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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “a candidate” is unclear what is being claimed. The specification fails to define what this term is.
In claim 1, lines 10 and 12, the limitation “a machining condition” is unclear if it is referring to the machining condition recited in line 5, or a different machining condition.
In claim 6, line 3, the limitation “a machining tolerance” is unclear if it is referring to the machining tolerance recited in claim 1, or a different machining tolerance.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the machining determination" in line 8, and “the tolerance checking” in line 9. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
In claim 8, lines 5 and 8, the limitation “a state” and “a machining condition” is unclear if it is referring to the state and machining condition recited in claim 1, or a different state and machining condition.
In claim 11, the limitation ‘”test machining” is unclear what is being claimed. The specification fails to define what this term is.
In claim 14, the limitation “a candidate” is unclear what is being claimed. The specification fails to define what this term is.
In claim 14, lines 7-10, the limitation “a machining condition” is unclear if it is referring to the machining condition recited in line 3, or a different machining condition.
Claims 2-5, 7, 9, 10, 12 and 13 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7 and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by SEHRSCHÖN (DE 102018008873).
Regarding claim 1, SEHRSCHÖN a laser machining system (1; Fig. 1) comprising: a laser machining tool (combination of 7, 8, 22-24); first data processing circuitry (combination of 9, 16, 20, 19) to detect a machining state of the laser machining tool (by sensor 16), to generate a machining condition including at least one control parameter settable to the laser machining tool for controlling the laser machining tool (para. 0018; 0023; 0035); to determine quality of machining based on the machining state detected (para. 0016, 0017; 0019; 0022-0024), to generate a candidate condition, that includes at least one control parameter value, which is a candidate for a machining condition to be set to the laser machining tool, based on a determination result from the determined quality of machining and on a machining condition corresponding to the determination result (para. 0022-0024), and to cause check machining to be performed for checking a machining tolerance using the candidate condition, the machining tolerance indicating robustness of the candidate condition (para. 0019; 0023; 0027; 0035).
Regarding claim 2, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 1, wherein the first processing circuitry further estimates a determined-to-be-good region, based on the determination result and on the machining condition corresponding to the determination result, the determined-to-be-good region being a region in which quality of machining is expected to result in good quality, wherein the first data processing circuitry generates the candidate condition based on the determined-to-be-good region (para. 0021-0027).
Regarding claim 3, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 2, wherein the first data processing circuitry generates the machining condition by selecting one from machining conditions used in past machining (para. 0024).
Regarding claim 4, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 2, wherein the first data processing circuitry generates multiple ones of the machining condition, determines the quality of machining for each of the multiple ones of the machining condition, and estimates the determined-to-be-good region based on the multiple ones of the machining condition (para. 0018; 0021-0027; 0035).
Regarding claim 5, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 1, wherein the first data processing circuitry generates multiple ones of the machining condition, determines the quality of machining for each of the multiple ones of the machining condition, and generates the candidate condition based on the determination results corresponding to the multiple ones of the machining condition (para. 0018; 0021-0027; 0035).
Regarding claim 6, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 1, wherein the first data processing circuitry determines that the candidate condition is an optimum machining condition when the candidate condition has a machining tolerance that meets a predetermined criterion (para. 0018-0019; 0023; 0027; 0035), and generates the machining condition when the candidate condition does not have the machining tolerance that meets the predetermined criterion (para. 0018-0019; 0023; 0027; 0035), and when the first data processing circuitry generates the machining condition, a process of generate the machining condition, of the machining determination, generate the candidate condition, and the tolerance checking is performed again (para. 0018-0019; 0023; 0027; 0035).
Regarding claim 7, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 1, wherein the first data processing circuitry determines that the candidate condition is an optimum machining condition when the candidate condition has the machining tolerance that meets a predetermined criterion (para. 0018-0019; 0023; 0027; 0035), and modifies a value of the at least part of at least one control parameter value of the candidate condition, and causes the check machining to be performed again based on the candidate condition after modification when the candidate condition does not have the machining tolerance that meets the predetermined criterion (para. 0018-0019; 0023; 0027; 0035).
Regarding claim 10, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 1, wherein the first data processing circuitry makes a determination with respect to a machining defect mode, the machining defect mode indicating a type of machining defect (para. 0018; 0057), and the first data processing circuitry generates the machining condition to preferentially modify a control parameter value corresponding to the machining defect mode (para. 0016, 0017; 0019; 0022-0024; 0057).
Regarding claim 11, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 1, comprising: a display (19) to display a display area for receiving an input with respect to a number of times of test machining, being performed to determine the candidate condition (para. 0016-0017; 0035; 0037; 0056).
Regarding claim 12, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 11, wherein the display is to display another display area for receiving an indication with respect to the at least one control parameter value whose machining tolerance is to be checked in the check machining (para. 0016-0017; 0035; 0037; 0056).
Regarding claim 13, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 11, wherein the display is to display the machining condition for use in the check machining (para. 0016-0017; 0035; 0037; 0056).
Regarding claim 14, SEHRSCHÖN teaches a machining condition search device (combination of 9, 16, 20, 19) comprising: data processing circuitry (combination of 9, 16, 20, 19) to generate a machining condition including at least one control parameter settable to a laser machining tool for controlling the laser machining tool (combination of 7, 8, 22-24) (para. 0018; 0023; 0035), to determine quality of machining based on a result of detection of a machining state of the laser machining tool (para. 0016, 0017; 0019; 0022-0024), to generate a candidate condition being a candidate for a machining condition to be set to the laser machining tool, based on a determination result from determined quality of the machining and on a machining condition corresponding to the determination result (para. 0022-0024), and to cause check machining to be performed for checking a machining tolerance using the candidate condition, the machining tolerance indicating robustness of the candidate condition (para. 0019; 0023; 0027; 0035).
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.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEHRSCHÖN in view of TAKIGAWA (US 2017/0270434).
Regarding claim 9, SEHRSCHÖN teaches the laser machining system according to claim 1, wherein the candidate condition includes the at least one control parameter value, and the first data processing circuitry causes the check machining to be performed for checking the machining tolerance for the at least one control parameter (para. 0018; 0022-0024; 0035).
SEHRSCHÖN fails to disclose wherein the at least one control parameter value includes at least one of a machining speed, a focus position, or an assist gas pressure of the laser machining tool.
TAKIGAWA teaches a laser machining system (Fig. 1 and 4) wherein the at least one control parameter value includes at least one of a machining speed, a focus position, or an assist gas pressure of the laser machining tool (para. 0010; 0020; 0067).
Therefore, 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 the control parameters of SEHRSCHÖN, with TAKIGAWA, by controlling parameters such as machining speed, focus position or assistant gas pressure, to assure quality. POSITA would have known that controlling parameters like machining speed, focus position or assistant gas pressure would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as quality assurance.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SEHRSCHÖN in view of Beckett (US 2019/0255654).
Regarding claim 8, SEHRSCHÖN teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein the first data processing circuitry receives information collected by a remote diagnosis service, wherein the information collected is information indicating a state of another laser machining system upon occurrence of a machining defect in the another laser machining system, and the first data processing circuitry generates a machining condition for use in the check machining using the information collected received.
Beckett teaches a laser machining system (Fig. 1A, 20A, 20B) comprising a data processing circuitry that receives information collected by a remote diagnosis service, wherein the information collected is information indicating a state of another laser machining system upon occurrence of a machining defect in the another laser machining system (para. 0053; 0142), and the first data processing circuitry generates a machining condition for use in the check machining using the information collected received (when viewed in combination with SEHRSCHÖN).
Therefore, 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 the first data processing circuit of SEHRSCHÖN, with Beckett, by receiving machining state/defect data from a remote laser machining system and generate machining condition accordingly, to be able to assure quality even when the laser system is in a remote location. POSITA would have known that receiving machining state/defect data from a remote laser machining system and generate machining condition accordingly would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as quality assurance for laser machining system in remote locations.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the 112b rejections, some of the previous rejections are hereby withdrawn in view of the claim amendments filed on 10/28/2025, but some of the previous 112b rejections are still proper.
Applicant's arguments filed 10/28/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that Sehrschon does not teach “first data processing circuitry... to generate a candidate condition, that includes at least one control parameter value, which is a candidate for a machining condition to be set to the laser machining tool, based on a determination result from the determined quality of machining and on a machining condition corresponding to the determination result,” as recited in claim 1. Regarding the claimed “generation of a candidate condition,” the Office Action cites paragraphs [0022]-[0024] of Sehrschon. It is to be noted, however, that the cited paragraphs {0022 |-[0024] and claim 8 corresponding thereto describe how to train the neural network with a simulation of the machining. Thus, this citation is irrelevant to the “first data processing circuitry to generate a candidate condition, that includes at least one control parameter value, which is a candidate for a machining condition to be set to the laser machining tool,” as required by claim 1.” on remarks page 10, lines 6-17. In response to Applicant’s arguments, SEHRSCHÖN teaches a first data processing circuitry (combination of 9, 16, 20, 19) to generate a candidate condition, that includes at least one control parameter value, which is a candidate for a machining condition to be set to the laser machining tool, based on a determination result from the determined quality of machining and on a machining condition corresponding to the determination result (para. 0022-0024; process data based on quality).
Regarding claim 11, Applicant argues that “In regard to dependent claim 11, claim 11 is dependent on claim | and is patentable for at least the reasons discussed above. Claim 11 is also patentable as Applicant respectfully submits that Sehrschon fails to teach “a display to display a display area for receiving an input with respect to a number of times of test machining, the test machining being performed to determine the candidate condition,” as recited in Applicant’s claim 11. Page 13 of the Office Action, in the rejection of claim 11, asserts that paragraphs [0016], [0017], [0035], [0037], and [0056] of Sehrschon teach the above features. Applicant respectfully disagrees as paragraphs [0016] and [0017] merely describe that a sensor signal is monitored by operators on a display. Sehrschon does not disclose that the display has a display area for receiving an input with respect to a number of times of test machining as in claim 11.” on remarks page 11, lines 13-22. In response to Applicant’s arguments, SEHRSCHÖN teaches a display (19) to display a display area for receiving an input with respect to a number of times of test machining, being performed to determine the candidate condition (para. 0016-0017; 0035; 0037; 0056; display to display process data).
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2-10 and 12-14, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/12/2025
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761