the nozzle.
Claim(s) 6-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387) and Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190) as applied to claim 5, further in view of Eizumi et al (US 2020/0198053).
Regarding claim 6, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Sano teaches wherein the optical element (Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror) is the mirror consisting of a total reflection mirror but does not teach the liquid tank has an incident window plate for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank, each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film.
Nonetheless, Kobier teaches the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) has an incident window plate (Fig. 1 #18 window) for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the liquid tank having a window of Kobier for the purpose of providing a wave guide.
Furthermore, Eizumi teaches each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film ([0031] lines 4-9 ---" Besides, it is preferable that there is an antireflection film (unillustrated) provided that prevents reflection of illumination light from illumination light source 81 and return light from laser emission end face 61, on the inner and outer surfaces of cover glass 27 inserted into transmission window 26.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the antireflective film as taught by Eizumi for the purpose of preventing reflection of illuminated light.
Regarding claim 7, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 5), and Sano teaches wherein the optical element is the mirror consisting of a total reflection mirror(Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror).
Nonetheless, Kobier teaches the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) has an incident window plate (Fig. 1 #18 window) for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Tamura by incorporating the liquid tank having a window as taught by Kobier for the purpose of providing a wave guide.
Furthermore, Eizumi teaches each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film ([0031] lines 4-9 ---" Besides, it is preferable that there is an antireflection film (unillustrated) provided that prevents reflection of illumination light from illumination light source 81 and return light from laser emission end face 61, on the inner and outer surfaces of cover glass 27 inserted into transmission window 26.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the antireflective film as taught by Eizumi for the purpose of preventing reflection of illuminated light.
Regarding claim 8, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 6), and Sano teaches wherein the optical element is the mirror consisting of a total reflection mirror(Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror).
Nonetheless, Kobier teaches the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) has an incident window plate (Fig. 1 #18 window) for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano by incorporating the liquid tank having a window of Kobier for the purpose of providing a wave guide.
Furthermore, Eizumi teaches each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film ([0031] lines 4-9 ---" Besides, it is preferable that there is an antireflection film (unillustrated) provided that prevents reflection of illumination light from illumination light source 81 and return light from laser emission end face 61, on the inner and outer surfaces of cover glass 27 inserted into transmission window 26.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier by incorporating the antireflective film as taught by Eizumi for the purpose of preventing reflection of illuminated light.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387) and Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Eizumi et al (US 2020/0198053).
Regarding claim 9, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Sano teaches wherein the optical element (Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror) is the mirror consisting of a total reflection mirror but does not teach the liquid tank has an incident window plate for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank, each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film.
Nonetheless, Kobier teaches the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) has an incident window plate (Fig. 1 #18 window) for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the liquid tank having a window of Kobier for the purpose of providing a wave guide.
Furthermore, Eizumi teaches each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film ([0031] lines 4-9 ---" Besides, it is preferable that there is an antireflection film (unillustrated) provided that prevents reflection of illumination light from illumination light source 81 and return light from laser emission end face 61, on the inner and outer surfaces of cover glass 27 inserted into transmission window 26.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier by incorporating the antireflective film as taught by Eizumi for the purpose of preventing reflection of illuminated light.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387) and Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190) as applied to claim 2, further in view of Eizumi et al (US 2020/0198053).
Regarding claim 10, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura teaches the method as appears above (see the rejection of claim 2), and Sano teaches wherein the optical element (Fig. 13 #94 movable mirror) is the mirror consisting of a total reflection mirror but does not teach the liquid tank has an incident window plate for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank, each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film.
Nonetheless, Kobier teaches the liquid tank (Fig. 1 #15 housing) has an incident window plate (Fig. 1 #18 window) for entering the laser light into the liquid tank while sealing the liquid tank.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the liquid tank having a window of Kobier for the purpose of providing a wave guide.
Furthermore, Eizumi teaches each of an incident face and an emission face of the incident window plate being coated with antireflection film ([0031] lines 4-9 ---" Besides, it is preferable that there is an antireflection film (unillustrated) provided that prevents reflection of illumination light from illumination light source 81 and return light from laser emission end face 61, on the inner and outer surfaces of cover glass 27 inserted into transmission window 26.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura by incorporating the antireflective film as taught by Eizumi for the purpose of preventing reflection of illuminated light.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387) and Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190).
Regarding claim 11, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura discloses a method of laser peening processing comprising:
producing a product or a semi-product by the laser peening processing of the object using the laser peening processing apparatus according to claim 2 (Abstract) (See the rejection of claim 2, which discloses the structure of the laser peening apparatus.).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387), Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190) and Eizumi et al (US 2020/0198053).
Regarding claim 12, Sano in view of Kobier and Tamura discloses a method of laser peening processing comprising:
producing a product or a semi-product by the laser peening processing of the object using the laser peening processing apparatus according to claim 3 (Abstract) (See the rejection of claim 3, which discloses the structure of the laser peening apparatus.).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387), Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190) and Eizumi et al (US 2020/0198053).
Regarding claim 13, Sano in view of Kobier, Tamura, and Eizumi discloses a method of laser peening processing comprising:
producing a product or a semi-product by the laser peening processing of the object using the laser peening processing apparatus according to claim 9 (Abstract) (See the rejection of claim 9, which discloses the structure of the laser peening apparatus.).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sano et al (US 2007/0262063) in view of Kobier et al (US 2013/0298387), Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190) and Eizumi et al (US 2020/0198053).
Regarding claim 14, Sano in view of Kobier, Tamura, and Eizumi discloses a method of laser peening processing comprising:
producing a product or a semi-product by the laser peening processing of the object using the laser peening processing apparatus according to claim 10 (Abstract) (See the rejection of claim 10, which discloses the structure of the laser peening apparatus.).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed 09/04/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-20 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Tamura et al (US 2002/0036190).
Applicant argues that the arrangement of the optical element (total reflection mirror) being positioned downstream of the condensing lens is a special arrangement. However, the arrangement of the optical element (total reflection mirror) being positioned downstream of the condensing lens is taught by Tamura. See the rejections of claims 1, 3, and 5.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights