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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendments to the claims have been entered.
Claims 1-12, 15, and 17 have been amended. Claims 13-14 and 16 are original. Claims 18-19 are new. Thus, claims 1-19 are pending and have been considered in this revised response below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 07/24/2025 on pg. 8, regarding the filing of the certified copy of priority document 21154027.3 has been considered and is persuasive. Acknowledgement of the certified copy may be found below.
Applicant’s argument, filed 07/24/2025 on pg. 9, regarding the objection to the specification has been considered and is persuasive. The objection to the specification has been withdrawn in light of amendments to the specification.
Applicant’s argument, filed 07/24/2025 on pg. 9, regarding the objection to claims 2, 6-9, 11, and 16 has been considered and is persuasive. The objection to the claims has been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s argument, filed 07/24/2025 on pg. 9, regarding the rejection of claims 7 and 15 under 35 U.S.C. § 112(b) has been considered and is persuasive. The rejection of the claims has been withdrawn in light of amendments to the claims.
Applicant’s argument, filed 07/24/2025 on pgs. 10-11, regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 17 under 35 U.S.C. § 102 has been considered but is moot. Applicant argues that Hirasawa does not teach a relationship between laser position and cross-sectional beam adjustment. Examiner notes that Rudeen rather than Hirasawa is relied upon to teach this claimed relationship. Examiner notes Applicant’s argument regarding the difference between a “scan position” and “distance” to a recording medium. The rejection of claims 1 and 17 and their dependents can be found in this revised response below.
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 07/14/2025 has been considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are: "a laser entry module”, “a collimating module”, “a scanning module”, “a focusing module” in claims 1 and 17.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art.
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 1-8, 12-14, and 17-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa et al. (JP 2017/013121 A), hereinafter Hirasawa, further in view of Rudeen (US 5945670 A).
Regarding claim 1, Hirasawa teaches a laser processing system, comprising:
a processor (“aperture diameter control means (not shown) is provided in the control system 50” [0122], Fig. 9); and
a laser processing head (Fig. 2; laser light irradiation device 100; [0014]) comprising:
a laser entry module (Fig. 1; fiber of laser light emitting means 11; “Examples of the laser light emitting means 11 include… a fiber-coupled laser”; [0021]) for introducing a laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]);
a collimating module (Fig. 9; collimator lens 12b; [0015]) configured to collimate the laser beam;
a scanning module (Fig. 9; laser light scanning means 13; “For example, a galvanometer scanner… can be used”;[0025]) configured to deflect the laser beam; and
a focusing module (Fig. 9; focusing lens 18; [0125]) configured to focus the laser beam; and
at least one diaphragm (Fig. 9; aperture member 10; [0125]) for increasing a scan field (Fig. 10; various configurations of Fig. 10 show differing cross-sectional areas of the opening of the aperture stop through which incident light passes. Aperture stop reduces diameter of beam exiting aperture stop, and increases area of scanning range.) of the laser beam;
wherein the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; aperture member 10; [0124]) comprises a diaphragm body (Fig. 10; “plurality of aperture blades”; [0124]) and an opening (Fig. 10; “opening of the aperture stop”; [0124]), and is configured to limit a cross-sectional area of the laser beam by the diaphragm body (Fig. 10; various configurations of Fig. 10 show differing cross-sectional areas of the opening of the aperture stop through which incident light passes; “when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light
can pass through, and when the aperture diameter is minimized (0), all of the incident light
can be blocked. The design of the aperture stop (for example, the adjustment range, maximum diameter, and minimum diameter of the aperture diameter) can be changed as appropriate.”); [0124]); and
wherein the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; aperture member 10; [0124]) is positioned between (Fig. 10; “aperture member 10… may be arranged… on the optical path between the diffusing lens 16 and the focusing lens 18”; Fig. 10 shows diffusing lens 16 downstream of laser light scanning means 13; [0125]) the laser entry module (Fig. 9; fiber-coupler of laser light emitting means 11; “Examples of the laser light emitting means 11 … a fiber-coupled laser”; [0021]) and the focusing module (Fig. 9; focusing lens 18; [0125]).
Hirasawa teaches the processor, at least one diaphragm, the cross-sectional area of the laser beam, a scan position of the laser beam (Orientation and position of beam “within the scanning range of the laser beam scanning unit 13” [0157]), and the scanning module but does not teach wherein the processor is configured to control the at least one diaphragm to adjust the cross-sectional area of the laser beam passing through the at least one diaphragm according to a scan position of the laser beam deflected by the scanning module..
Rudeen teaches wherein a processor (“aperture controller”, Col. 12, line 23) is configured to control at least one diaphragm (aperture device 550 of Fig. 10) to adjust the cross- sectional area of a laser beam (“light intensity” is “los[t] due to aperture reduction” Col. 6, lines 50-51 is construed as a cross-sectional area of beam being blocked) passing through the at least one diaphragm (see optical path travelling through aperture 50 which is equivalent to aperture mechanism 550 in Fig. 1) according to a scan position of the laser beam (“In the configuration where the aperture mechanism were positioned on the target side of the scanning mirror, the shape of the beam could be manipulated for different parts of the scan”, Col. 4, lines 53-57; Different parts of the scan is construed as different positions of the scan) deflected by a scanning module (scanning mirror 30, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Hirasawa to adjust a diaphragm according to a laser beam scan position. Hirasawa and Rudeen are analogous arts because they both relate to aperture adjustment within laser scanning systems. Hirasawa teaches an adjustable diaphragm and scanner laser beam traversing therethrough. Rudeen teaches adjusting a diaphragm within different parts of a scan of a laser. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide diaphragm adjustment control based on a scan position. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a “much broader range” of scanning over which laser processing may occur, as identified by Rudeen (Col. 6, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 2, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein:
the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; aperture member 10; [0124]) is positioned such that an entire cross-sectional area of the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) having passed through the opening of the at least one diaphragm (“when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light can pass through”; [0124]) is incident (“aperture member 10… may be arranged… on the optical path between the diffusing lens 16 and the focusing lens 18”; Fig. 9 shows light incident on focusing lens 18; [0125]) on an optical surface of an optical element (Fig. 9; focusing lens 18; [0125]); and
the optical element is comprised in at least one of the collimating module, the scanning module and the focusing module (Fig. 9; focusing lens 18; [0125]).
Regarding claim 3, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the diaphragm body (Fig. 10; “plurality of aperture blades”; [0124]) is arranged to obstruct an entire edge (Fig. 10; “when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light can pass through, and when the aperture diameter is minimized (0), all of the incident light can be blocked. The design of the aperture stop (for example, the adjustment range, maximum diameter, and minimum diameter of the aperture diameter) can be changed as appropriate”; Aperture stop 10 could obstruct an entire edge of incident light so long as the diameter of the incident light beam were greater than the aperture diameter. Given that the aperture diameter can shrink to zero, this condition will be met for an incident light beam with any diameter greater than zero.; [0124]) of the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) or to obstruct only a part of an entire edge of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 4, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the opening of the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; “opening of the aperture stop”; [0124]) is smaller than an aperture of the focusing module (Fig. 10; Fig. 10 shows that the opening of the aperture stop 10 is shorter the aperture of focusing lens 18).
Regarding claim 5, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the at least one diaphragm includes at least one of:
a first diaphragm (Fig. 10; aperture member 10; [0124]) positioned (“the aperture member 10… may be arranged, for example, on the optical path between the laser light emitting means 11 and the collimator lens 12b”; [0125]) between the laser entry module (Fig. 9; fiber-coupler of laser light emitting means 11; “Examples of the laser light emitting means 11 … a fiber-coupled laser”; [0021]) and the collimating module (Fig. 9; collimator lens 12b; [0015]), and configured to limit the cross-sectional area of the laser beam propagating from the laser entry module to the collimating module (Fig. 10; various configurations of Fig. 10 show differing cross-sectional areas of the opening of the aperture stop through which incident light passes; “when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light can pass through, and when the aperture diameter is minimized (0), all of the incident light can be blocked. The design of the aperture stop (for example, the adjustment range, maximum diameter, and minimum diameter of the aperture diameter) can be changed as appropriate.”); [0124]).
Hirasawa does not teach a second diaphragm positioned between the collimating module and the scanning module, and configured to limit the cross-sectional area of the laser beam propagating from the collimating module to the scanning module;
and a third diaphragm positioned between the scanning module and the focusing module, and configured to limit the cross-sectional area of the laser beam propagating from the scanning module to the focusing module.
Regarding claim 6, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; aperture member 10; [0124]) is configured such that the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) having passed through the opening of the at least one diaphragm has a width less than 95% of a width of the laser beam received at the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; various configurations of Fig. 10 show differing cross-sectional areas of the opening of the aperture stop through which incident light passes; “when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light can pass through, and when the aperture diameter is minimized (0), all of the incident light can be blocked. The design of the aperture stop (for example, the adjustment range, maximum diameter, and minimum diameter of the aperture diameter) can be changed as appropriate.”); The aperture diameter can be changed so that the diameter of the beam exiting the aperture has a width less than 95% of the width of the incident light beam.; [0124]).
Regarding claim 7, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; aperture member 10; [0124]) is configured to adjustably limit the cross-sectional area of the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) passing through the opening of the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; various configurations of Fig. 10 show differing cross-sectional areas of the opening of the aperture stop through which incident light passes; “when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light can pass through, and when the aperture diameter is minimized (0), all of the incident light can be blocked. The design of the aperture stop (for example, the adjustment range, maximum diameter, and minimum diameter of the aperture diameter) can be changed as appropriate.”).; [0124]).
Regarding claim 8, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; aperture member 10; [0124]) is configured to adjust a cross-sectional area of the opening to adjustably limit the cross-sectional area of the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) passing through the opening of the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; various configurations of Fig. 10 show differing cross-sectional areas of the opening of the aperture stop through which incident light passes; “when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light can pass through, and when the aperture diameter is minimized (0), all of the incident light can be blocked. The design of the aperture stop (for example, the adjustment range, maximum diameter, and minimum diameter of the aperture diameter) can be changed as appropriate.”).; [0124]).
Regarding claim 12, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), further comprising:
a laser source module (Fig. 1; laser light emitting means 11; [0021]) configured to generate the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]).
Regarding claim 13, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the laser source module (Fig. 1; laser light emitting means 11; [0021]) comprises at least one of: a single-mode laser source (“Examples of the laser light emitting means 11 include… a fiber-coupled laser”, [0021]; “the normal laser beam has a Gaussian distribution”, [0021]; “by utilizing a fiber-coupled laser, the laser light emitted from the end of the fiber can easily be obtained as a top-hat shaped laser light”, [0023]), a multi-mode laser source, or a ring-mode laser source.
Regarding claim 14, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the laser source module comprises at least one of: a disk laser, a fiber laser (Fig. 1; “Examples of the laser light emitting means 11 include… a fiber-coupled laser”, [0021]), a fiber disk laser, a fiber laser with ring-mode, a disk laser with ring-mode, a diode laser, a single-mode fiber laser or a multi-mode fiber laser.
Regarding claim 17, Hirasawa teaches a method for controlling a laser processing system (Fig. 2; laser light irradiation device 100; [0014]), the method comprising:
introducing a laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) at a laser entry module (Fig. 1; fiber of laser light emitting means 11; “Examples of the laser light emitting means 11 include… a fiber-coupled laser”; [0021]) of the laser processing head (Fig. 2; laser light irradiation device 100; [0014]);
collimating the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) by a collimating module (Fig. 9; collimator lens 12b; [0015]) of the laser processing head (Fig. 2; laser light irradiation device 100; [0014]);
deflecting the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) by a scanning module (Fig. 9; laser light scanning means 13; “For example, a galvanometer scanner… can be used”; [0025]) of the laser processing head (Fig. 2; laser light irradiation device 100; [0014]); and
focusing the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) by a focusing module (Fig. 9; focusing lens 18; [0125]) of the laser processing head (Fig. 2; laser light irradiation device 100; [0014]);
passing the laser beam through a diaphragm of the laser processing head (Fig. 2; laser light irradiation device 100; [0014]) such that a scan field of the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) is increased by limiting a cross-sectional area of the laser beam by the diaphragm (Fig. 10; various configurations of Fig. 10 show differing cross-sectional areas of the opening of the aperture stop through which incident light passes; “when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light can pass through, and when the aperture diameter is minimized (0), all of the incident light can be blocked. The design of the aperture stop (for example, the adjustment range, maximum diameter, and minimum diameter of the aperture diameter) can be changed as appropriate.”); [0124]).
Hirasawa teaches the processor, the laser processing system, at least one diaphragm, the cross-sectional area of the laser beam, a scan position of the laser beam (Orientation and position of beam “within the scanning range of the laser beam scanning unit 13” [0157]), and the scanning module but does not teach wherein the processor of the laser processing system controls the at least one diaphragm to adjust the cross-sectional area of the laser beam passing through the at least one diaphragm according to a scan position of the laser beam deflected by the scanning module..
Rudeen teaches wherein a processor (“aperture controller”, Col. 12, line 23) of a laser processing system (system of Fig. 1) controls at least one diaphragm (aperture device 550 of Fig. 10) to adjust the cross- sectional area of a laser beam (“light intensity” is “los[t] due to aperture reduction” Col. 6, lines 50-51 is construed as a cross-sectional area of beam being blocked) passing through the at least one diaphragm (see optical path travelling through aperture 50 which is equivalent to aperture mechanism 550 in Fig. 1) according to a scan position of the laser beam (“In the configuration where the aperture mechanism were positioned on the target side of the scanning mirror, the shape of the beam could be manipulated for different parts of the scan”, Col. 4, lines 53-57; Different parts of the scan is construed as different positions of the scan) deflected by a scanning module (scanning mirror 30, Fig. 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the processor of Hirasawa to adjust a diaphragm according to a laser beam scan position. Hirasawa and Rudeen are analogous arts because they both relate to aperture adjustment within laser scanning systems. Hirasawa teaches an adjustable diaphragm and scanner laser beam traversing therethrough. Rudeen teaches adjusting a diaphragm within different parts of a scan of a laser. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide diaphragm adjustment control based on a scan position. By doing so, one would be able to obtain a “much broader range” of scanning over which laser processing may occur, as identified by Rudeen (Col. 6, lines 35-43).
Regarding claim 18, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein:
the focusing module (Fig. 9; focusing lens 18; [0125]; All cites to Hirasawa) includes at least one focusing lens (lens of focusing lens 18);
the collimating module (Fig. 9; collimator lens 12b; [0015]) includes at least one collimating lens (lens of collimator 12b); and
the scanning module (Fig. 9; laser light scanning means 13) includes at least one scanning mirror (Fig. 9 shows two galvano scanners 13a and 13b).
Regarding claim 19, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 17 (see rejection of claim 17 above), wherein:
the focusing module (Fig. 9; focusing lens 18; [0125]; All cites to Hirasawa) includes at least one focusing lens (lens of focusing lens 18);
the collimating module (Fig. 9; collimator lens 12b; [0015]) includes at least one collimating lens (lens of collimator 12b); and
the scanning module (Fig. 9; laser light scanning means 13) includes at least one scanning mirror (Fig. 9 shows two galvano scanners 13a and 13b).
Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa et al. (JP 2017/013121 A), hereinafter Hirasawa, further in view Rudeen (US 5945670 A) and Kimura et al. (JP 2000/254792 A), hereinafter Kimura.
Regarding claim 9, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 7 (see rejection of claim 7 above), wherein the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 9; aperture member 10; [0125])… to adjustably limit the cross-sectional area of the laser beam (Fig. 9; laser light emitted by laser light emitting means 11; [0015]) passing through the opening of the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 10; various configurations of Fig. 10 show differing cross-sectional areas of the opening of the aperture stop through which incident light passes; “when the aperture diameter of the aperture stop is maximized, all of the incident light can pass through, and when the aperture diameter is minimized (0), all of the incident light can be blocked. The design of the aperture stop (for example, the adjustment range, maximum diameter, and minimum diameter of the aperture diameter) can be changed as appropriate.”); [0124]).
Hirasawa does not teach is configured to move along an optical axis of the at least one diaphragm and/or in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis of the at least one diaphragm.
Kimura teaches is configured to move along an optical axis (Figs. 2a, 2b; “a height adjustment screw 20 is fixed to the movable cooling block 16 for moving the movable cooling block in the vertical direction in the figure”; Optical axis is in the vertical direction of the figure.; [0019]) of the at least one diaphragm (Figs. 2a, 2b; movable aperture 15; [0022]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aperture stop of Hirasawa to be movable along an optical axis to limit the cross-sectional area of the incident light. Hirasawa, Rudeen, and Kimura are analogous arts because they both relate to laser processing devices that utilize aperture stops. Hirasawa teaches an aperture stop that limits an area of a laser beam. Rudeen teaches adjusting a diaphragm within different parts of a scan of a laser. Kimura teaches moving an aperture stop along an optical axis to change a beam cone angle. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide means for moving the aperture stop along the optical axis. By doing so, one would be able to easily select a beam cone angle suitable for different processes, from processing requiring a relatively high laser light output to processing inside a narrow recess, as acknowledged by Kimura ([0028]).
Kimura does not teach and/or in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis of the at least one diaphragm.
Regarding claim 10, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), wherein the diaphragm body (Fig. 9; aperture member 10; [0125]).
Hirasawa does not teach comprises a coolant-based cooling mechanism to remove heat from the diaphragm body; and/or
the diaphragm body comprises a surface coating configured to increase absorption of a portion of the laser beam hitting the diaphragm body; and/or
the diaphragm body comprises a beam trap configured to trap, by repeated total internal reflections, a portion of the laser beam hitting the diaphragm body; and/or
the diaphragm body comprises a reflector and an absorbing unit, and the reflector is arranged to reflect a portion of the laser beam hitting the diaphragm body towards the absorbing unit for absorbing the reflected portion of the laser beam.
Kimura teaches wherein:
the diaphragm body comprises a coolant-based (Fig. 1, text on top left of case 12; “cooling water”; [0019]) cooling mechanism (Fig. 1; fixed cooling block 14; [0019]) to remove heat from the diaphragm body (“The fixed cooling block 14 and the movable cooling block 16 generate heat by absorbing the laser light. This heat is discharged to the outside by cooling water flowing inside the fixed cooling block 14 and the movable cooling block 16, respectively.”; [0024]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aperture stop of Hirasawa to have means for removing or absorbing heat. Hirasawa, Rudeen, and Kimura are analogous arts because they both relate to laser processing devices that utilize aperture stops. Hirasawa teaches an aperture stop that limits an area of a laser beam. Rudeen teaches adjusting a diaphragm within different parts of a scan of a laser. Kimura teaches a coolant-based cooling mechanism for an aperture stop. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide means for cooling the aperture stop. By doing so, heat from the aperture would be discharged by the coolant, as identified by Kimura ([0024]), and one would be able to prevent thermal damage to the body of the aperture stop.
Kimura also teaches wherein:…
the diaphragm body comprises a reflector (Fig. 1, fixed aperture 13, [0019]) and an absorbing unit (Fig. 1, “Grooves 19, [0019]) and the reflector is arranged to reflect a portion of the laser beam (Fig. 1, “the laser light that is multiple-reflected between the fixed aperture 13 and the movable aperture 15”, [0019]) hitting the diaphragm body (Fig. 1, movable aperture 15, [0019]) towards the absorbing unit for absorbing the reflected portion of the laser beam (Fig. 1, “Grooves 19 are formed… so as to absorb all of the laser light”, [0019]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aperture stop of Hirasawa to have means for removing or absorbing heat. Hirasawa, Rudeen, and Kimura are analogous arts because they both relate to laser processing devices that utilize aperture stops. Hirasawa teaches an aperture stop that limits an area of a laser beam. Rudeen teaches adjusting a diaphragm within different parts of a scan of a laser. Kimura teaches a reflective system with absorbing material as part of an aperture stop. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide means for reflecting and absorbing energy incident on the body of the aperture stop. By doing so, light reflecting off the aperture would be scattered by the absorbing means, as identified by Kimura ([0012]), and one would be able to prevent thermal damage to the body of the aperture stop or its housing.
Kimura does not teach wherein:
and/or the diaphragm body comprises a surface coating configured to increase absorption of a portion of the laser beam hitting the diaphragm body; and/or
the diaphragm body comprises a beam trap configured to trap, by repeated total internal reflections, a portion of the laser beam hitting the diaphragm body.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa et al. (JP 2017/013121 A), hereinafter Hirasawa, further in view of Rudeen (US 5945670 A) and Yamaguchi (KR 2018/0034227 A).
Regarding claim 11, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above).
Modified Hirasawa does not teach further comprising a sensor module comprising one or more sensors configured to sense a laser power of a portion of the laser beam having passed through the opening of the at least one diaphragm and/or to sense a laser power absorbed by the diaphragm body.
Yamaguchi teaches further comprising a sensor module (Figs. 1A, 1B; measuring device (15); [0028]) comprising one or more sensors configured to sense a laser power (Figs. 1A, 1B; “A pulsed laser beam output from a laser light source (10)”; [0028]; “the average power of the pulsed laser beam can be measured”, [0031]) of a portion of the laser beam having passed through the opening of the at least one diaphragm (Figs. 1A, 1B; “A pulsed laser beam output from a laser light source (10) passes through … a variable aperture (12)… and enters a measuring device (15).”; [0028]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the aperture stop of Hirasawa to have means for removing or absorbing heat. Hirasawa, Rudeen, and Yamaguchi are analogous arts because they both relate to laser processing devices that utilize aperture stops. Hirasawa teaches an aperture stop that limits an area of a laser beam. Rudeen teaches adjusting a diaphragm within different parts of a scan of a laser. Yamaguchi teaches measuring the average power of laser beam passed through an aperture and controlling a laser based on measured values of laser power ([0032]). One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide sensors for detecting laser power passed through an aperture. By doing so, one could control the diameter of the aperture based on the laser power passed through said aperture to achieve suitable laser power values, as identified by Yamaguchi ([0031], [0032], [0041]).
Yamaguchi does not teach and/or to sense a laser power absorbed by the diaphragm body.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa et al. (JP 2017/013121 A), hereinafter Hirasawa, further in view of Rudeen (US 5945670 A) and Malinowski et al. (US 2019/0262949 A1), hereinafter Malinowski.
Regarding claim 15, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the laser source module (Fig. 1; laser light emitting means 11; [0021]) is configured to generate the laser beam.
Hirasawa does not teach having a power of at least 200 W, or a power of at least 6 kW, or a power of at least 8 kW, or a power of at least 10 kW.
Malinowski teaches having a power of at least 200 W, or a power of at least 6 kW, or a power of at least 8 kW, or a power of at least 10 kW (“laser 1 can be defined by an output power in the range 500 W to 20 kW”; [0084]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser of Hirasawa to have a power output of at least 200W-10kW. Hirasawa, Rudeen, and Malinowski are analogous arts because they both relate to laser processing devices. Hirasawa teaches changing laser power densities to obtain values required for a processing task ([0029]). Rudeen teaches adjusting a diaphragm within different parts of a scan of a laser. Malinowski teaches laser cutting with a fiber laser of high enough power to efficiently process material. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the laser processing system with a laser with an output power of at least 200W. By doing so, one could more efficiently cut materials, as narrower molten regions can be generated with higher laser powers, as identified by Malinowski ([0003]).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hirasawa et al. (JP 2017/013121 A), hereinafter Hirasawa, further in view of Rudeen (US 5945670 A) and Hoche et al. (WO 2013/014030 A1), hereinafter Hoche.
Regarding claim 16, Hirasawa and Rudeen teach the laser processing system according to claim 12 (see rejection of claim 12 above), wherein the processor (Fig. 9; “aperture diameter control means (not shown) is provided in the control system 50”; [0122] configured:… and/or
to control the at least one diaphragm (Fig. 9; aperture member 10; [0125]) to adjust the cross-sectional area of the laser beam passing through (Fig. 10; “the opening of the aperture stop is adjusted by an aperture diameter control means”; [0124]) the at least one diaphragm according to (“a laser beam, the irradiation power of which is adjusted based on the measured distance”, [0048]; “As a method for controlling the irradiation power, the irradiation power can be increased by… increasing the amount of irradiation light. The irradiation power can be reduced by… reducing the amount of irradiation light.”, [0050]; “the opening of the aperture stop is adjusted by an aperture diameter control means, whereby a portion of the beam traveling from the laser light emitting means 11 toward the medium can be blocked, and thus the irradiation power on the medium can be controlled.”, [0124];) a scan position (Fig. 9; “distance between the thermoreversible recording medium and the exit window of the laser light irradiation device 100”; [0036]) of the laser beam deflected by the scanning module (Fig. 9; laser light scanning means 13; “For example, a galvanometer scanner… can be used”; [0025]).
Hirasawa does not teach to control the laser source module to adjust a laser power of the laser beam according to a sensed laser power of a portion of the laser beam passed through the opening (102) of the at least one diaphragm and/or according to a sensed laser power absorbed by the diaphragm body and/or according to a scan position of the laser beam deflected by the scanning module.
Hoche teaches to control (Fig. 2, control card 20, [0017]) the laser source module to adjust a laser power (“the laser power can be subjected to control by the resulting feedback loop”, [0017]) of the laser beam according to a sensed laser power (“sensor 22 provides an output signal corresponding to the currently detected laser light power, which is fed to the control card 20 as an input signal”, [0017]) of a portion of the laser beam passed through the opening (102) of the at least one diaphragm… and/or according to a scan position of the laser beam (“the laser power can be controlled so that the laser energy emitted for a path position is regulated to a value that is specified as a function of the path position”, [0020]) deflected by the scanning module.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the control system of Modified Hirasawa to adjust the laser power according to the detected laser power and scanning position of the laser beam. Hirasawa, Rudeen, and Hoche are analogous arts because they both relate to laser processing devices using scanning units. Hirasawa teaches controlling a cross-sectional area of a laser beam with a diaphragm to modify the laser power delivered. Rudeen teaches adjusting a diaphragm within different parts of a scan of a laser. Hoche teaches laser processing with a laser beam with controllable power. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to provide the control means for changing the laser power in response to the detected laser power or detected scanning position of the laser beam. By doing so, one could implement a control loop with respect to laser power based on either detected laser power or the trajectory along a workpiece which would increase control accuracy, as identified by Hoche ([0005]).
Hoche does not teach and/or according to a sensed laser power absorbed by the diaphragm body.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALLISON HELFERTY whose telephone number is (571)272-1465. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9:00-5:00.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/A.H./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761