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 Prosecution Application
In view of the appeal brief filed on June 15th, 2026, PROSECUTION IS HEREBY REOPENED. New grounds of rejections are set forth below.
To avoid abandonment of the application, appellant must exercise one of the following two options:
(1) file a reply under 37 CFR 1.111 (if this Office action is non-final) or a reply under 37 CFR 1.113 (if this Office action is final); or,
(2) initiate a new appeal by filing a notice of appeal under 37 CFR 41.31 followed by an appeal brief under 37 CFR 41.37. The previously paid notice of appeal fee and appeal brief fee can be applied to the new appeal. If, however, the appeal fees set forth in 37 CFR 41.20 have been increased since they were previously paid, then appellant must pay the difference between the increased fees and the amount previously paid.
A Supervisory Patent Examiner (SPE) has approved of reopening prosecution by signing below:
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakatsu (US Patent No. 20200361026) in view of Muratsubaki (US Patent NO. 20090084765) and further in view of Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586).
Regarding Claim 1, Kawakatsu teaches a waterjet-guided laser machine (Figure 1, Laser processing machine 1) comprising: a laser source (Figure 1 and Paragraph 62, Laser Generator 20, a fiber laser or any other laser) operable to emit a pulsed laser beam (Figure 1, Laser Beam 101a); a light-emitting diode (Figure 1 and Paragraph 75, Light Part 30 could be an LED) operable to emit a light beam different than the pulsed laser beam (Figure 1, Illumination light 102a); a head (Figure 1, Machining head 10) including an inlet for receiving fluid (Figure 1 and Paragraph 71, Valves for providing fluid 51-53) and a nozzle (Figure 1, Nozzle 11) having an outlet for discharging a jet of the water fluid therefrom (Figure 1, Nozzle 11 has an outlet); a light sensor (Figure 1, Imaging part 40); a laser optical path along which the pulsed laser beam travels from the laser source, through the nozzle and to the nozzle outlet (Figure 1, Optical path taken by Lazer Beam 101a from laser generator 20, through optical elements 22, 23, 24, and 12, and out of nozzle 11); a light beam optical delivery path along which the light beam travels from the LED, through the nozzle and to the nozzle outlet (Figure 1, Optical path taken by beam 102a from LED 30 through optical elements 31, 32, 23, 24, and 12, and out the nozzle 11. Beam 102a impinges the workpiece and a portion is reflected back through the nozzle to imaging part 40), the light beam optical delivery path being coincident with the laser optical path inside of the nozzle (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 74-78, Light beam 102a path and Lazer Beam 101a coincident inside the nozzle 11); a light beam optical return path along which a portion of the light beam that is reflected off of a workpiece travels from the nozzle outlet and back through the nozzle to the light sensor (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 79-81, Optical path taken by beam 102a from LED 30 through optical elements 31, 32, 23, 24, and 12, and out the nozzle 11. Beam 102a impinges the workpiece and a portion is reflected back as beam 103a through the nozzle to imaging part 40), the light beam optical return path being coincident with the laser optical path inside the nozzle and coincident with the light beam optical delivery path inside the nozzle (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 79-81, Beam 103a then follows an optical path through the nozzle 11, head 10, and coincident with Lazer Beam 101a and beam 102a), and an electronic controller (Figure 2, Control Part 60) operably connected with at least the laser source (Figure 2, Control Part 60 is connected to Laser generator 20), the LED (Figure 2, Control Part 60 is connected to Light Part 30), and the light sensor (Figure 2, Control Part 60 is connected to Imaging Part 40)
Kawakatsu fails to teach a water guided laser head and that the electronic controller configured to pulse the light beam in coordination with the pulsed laser beam such that during an OFF period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is ON and during an ON period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is OFF.
Muratsubaki teaches a waterjet-guided laser machine comprising (Abstract, Water jet) with water as the fluid (Paragraph 26, Water jet fluid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu to incorporate water as the fluid in the laser processing machine as stated in Muratsubaki. Attenuation of the laser beam can be reduced when it passes through the water and beam can be introduced into the water at sufficient intensity while suppressing the formation of heat lens (Paragraph 21, Water).
Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki fails to teach that the electronic controller configured to pulse the light beam in coordination with the pulsed laser beam such that during an OFF period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is ON and during an ON period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is OFF.
Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) teaches a laser processing method (Paragraph 3-4, Laser) where electronic controller configured to pulse the light beam in coordination with the pulsed laser beam such that during an OFF period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is ON and during an ON period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is OFF (Paragraph 313, Imaging was electronically controlled to trigger asynchronously with laser exposure to provide the maximum delay between laser exposure and imaging).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki to incorporate the synchronization between the laser and the led as stated in Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586). The delay improves imaging contrast by minimizing fringe washout from fast changing interfaces. (Paragraph 313, Delay).
Regarding Claim 2, Kawakatsu in view of Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the laser optical path contains, in order from the laser source to the waterjet head, a first lens, a first mirror, a second mirror, and a second lens
Muratsubaki teaches a waterjet-guided laser machine (Abstract, Water jet) where the laser optical path contains, in order from the laser source to the waterjet head, a first lens, a first mirror, a second mirror, and a second lens (Figure 23, Laser travels from Len Component 51 to Beam Splitter Component 511 that reflects laser Beam Splitter Component 512 that reflects laser to Lens Component 52).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate the arrangement of lens and mirrors as stated in Muratsubaki. The alignment mechanism 45 can angle the beam splitter 512 so the position of the center axis of the laser beam L can be aligned with the inlet opening of the nozzle (Paragraph 180-181, Alignment).
Regarding Claim 3, Kawakatsu in view of Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the light beam optical delivery path is coincident with the laser optical path from the second mirror to the second lens and from the second lens to the waterjet head and the laser optical path is non-coincident with the light beam optical delivery path from the laser source to the first lens, from the first lens to the first mirror, and from the first mirror to the second mirror.
Muratsubaki teaches a waterjet-guided laser machine (Abstract, Water jet) where the light beam optical delivery path is coincident with the laser optical path from the second mirror (Figure 23, Beam Splitter Component 512) to the second lens and from the second lens to the waterjet head (Figure 23, shows that the optical delivery path coincides with laser optical path from the second mirror to second lens to the nozzle.), and the laser optical path is non-coincident with the light beam optical delivery path from the laser source to the first lens, from the first lens to the first mirror, and from the first mirror to the second mirror (Figure 23, shows that the optical delivery path does not coincides with laser optical path from laser source to first lens to first mirror and then to second mirror).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu to incorporate a Beam Splitter Component as stated in Muratsubaki. The beam splitters 512 reflects the laser beam so that visible light an LED light, serving as a light source, passes through the beam splitter. (Paragraph 178, Beam Splitter Component).
Regarding Claim 4, Kawakatsu in view of Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the light beam optical return path is coincident with the with the laser optical path from the waterjet head to the second lens from the second lens to the second mirror and from the second mirror to the first mirror.
Muratsubaki teaches a waterjet-guided laser machine (Abstract, Water jet) where the light beam optical return path is coincident with the with the laser optical path from the waterjet head (Figure 23, Waterjet Head showcased) to the second lens ( Figure 23, Lens 52), from the second lens to the second mirror ( Figure 23, Beam Splitter Component 512), and from the second mirror to the first mirror (Figure 23, shows that the light beam optical return path does coincides with laser optical path from nozzle to second lens to second mirror to first mirror Component 511).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu to incorporate a Beam Splitter Component as stated in Muratsubaki. The beam splitters 512 reflects the laser beam so that visible light an LED light, serving as a light source, passes through the beam splitter. (Paragraph 178, Beam Splitter Component).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakatsu (US Patent No. 20200361026) in view of Muratsubaki (US Patent NO. 20090084765) and further in view of Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) and Lee Kyumin (EP Patent NO. 2208568)
Regarding Claim 5, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the light beams optical return path includes a third mirror, and the light beam optical return path is non-coincident with the laser optical path from the first mirror to the third mirror and from the third mirror to the light sensor.
Lee teaches a Liquid-jet guided laser apparatus (Paragraph 10), where the light beams optical return path includes a third mirror, and the light beam optical return path is non-coincident with the laser optical path from the first mirror to the third mirror and from the third mirror to the light sensor (Figure 1, Tilted Mirror Component 152 and Camera Component 150. Paragraph 45, The return path of light beam from LED 151 does not coincide with laser optical path from first mirror 103 to third mirror 152 to Camera 150).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate a third mirror as stated in Lee. The third mirror and the non-coincident path helps light sensor detect the reflected images of the nozzle entrance that was illuminated by the LED (Paragraph 45, LED, light senor and third mirror illuminating the entrance of nozzle).
Claims 6, 8-10, 12-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawakatsu (US Patent No. 20200361026) in view of Muratsubaki (US Patent NO. 20090084765) and further in view of Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) and Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045).
Regarding Claim 6, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the range of wavelength the LED operates at is between 495-570 nanometers.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the LED is operable to emit the light beam having a wavelength of a certain range (Paragraph 37, the light source is a super luminescent diode with a spectrum ranging from 820-860 nm).
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches the claimed invention except that the ranges do not match. It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the workable ranges, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and modifying the at range of wavelength the LED operates at is between 495-570 nanometers would allow for emission of an optimal light beam. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233. MPEP 2144.05-II
Furthermore, since applicants have not disclosed that these modifications solve any stated problem or are for any particular purpose and it appears that the device would perform equally well with either designs, these modifications are a matter of design choice. Absent a teaching as to criticality that range of wavelength the LED operates at is between 495-570 nanometers this particular arrangement is deemed to have been known by those skilled in the art since the instant specification and evidence of record fail to attribute any significance (novel or unexpected results) to a particular arrangement. In re Kuhle, 526 F.2d 553,555,188 USPQ 7, 9 (CCPA 1975). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding Claim 8, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the light sensor is operable to emit sensor signals responsive to the portion of the light beam received into the light sensor from the light beam optical return path, and the electronic controller is configured to determine from the sensor signals a depth-of-cut of the laser beam into the workpiece.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the light sensor is operable to emit sensor signals responsive to the portion of the light beam received into the light sensor from the light beam optical return path (Figure 3 and Paragraph 95-98 , Imaging system 21 emits light called imaging beam 20 which reflects off the work piece and follows the same path back to imaging system which senses the light and relays signals to feedback controller), and the electronic controller is configured to determine from the sensor signals a depth-of-cut of the laser beam into the workpiece (Paragraph 96-98 and 106-110, A feedback controller could also be used in conjunction with Imaging System 21 to determine the depth of the cut and control the process of the system).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate determining a depth-of-cut as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). This helps correct any changes in depth of cut for better results (Paragraph 111, depth of cut adjustments).
Regarding Claim 9, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the electronic controller is configured to adjust scan rate of movement of the laser beam relative to the workpiece along a cutting path based upon the depth-of-cut.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the electronic controller is configured to adjust scan rate of movement of the laser beam relative to the workpiece along a cutting path based upon the depth-of-cut. (Paragraph 40 and 45, The imaging beams 20 of FIG. 1, is used to measure, instantaneously or over a period of time, depth and other physical parameters. Then statistical snapshots of weld regions, like cutting path, produced by image processors may also be used by feedback controllers to effect changes to weld parameters like scan rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate determining a depth-of-cut as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). This helps correct any changes in depth of cut for better results (Paragraph 111, depth of cut adjustments).
Regarding Claim 10 , Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the electronic controller is configured to identify a fault condition if the depth-of-cut is below a threshold over a preset duration.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the electronic controller is configured to identify a fault condition if the depth-of-cut is below a threshold over a preset duration (Paragraph 43-45, and 78, Imaging beam 20 is used to calculate depth over a period of time. Then the feedback controller identifies instances where welding fails to penetrate beyond a specified depth and correct it).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate to identifying a fault condition as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). This helps correct any changes in depth of cut for better results (Paragraph 111, depth of cut adjustments).
Regarding Claim 12, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach an acoustic sensor operable to emit acoustic sensor signals.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where an acoustic sensor is operable to emit acoustic sensor signals responsive to receiving sound emitted from the workpiece, (Paragraph 106-110, A feedback controller could also be used in conjunction with other auxiliary measurement tools to control the process of the system) and the electronic controller is configured to determine an initiation of cutting of the workpiece by the laser based on the acoustic sensor signals (Paragraph 118-119, the frequency, amplitude, and vibration from Acoustic transducer can be used by controller to detect liquid vs. Solid phases of workpieces therefore detecting when the welding is occurring).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate an acoustic sensor as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). Immediately after welding starts, data from sensors can determine when welding starts, melt viscosity, material type, material state, and if melt pool width is decreasing over time which helps with the accuracy of the welding (Paragraph 119, Data collected by acoustic sensors).
Regarding Claim 13, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the electronic controller is configured to determine the initiation of the cutting using the acoustic sensor signals.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the electronic controller is configured to determine the initiation of the cutting of the workpiece by the laser based on the frequency of the acoustic sensor signals (Paragraph 106-110 and 118-119, the frequency, amplitude, and vibration from Acoustic transducer can be used by Feedback Controller to detect liquid vs. solid phases of workpieces therefore detecting when the welding is occurring).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate an acoustic sensor as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). Immediately after welding starts, data from sensors can determine when welding starts, melt viscosity, material type, material state, and if melt pool width is decreasing over time which helps with the accuracy of the welding (Paragraph 119, Data collected by acoustic sensors).
Regarding Claim 14, Kawakatsu teaches a method of machining a workpiece, the method comprising: in a waterjet-guided laser machine (Figure 1, Laser processing machine 1 with fluid), discharging a jet of water from a nozzle outlet of a waterjet head (Figure 1, Nozzle 11 has an outlet discharges fluid), the jet impinging the workpiece (Figure 1 and Paragraph 70, Fluid injected toward workpiece 110); emitting a pulsed laser beam from a laser beam source (Figure 1 and Paragraph 62, Laser Generator 20, a fiber laser or any other laser) along a laser optical path through the nozzle and to the nozzle outlet such that the pulsed laser beam is guided in the jet of water and also impinges the workpiece (Figure 1, Optical path taken by Lazer Beam 101a from laser generator 20, through optical elements 22, 23, 24, and 12, and out of nozzle 11 and toward workpieces 110 assisted by fluid) emitting a light beam that is different than the laser beam (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 74-78, Light beam 102a path and Lazer Beam 101a are different) from a light-emitting diode (LED) along a light beam optical delivery path through the nozzle and to the nozzle outlet (Figure 1, Optical path taken by beam 102a from LED 30 through optical elements 31, 32, 23, 24, and 12, and out the nozzle 11. Beam 102a impinges the workpiece and a portion is reflected back through the nozzle to imaging part 40), the light beam optical delivery path being coincident with the laser optical path inside of the nozzle (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 74-78, Light beam 102a path and Lazer Beam 101a coincident inside the nozzle 11); the light sensor (Figure 1, Imaging part 40) emitting sensor signals responsive to the portion of the light beam that is received (Figure 1, Beam 102a impinges the workpiece and a portion is reflected back through the nozzle to imaging part 40), the light beam optical return path being coincident with the laser optical path inside the nozzle and coincident with the light beam optical delivery path inside the nozzle (Figure 1 and Paragraphs 79-81, Beam 103a then follows an optical path through the nozzle 11, head 10, and coincident with Lazer Beam 101a and beam 102a);
Kawakatsu fails to teach a water guided laser head and that the electronic controller configured to pulse the light beam in coordination with the pulsed laser beam such that during an OFF period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is ON and during an ON period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is OFF.
Muratsubaki teaches a waterjet-guided laser machine comprising (Abstract, Water jet) with water as the fluid (Paragraph 26, Water jet fluid).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu to incorporate water as the fluid in the laser processing machine as stated in Muratsubaki. Water is cheaper more readily available fluid (Paragraph 74, Cost).
Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki fails to teach that the electronic controller configured to pulse the light beam in coordination with the pulsed laser beam such that during an OFF period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is ON and during an ON period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is OFF.
Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) teaches a laser processing method (Paragraph 3-4, Laser) where electronic controller configured to pulse the light beam in coordination with the pulsed laser beam such that during an OFF period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is ON and during an ON period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is OFF (Paragraph 313, Imaging was electronically controlled to trigger asynchronously with laser exposure to provide the maximum delay between laser exposure and imaging).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki to incorporate the synchronization between the laser and the led as stated in Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586). The delay improves imaging contrast by minimizing fringe washout from fast changing interfaces. (Paragraph 313, Delay).
Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach a controller adjusting the cutting process.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the sensor uses signals as feedback in an electronic controller to adaptively adjust the cutting of the workpiece by the laser beam (Paragraph 106-111, A feedback controller could also be used in conjunction with other imaging tool to give output to process control system to control laser weld depth and apparatus movement).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Muratsubaki in view of Inoue to incorporate controller adjusting the cutting process as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). This helps correct any changes in depth of cut for better results (Paragraph 111, depth of cut adjustments).
Regarding Claim 15, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the electronic controller determines from the sensor signals a depth-of-cut of the laser beam into the workpiece.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the electronic controller determines from the sensor signals a depth-of-cut of the laser beam into the workpiece (Figure 3 and Paragraph 95-98, and 106-110, A feedback controller could also be used in conjunction with other imaging tool to determine depth of cut and control the process of the system).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate determining from the sensor signals a depth-of-cut as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). This helps correct any changes in depth of cut for better results (Paragraph 111, depth of cut adjustments).
Regarding Claim 16, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the electronic controller is configured to adjust scan rate of movement of the laser beam relative to the workpiece along a cutting path based upon the depth-of-cut.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the electronic controller is configured to adjust scan rate of movement of the laser beam relative to the workpiece along a cutting path based upon the depth-of-cut. (Paragraph 40 and 45, The imaging beams 20 of FIG. 1, is used to measure, instantaneously or over a period of time, depth and other physical parameters. Then statistical snapshots of weld regions, like cutting path, produced by image processors may also be used by feedback controllers to effect changes to weld parameters like scan rate).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate determining a depth-of-cut as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). This helps correct any changes in depth of cut for better results (Paragraph 111, depth of cut adjustments).
Regarding Claim 17, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the electronic controller is configured to identify a fault condition if the depth-of-cut is below a threshold over a preset duration.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the electronic controller is configured to identify a fault condition if the depth-of-cut is below a threshold over a preset duration (Paragraph 43-45, and 78, Imaging beam 20 is used to calculate depth over a period of time. Then the feedback controller identifies instances where welding fails to penetrate beyond a specified depth and correct it).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate to identifying a fault condition as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). This helps correct any changes in depth of cut for better results (Paragraph 111, depth of cut adjustments).
Regarding Claim 19, Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) fails to teach that the light sensor is operable to emit sensor signals responsive to the portion of the light beam received into the light sensor from the light beam optical return path and the electronic controller is configured to determine from the sensor signals a depth-of-cut of the laser beam into the workpiece, the electronic controller is configured to adjust scan rate of movement of the laser beam relative to the workpiece along a cutting path based upon the depth-of-cut ) by decreasing the scan rate of movement of the laser beam if the depth-of-cut is shallower than a target depth-of-cut and increasing the scan rate of movement of the laser beam if the depth-of-cut is deeper than the target depth-of-cut.
Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045) teaches a laser welding apparatus (Figure 2-3, Welding Apparatus) where the light sensor is operable to emit sensor signals responsive to the portion of the light beam received into the light sensor from the light beam optical return path (Figure 3 and Paragraph 95-98 , Imaging system 21 emits light called imaging beam 20 which reflects off the work piece and follows the same path back to imaging system which senses the light and relays signals to feedback controller), the electronic controller is configured to determine from the sensor signals a depth-of-cut of the laser beam into the workpiece (Paragraph 96-98 and 106-110, A feedback controller could also be used in conjunction with Imaging System 21 to determine the depth of the cut and control the process of the system), the electronic controller is configured to adjust scan rate of movement of the laser beam relative to the workpiece along a cutting path based upon the depth-of-cut (Paragraph 40 and 45, The imaging beams 20 of FIG. 1, is used to measure, instantaneously or over a period of time, depth and other physical parameters. Then statistical snapshots of weld regions, like cutting path, produced by image processors may also be used by feedback controllers to effect changes to weld parameters like scan rate) by decreasing the scan rate of movement of the laser beam if the depth-of-cut is shallower than a target depth-of-cut and increasing the scan rate of movement of the laser beam if the depth-of-cut is deeper than the target depth-of-cut (Paragraph 43-45, and 78, Imaging beam 20 is used to calculate depth over a period of time. Then the feedback controller identifies instances where welding fails to penetrate beyond a specified depth and corrects it).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kawakatsu in view of Muratsubaki and Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) to incorporate to identifying a fault condition as stated in Webster (US Patent NO. 20160039045). This helps correct any changes in depth of cut for better results (Paragraph 111, depth of cut adjustments).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Pages 4-5 and 9-10, filed June 15th, 2026 with respect to the rejection of claim 1 and 5 under 35 U.S.C. 103 with regards to LED light traveling in and out the nozzle have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kawakatsu.
Applicant's arguments, See pages 6-7, filed June 15th, 2026 regarding Claim 1-7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that the Examiner must demonstrate that the controller of the prior art machine possesses the necessary structure, hardware or software, for example, the programming, to function as claimed, 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. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim.
In addition to structural limitations, Claim 1 recites functional limitations drawn toward the intended use or manner of operating the claimed apparatus. The functional limitations are: “The electronic controller configured to pulse the light beam in coordination with the pulsed laser beam such that during an OFF period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is ON and during an ON period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is OFF.” When the cited prior arts teach all of the positively recited structure of the claimed apparatus, it will be held that the prior art apparatus is capable of performing all of the claimed functional limitations of the claimed apparatus. The courts have held that: (1) "apparatus 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), and (2) 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.
Furthermore, Webster (US Patent No. 20120138586) teaches an electronic controller configured to pulse the light beam in coordination with the pulsed laser beam such that during an OFF period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is ON and during an ON period of the pulsed laser beam the light beam is OFF (Paragraph 313, Imaging was electronically controlled to trigger asynchronously with laser exposure to provide the maximum delay between laser exposure and imaging).
Applicant argues that Fordahl does not teach LED. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground of rejection is made in view of Kawakatsu.
Applicant's arguments, See pages 6-7, filed June 15th, 2026 regarding Claim 1-7 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant's argument that Webster (US Patent No. 20160039045) fails to recognize wavelength as result effective as the conditions in Webster (US Patent No. 20160039045) are welding dry while the conditions in the claimed conditions involve a water.
However, the prior art does recognize that the variable of wavelength affects the relevant property or result. ('A recognition in the prior art that a property is affected by the variable is sufficient to find the variable result-effective.') (MPEP 2144.05 III C). Furthermore, Webster (US Patent No. 20160039045) states that imaging sources from 300 to 15000 nm may also be used (Paragraph 187) and includes the conditions of a laser beam guided by a jet (Paragraph 25). Therefore Webster recognizes the wavelength as result effective.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN whose telephone number is (571)272-4235. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 7:00 am - 4:00 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/HAMZEH HICHAM AMIN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
