DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/26/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new rejection has been made over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1). A full rejection can be found below.
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(s) 1-2, 12, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1).
Regarding claim 1, MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) teaches a laser-processing apparatus, comprising:
- at least two laser sources (Figure 13, optical fibers 13 and 13a each deliver laser beams), which are different from one another and are configured for supplying respective laser beams having wavelengths different from one another (Figure 15 Paragraphs 136-137, laser beams with different wavelengths are applied from the different optical fibers),
- a laser head, which can be operated as an end tool of a laser machine tool that can be configured for carrying out at least one type of laser processing operation that can be selected from a set of types of laser processing operations (Paragraphs 123-123, housing 6 is used to house the lens and optical fibers which are used for carrying out the laser processing operation; Paragraph 157, condensation control method selected by the control member);
- a set of orientable optical components (condenser lens 3 and collimator 2) so as to provide a set of selectable optical paths for directing a laser beam supplied by a laser source of said at least two laser sources (Paragraph 159, control member drives the collimator lens such as to control the condensing angle of the laser beam); and
- a control unit coupled to said at least two laser sources, to said set of orientable optical components, and to said laser head and configured for controlling said at least two laser sources (Paragraph 159, control member drives the optical fibers 1 which are the sources of the lasers), said set of orientable optical components (Paragraph 159, control member drives the collimator lens such as to control the condensing angle of the laser beam), and said laser head (Paragraphs 105 and 196, multi-axis robot is controlled and programmed) according to the type of laser processing operation selected from said set of types of laser processing operations so as to carry out the type of laser processing operation selected (Paragraph 167, various types of controls are executed; Paragraph 196, programmed operation can be realized through use of a robot; Paragraph 169, condensing diameter can be controller according to number of optical fibers used; Paragraph 192, cutting and laser build-up technique)1, so as to supply and direct a laser beam associated to the respective type of processing operation onto a region of a work surface (Figure 1 Paragraph 111, laser beam L is applied to the base material BM; Paragraph 172, welding spot on the base material is irritated), said laser-processing apparatus being characterized in that:
said laser head comprises a set of nozzles configured for directing at least one processing material onto said region of a work surface (Figure 1 Paragraphs 110-111, molten material is supplied from a nozzle 4 onto the base material BM; Paragraph 120, supply nozzles 4 may be provided in plural wherein each of the supply nozzles 4 are adjusted to supply a different molten metal), said set of nozzles comprising at least one nozzle configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material (Paragraph 26, powder material such as metal or wire is used as molten material), as well as comprising at least one of the following:
a) a first nozzle configured for directing a metal wire onto said region of a work surface;
b) a second nozzle configured for directing an assist gas onto said region of a work surface (assist gas; Figure 7A Paragraph 183, converging gas supply means 10 comprises a converging gas supply means for supplying shielding gas 11 onto the base material BM; Paragraphs 60 and 188, converging gas assists a flow velocity of the injection flow of the molten material), and
wherein said at least one control unit (supply nozzle control means) is coupled to said set of nozzles and is configured for controlling at least one nozzle of said set of nozzles according to the associated and selected type of laser processing operation of said set of types of laser processing operations (Paragraph 119, supply nozzle 4 includes a supply nozzle control means and a converging gas supply means to control injection amount of the molten material and gas respectively based on the desired output) so as to control said at least one nozzle so that it will direct respective processing materials onto said region of a work surface simultaneously with the direction of said laser beam associated to the type of laser processing operation selected onto said region of said work surface (Figures 1 and 7a, gas and molten material are delivered in the same direction as the laser beam; Paragraph 170, control member makes adjustments to the molten material input position during the laser processing; Paragraph 19, laser machining apparatus which can carry out various types of laser machining);
wherein:
- said laser head comprises a supporting structure comprising a central body (Figure 9A Paragraph 123, laser head comprising a housing 6) and a terminal part (Figure 9A Paragraph 124, tip side of housing 6), wherein:
- the central body (Figure 9A Paragraph 123, laser head comprising a housing 6) comprises:
i) a recess cavity for said nozzles (Paragraph 123, supply nozzle 4 is arranged within housing 6), the recess cavity being recessed within the central body of the laser head and being configured for housing said nozzles in a said recessed position (Figure 9A, supply nozzle is recessed within housing 6); and
- the terminal part comprises a hole for output of the laser beam (Figures 9A-9B Paragraph 123-125, laser beam L exits through hole of housing); and
While MURATANI does not explicitly teach that the various controls of the apparatus are all performed by a single control unit, the use of a singular control unit which contains the functionality of a plurality of controllers to control the various components of the apparatus is well known in the art as evidenced by AKAHA (JP 3752112 B2).
MURATANI fails to teach:
- the central body comprises:
ii) a set of actuators coupled to said set of nozzles; and
- at least one nozzle of said set of nozzles of the laser head is mobile continuously or in discrete steps, via at least one actuator in said set of actuators, between a protruding position outside of the central body of the supporting structure of the laser head and said recessed position within said recess cavity within the central body,
- said control unit is coupled to said set of actuators and is configured for controlling said set of actuators to translate said nozzles between said protruding position outside of the central body and said recessed position within the central body according to the type of laser processing operation selected from the set of selectable types of laser processing operations.
Pratt (US 5245155 A) teaches a single point powder feed nozzle for use in laser welding, wherein:
- the central body comprises:
ii) actuator coupled to said nozzle (Column 4 Lines 16-43, actuated cylinder or the like coupled to the nozzle 34); and
- at least one nozzle of said set of nozzles of the laser head is mobile continuously or in discrete steps, via at least one actuator (Column 4 Lines 16-43, actuated cylinder or the like coupled to the nozzle 34 moves the nozzle between a retracted position and an extended position)
actuator is controlled to translate said nozzles between said protruding position and said recessed position according to the type of laser processing operation selected from the set of selectable types of laser processing operations (Column 4 Lines 16-43, single point feed nozzle is attached to a mechanical activator means for moving the nozzle between a retracted position during a penetration weld and an extended portion during a surfacing/cladding type welding operation).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with Pratt and have the nozzle be movable between a protruding position and a recessed position based on the type of processing desired by the user. This would have been done to allow the system to also perform penetration welding while preventing weld spatter from contacting and adhering to the nozzle tip 36 and thereby clogging the nozzle orifice (Pratt Column 4 Lines 16-43).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having a set of actuators coupled to a set of nozzles instead of just a single actuator coupled to one nozzle is mere duplication of parts and has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that broadly providing an automatic or mechanical means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, having the control unit automate the control of said actuators which accomplishes the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art.
While MURATANI modified with Pratt fails to explicitly teach that the nozzle is recessed to a “recessed position within the central body”, KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) teaches a telescopic laser purge nozzle wherein coaxially aligned telescoping tubular members is telescopically retractable and extensible from within a larger tubular member (KLEEFISCH Figures 1-2 Paragraph 16) wherein the nozzle is movable between an extended position and a retracted position (KLEEFISCH Paragraph 14) which can reasonably be interpreted as a recessed portion within a central body. It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with KLEEFISCH and have the nozzle be constructed as a telescopic nozzle of tubular members collapsable into one another such as to recess into a central body. This would have been done to allow the nozzle to further recede and to further protect the nozzle during penetration welding.
Regarding claim 2, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
- said set of selectable optical paths comprises at least two optical paths for supplying a first laser beam from a first laser source to said laser head (Paragraph 159, the condensing angle of the laser beam L1 is adjusted by controlling the relative distance of the optical fiber to the axis of the condenser lens by synchronously driving the optical fiber 1 and the control member 8 of the collimator lens 2); and/or
- at least two processing operations, in said set of types of laser processing operations are associated to at least one respective nozzle of the set of nozzles (Paragraphs 59-60, converged region of the molten metal can be adjusted corresponding to the position, angle, and adjustment of the laser beam; Figures 12-13, multiple embodiments of laser processing operations).
Regarding claim 12, MURATANI teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
said set of types of laser processing operations comprises at least two types of laser processing operations (Paragraphs 123-123, housing 6 is used to house the lens and optical fibers which are used for carrying out the laser processing operation; Paragraph 157, condensation control method selected by the control member), preferably two types of non-simultaneously processing operations, comprising direct-deposition additive manufacturing (Paragraph 107, build-up welding and thermal spraying) with a first type of processing material in the form of powder and at least one of the following:
and at least one of the following:
- direct-deposition additive manufacturing, which uses a second type of processing material in the form of powder different from the first (Paragraph 107, build-up welding and thermal spraying; Paragraph 120, each of the supply nozzles is adjusted to supply a different molten material; Paragraph 25, copper molten material build-up welding);
- ablation;
-wire welding (Paragraph 12, build-up welding; Paragraph 26, wire is used as the molten material);
-cladding;
- heat treatment; and
-laser cutting
Pratt further teaches:
comprising direct-deposition additive manufacturing with a first type of processing material in the form of powder (Column 4 Lines 16-25, surfacing/cladding type welding operation)
and
-cladding (Column 4 Lines 16-25, surfacing/cladding type welding operation);
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 15, MURATANI as modified teaches a laser-processing method, comprising:
the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above); and
- controlling said set of nozzles so that they will direct at least one processing material onto said region of a work surface (Paragraph 59, supply nozzle injection control means for controlling the injection of the molten material), selecting, via said control unit, at least one nozzle of said set of nozzles according to the associated and selected type of laser processing operation of said set of types of laser processing operations, for directing a respective processing material onto said region of a work surface simultaneously with direction of said laser beam associated to the type of laser processing operation selected onto said region of said work surface (Paragraph 119, supply nozzle injection control means for controlling the injection of the molten material; Figure 3 Paragraph 139, making the supply nozzle 4 movable such as to control the injection of the molten material without changing the condensing angle of the laser beam such that the build-up welding is carried out while the molten material is melted stably in the direction of the laser beam; Paragraph 153, control member 8C controls the movement of the supply nozzle)2.
Pratt further teaches:
- controlling said set of nozzles so that they will direct at least one processing material onto said region of a work surface, selecting, via said control unit, at least one nozzle of said set of nozzles according to the associated and selected type of laser processing operation of said set of types of laser processing operations, for directing a respective processing material onto said region of a work surface simultaneously with direction of said laser beam associated to the type of laser processing operation selected onto said region of said work surface (Column 4 Lines 16-49, nozzle is extended during a surfacing/cladding type welding operating such as to direct the powder and laser into a region of the work surface)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bruck (US 20160346875 A1).
Regarding claim 3, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 2, wherein:
at least one portion of at least one of said at least two optical paths for supplying said first laser beam from said first laser source to said laser head comprises an optical fiber (Paragraph 27, plurality of optical fibers is used to project a plurality of laser beams)
MURATANI fails to teach:
at least one portion of at least one of said at least two optical paths for supplying said first laser beam from said first laser source to said laser head comprises a stretch of multi-clad optical fibre, which comprises a light-guide core surrounded by at least one further layer of light-guide cladding around said light-guide core, and wherein said at least one of said at least two optical paths for supplying said first laser beam from said first laser source to said laser head comprises an optical switch configured for directing said first laser beam, alternatively, into the core or into the at least one further layer of light-guide cladding of said multi-clad optical fibre.
Bruck (US 20160346875 A1) teaches a laser waveguide for laser welding, comprising:
at least one portion of at least one of said at least two optical paths for supplying said first laser beam from said first laser source to said laser head comprises a stretch of multi-clad optical fibre (Figures 5 and 9 Paragraph 17, tubular waveguides deliver the laser beam from the laser source to the waveguide laser head including the convex lens 34; Paragraph 26 optical fiber is a double-clad fiber), which comprises a light-guide core surrounded by at least one further layer of light-guide cladding around said light-guide core (Figure 11 Paragraph 26, double-clad fiber laser embodiment with a core and two layers of cladding surrounding the core), and wherein said at least one of said at least two optical paths for supplying said first laser beam from said first laser source to said laser head comprises an optical switch configured for directing said first laser beam (Paragraph 18, prism or mirror for redirect the approaching laser beam toward the acceptance angle; Figure 5 Paragraph 20, lens array 62 are used to direct and focus the beam to the core of each fiber), alternatively, into the core (core; Figure 5 Paragraph 20, lens array 62 are used to direct and focus the beam to the core of each fiber) or into the at least one further layer of light-guide cladding of said multi-clad optical fibre.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with Bruck and used a multi-clad optical fiber for delivering the lasers to the laser head as well as using an optical switch for directing the laser beam into the core. This would have been done to internally reflect the pumping beam toward the core and to focus the beam into the core of each fiber (Bruck Paragraphs 26 and 20).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of ZHANG (US 20180187640 A1).
Regarding claim 4, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1.
MURATANI fails to teach:
at least one beam-shaping diffractive lens configured for varying a mode of the laser beam, i.e., configured for varying selectively a power distribution of the laser beam directed onto the region of the work surface.
ZHANG (US 20180187640 A1) teaches a method for laser welding, wherein:
at least one beam-shaping diffractive lens configured for varying a mode of the laser beam, i.e., configured for varying selectively a power distribution of the laser beam directed onto the region of the work surface (Paragraphs 70-71, diffraction type conversion lens is used for convert the laser beam into a linear beam and to change the beam shape).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with ZHANG and have at least one beam-shaping diffractive lens. This would have been done to vary the shape of the irradiation area on the surface of the workpiece (ZHANG Paragraph 46).
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Vietz (US 20070119829 A1) and LUPP (WO 2017001098 A1).
Regarding claim 5, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1.
wherein said at least two laser sources different from one another (Figure 15 Paragraphs 136-137, laser beams with different wavelengths are applied from the different optical fibers with one wavelength being a long wavelength and one wavelength being a short wavelength)
MURATANI fails to teach:
- a first laser source configured for supplying a first laser beam having a first wavelength of 1070 nm; and
- a second laser source configured for supplying a second laser beam having a second wavelength of 532nm.
Vietz (US 20070119829 A1) teaches an orbital welding device, wherein:
a first laser source configured for supplying a first laser beam having a first wavelength of 1070 nm (Paragraph 35, high-power fibre laser beam source with a wavelength of 1.07um); and
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with Vietz and have a first laser source configured to supply a long wavelength laser beam at a wavelength of 1070nm. This would have been done as this wavelength is known in the art to be a high efficiency wavelength (Vietz Paragraph 35).
MURATANI modified with Vietz fails to teach:
- a second laser source configured for supplying a second laser beam having a second wavelength of 532nm.
LUPP (WO 2017001098 A1) teaches an apparatus for powder-based build-up welding, wherein:
- a second laser source configured for supplying a second laser beam having a second wavelength of 532nm (Paragraph 41, wavelength of 532nm for laser).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with LUPP and have a second laser source configured to supply a laser beam at 532 nm. This is a wavelength which is an effective laser beam absorption range for specific types of metals and would have been obvious to use as the short wavelength laser (LUPP Paragraph 41).
Claim(s) 7, 9, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of MIYAGI (US 20120145683 A1).
Regarding claim 7, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
- in said second orientation said nozzle is parallel with respect to said optical axis (Paragraph 159, fiber 1 and collimator 2 are arranged in parallel with the powder supply nozzle and moved in parallel).
MURATANI as modified fails to teach:
wherein said set of nozzles comprises at least one nozzle that can be articulated about an articulated joint of its own and an electrical cable coupled to said articulated joint of its own and to said control unit, wherein said control unit is configured for issuing a command to said at least one articulated nozzle for it to assume a first orientation when said nozzle is in said protruding position or a second orientation when said nozzle is in said recessed position, wherein:
- in said first orientation said nozzle forms an angle with an optical axis with which said laser beam is directed towards said region of said work surface
MIYAGI (US 20120145683 A1) teaches a laser processing system, wherein:
said set of nozzles comprises at least one nozzle that can be articulated about an articulated joint of its own (Figure 1 Paragraph 39, angle adjustment unit comprising a vertically movable part 95, a positioning mechanism 94, arms 10, and intermediate members 101; Paragraphs 39-40, intermediate members 101 are attached to powder-supply control mechanism 130 and are used to allow variation of the angle between each of the arms 1 and corresponding one of the powder supply nozzles 111) and an electrical cable coupled to said articulated joint of its own and to said control unit (Paragraph 40, angle adjustment unit is controlled by controller 9 through signal lines 91; signal lines can reasonably be interpreted as cable)3, wherein said control unit is configured for issuing a command to said at least one articulated nozzle for it to assume a first orientation when said nozzle is in said protruding position or a second orientation when said nozzle is in said recessed position (one of the orientations; Figure 1, powder nozzles are positioned in an orientation; Paragraph 40, angle adjustment unit is controlled by controller 9 through signal lines 91), wherein:
- in said first orientation said nozzle forms an angle with an optical axis with which said laser beam is directed towards said region of said work surface (Figure 1, powder is directed toward the workpiece and forms an angle with an optical axis of the laser) and
- in said second orientation said nozzle is parallel with respect to said optical axis (Figure 1, angle of nozzles would be parallel with respect to the optical axis based on how far the vertically movable part extends).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with MIYAGI and have the angle of the powder nozzles be adjustable. This would have been done to control the position at which the powder is concentration (MIYAGI Paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 9, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein:
said set of nozzles comprises at least two nozzles configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material (Paragraph 120, supply nozzles 4 may be provided in plural wherein each of the supply nozzles 4 are adjusted to supply a different molten metal)
MURATANI as modified fails to explicitly teach:
said set of nozzles comprises at least two nozzles configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material, which are set facing one another and are controlled in a co-ordinated way by said control unit so as to direct at least one processing material onto said region of a work surface in such a way that it will have a uniform distribution
MIYAGI (US 20120145683 A1) teaches a laser processing system, wherein:
said set of nozzles comprises at least two nozzles configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material (Figure 1 Paragraph 34, number of powder supply nozzles is greater than one wherein two can be seen), which are set facing one another (Figure 1, angle of the nozzles are directed toward each other) and are controlled in a co-ordinated way by said control unit so as to direct at least one processing material onto said region of a work surface (Paragraph 13, powder supply unit discharges plurality of types of powders toward the laser spot on the workpiece) in such a way that it will have a uniform distribution (Paragraphs 64-65, controller 9 controls the ratios of the branches such as to adjust the shape of the overlay weld; Paragraphs 47-48, distribution ratio between the branches can be adjusted based on the controller).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with MIYAGI and have the angle of the powder nozzles be adjustable. This would have been done to control the position at which the powder is concentration (MIYAGI Paragraph 38).
Regarding claim 18, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1.
Pratt (US 5245155 A) further teaches:
the at least one nozzle of said set of nozzles of the laser head which is mobile continuously is coupled to at least one nozzle-carrier arm comprising a rigid portion (Column 4 Lines 16-43, actuated cylinder or the like coupled to the nozzle 34; Column 4 Lines 16-43, actuated cylinder or the like coupled to the nozzle 34 moves the nozzle between a retracted position and an extended position), wherein the at least one nozzle-carrier arm is configured to be translated through at least one recessed position guided by a respective actuator or a roto- translational linear actuator (Column 4 Lines 16-43, actuated cylinder or the like coupled to the nozzle 34 moves the nozzle between a retracted position and an extended position; KLEEFISCH Figures 1-2 and Paragraphs 14-16, the nozzle is movable between an extended position and a retracted position which can reasonably be interpreted as a recessed portion within a central body).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
MURATANI as modified fails to explicitly teach:
at least one nozzle-carrier arm comprising a rigid portion and an articulated portion to which the at least one mobile nozzle is coupled
MIYAGI (US 20120145683 A1) teaches a laser processing system, wherein:
at least one nozzle-carrier arm (Figure 1 Paragraph 39, angle adjustment unit comprising a vertically movable part 95, a positioning mechanism 94, arms 10, and intermediate members 101) comprising a rigid portion (vertically movable part 95) and an articulated portion (intermediate member 101 which allows variation of the angle) to which the at least one mobile nozzle is coupled (Paragraphs 39-40, intermediate members 101 are attached to powder-supply control mechanism 130 and are used to allow variation of the angle between each of the arms 1 and corresponding one of the powder supply nozzles 111).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with MIYAGI and have the angle of the powder nozzles be adjustable. This would have been done to control the position at which the powder is concentration (MIYAGI Paragraph 38).
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A), KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1), and MIYAGI (US 20120145683 A1) as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Menin (US 20020130111 A1).
Regarding claim 8, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 7.
MURATANI fails to teach:
said at least one articulated nozzle comprises a shape-memory material at said articulated joint, said shape-memory material being configured for assuming alternatively a first shape or a second shape, as a function of a current applied to said articulated joint via said electrical cable.
Menin (US 20020130111 A1) teaches a method and system for laser welding, wherein:
said at least one articulated nozzle comprises a shape-memory material at said articulated joint (Paragraphs 25-27, actuating means may comprise a shape memory alloy), said shape-memory material being configured for assuming alternatively a first shape or a second shape, as a function of a current applied to said articulated joint via said electrical cable (supplying current such as to cause the joint to bend is a typical function of a shape memory alloy)4.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with Menin and used shape-memory material to control the angle of the joint. This would have been done as it is a well-known method of actuating an angle of a welding apparatus with standardized and predictable results.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A), KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1), and MIYAGI (US 20120145683 A1) as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of DE CHIRICO (WO 2018069808 A1).
Regarding claim 10, MURATANI teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 9, wherein:
laser machining head irradiates the molten material which includes both metal powder and wire (Paragraph 194)
MIYAGI further teaches:
a first nozzle, said second nozzle, and said at least two nozzles (Figure 1 Paragraph 34, number of powder supply nozzles is greater than one which includes four nozzles), which are configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material (Paragraph 13, powder supply unit discharges plurality of types of powders toward the laser spot on the workpiece) and are set facing one another (Figure 1, angle of the nozzles is directed toward each other)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 9.
MURATANI as modified fails to explicitly teach:
a first nozzle, said second nozzle, and said at least two nozzles, which are configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material, and are set facing one another in said set of nozzles are assembled in a supporting structure in the laser head so as to form the vertices of an equilateral rhombus having its centre corresponding to an output hole of the laser beam so as to reduce the encumbrance in space of the nozzles of the set of nozzles, without obstructing the path of the laser beam leaving said laser head
DE CHIRICO (WO 2018069808 A1) teaches a laser operating machine for fusion of powder, comprising:
a first nozzle, said second nozzle, and said at least two nozzles (Page 10 Lines 4-7, plurality of nozzles 34 for emitting powder), which are configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material (Page 10 Lines 4-7, plurality of nozzles 34 for emitting powder), and are set facing one another (Figures 7A-7B, powder nozzles 34 are facing one another) in said set of nozzles are assembled in a supporting structure in the laser head so as to form the vertices of an equilateral rhombus having its centre corresponding to an output hole of the laser beam so as to reduce the encumbrance in space of the nozzles of the set of nozzles, without obstructing the path of the laser beam leaving said laser head (Figures 6-7, nozzles are formed in a equilateral rhombus having its center corresponding to the output hole of a laser beam which does not obstruct the path of the laser beam).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with DE CHIRICO and a plurality of nozzles for delivering powder positioned in an equilateral rhombus. This would have been done to direct the nozzles at the desired position while allowing for four delivery of a different powder for each nozzle (MURATANI Paragraph 120).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced. MPEP §2144.04.VI.B. In this case, use of four nozzles in a specific shape configuration has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of SHIBAZAKI (US 20200108464 A1).
Regarding claim 11, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1, comprising:
a device for supplying a supporting gas (gas supply means 10)
said control unit being configured for controlling said supply device according to the associated and selected type of laser processing operation of said set of types of laser processing operations (Paragraph 186, converging gas injection control means for controlling the converging gas)
MURATANI fails to teach:
a device for supplying a supporting gas, said supply device being coupled to a terminal part of said laser head in such a way that said supporting gas comes out of an output hole of the laser beam, the output hole being located in said terminal part of the laser head, and
wherein said at least one control unit is coupled to said supply device configured so as to supply said assist gas, said control unit being configured for controlling said supply device according to the associated and selected type of laser processing operation of said set of types of laser processing operations.
SHIBAZAKI (US 20200108464 A1) teaches a shaping system and shaping method, wherein:
a device for supplying a supporting gas (gas supply pipe 42), said supply device being coupled to a terminal part of said laser head (Figure 2 Paragraph 72, gas supply pipe is connected to a portion of the cover member 30 which is a terminal part of barrel 85) in such a way that said supporting gas comes out of an output hole of the laser beam, the output hole being located in said terminal part of the laser head (Paragraph 74, gas from the gas supply apparatus exists from outlet 30b of cover member 30), and
wherein said at least one control unit is coupled to said supply device configured so as to supply said assist gas according to the associated and selected type of laser processing operation of said set of types of laser processing operations (Paragraph 98, gas supply apparatus 40 operates under the control of controller 600) 5.
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with SHIBAZAKI and have the device supply a supporting gas such that a gas comes out of the output hole. This would have been done to direct and narrow the shape of the powder onto the point of the processing (SHIBAZAKI Paragraph 74).
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of REITEMEYER (US 20100276403 A1).
Regarding claim 13, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1.
MURATANI fails to teach:
a dichroic optical element and an optical sensor, which are set along a common stretch of said selectable optical paths, wherein: i) said dichroic optical element is configured for deviating a portion of said laser beam that propagates in said common stretch towards said optical sensor; and ii) said optical sensor is configured for detecting said portion of laser beam deviated by said dichroic optical element and for supplying the control unit with a signal representing measurements of parameters of said portion of laser beam; and iii) said a control unit is coupled to said optical sensor and is configured for controlling said laser sources and/or said orientable optical components as a function of said measurement signal supplied by said optical sensor.
REITEMEYER (US 20100276403 A1) teaches a laser machining head, comprising:
a dichroic optical element (beam splitter 3; Paragraph 4, dichromic mirror) and an optical sensor (Paragraph 38-42, sensor 13 detects the measuring portion of the laser beam which is a portion split off from the primary laser beam; Paragraph 41, sensor 13 is a ccd area sensor), which are set along a common stretch of said selectable optical paths (Figure 1, components are in a common stretch of optical path of the laser beam), wherein:
i) said dichroic optical element is configured for deviating a portion of said laser beam that propagates in said common stretch towards said optical sensor (Paragraph 38, beam splitter 3 devices the laser beam into a machining beam 9 and a measurement beam 10); and
ii) said optical sensor is configured for detecting said portion of laser beam deviated by said dichroic optical element (Paragraphs 39-42, sensor 13 detects the measuring beam 10) and for supplying the control unit with a signal representing measurements of parameters of said portion of laser beam (Paragraphs 40-42, sensor 13 is connected to an evaluation unit 14 that passes the process measurement signals on to a control and regulation device 15); and
iii) said a control unit is coupled to said optical sensor and is configured for controlling said laser sources and/or said orientable optical components as a function of said measurement signal (V) supplied by said optical sensor (Paragraph 40, sensor 13 is connected to an evaluation unit 14 that passes through the process measurement signals onto a control and regulation device 15 which is connected to a displacement device 16 which displaces the collimating lens 2).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with REITEMEYER and have a control unit connect a sensor used to detect a deflected portion of the laser beam via a dichromic optical element. This would have been done to identify and correct an undesired shift in focus position (REITEMEYER Paragraph 42).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of IWASE (US 20190030793 A1).
Regarding claim 14, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 1.
MURATANI fails to teach:
at least one nozzle configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material comprises:
- an iris diaphragm, comprising a set of blades pivoted in a rotating ring; and
- an electric actuator coupled to said rotating ring and configured for turning said ring nut of the iris diaphragm;
- said control unit being coupled to said electric actuator, which is in turn coupled to said rotating ring, and being configured for controlling said electric actuator so as to vary an area of an aperture section of said at least one nozzle in a direction transverse to a direction of emission of said jets of powder so as to vary a flow rate of said jets of powder.
IWASE (US 20190030793 A1) teaches a printing device, wherein:
at least one nozzle configured for directing jets of powder of at least one material (powder supply member 70) comprises:
- an iris diaphragm (rotary valves 73), comprising a set of blades pivoted in a rotating ring (Paragraph 70, blades of the rotary valves inscribe the cylindrical portion of the storage tank 71 of the powder supply member 70); and
- an electric actuator coupled to said rotating ring and configured for turning said ring nut of the iris diaphragm (Paragraph 70, plurality of rotary valves is connected with supply motor such that the supply motor);
- said control unit being coupled to said electric actuator (Paragraph 70, supply motors are electrically connected with the controller), which is in turn coupled to said rotating ring (Paragraph 70, supply motors are connected with the rotary valves), and being configured for controlling said electric actuator so as to vary an area of an aperture section of said at least one nozzle in a direction transverse to a direction of emission of said jets of powder so as to vary a flow rate of said jets of powder (Paragraphs 72-73, rotary valves are used to control the delivery of the powder material).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with IWASE and have the nozzles contain rotary valves. This would have been done supply the correct amount of powder calculated by the supply amount processor (IWASE Paragraph 73).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over MURATANI (US 20190111517 A1) in view of Pratt (US 5245155 A) and KLEEFISCH (US 20130037268 A1) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of ALBERT (US 20170259373 A1).
Regarding claim 16, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 15, comprising:
- a state of power supply of at least one laser source of said at least two laser sources (12, 14), which are different from one another and are configured for supplying respective laser beams having wavelengths different from one another (Paragraph 137, irradiation energy of each laser beam is adjusted in machining for laser beams of different wavelengths)
- a parameter for activation of emission of at least one nozzle of said set of nozzles (40, 42, 44, 46) (Paragraph 119, supply nozzle 4 includes a supply nozzle control means and a converging gas supply means to control injection amount of the molten material and gas respectively).
MURATANI fails to teach:
- providing said control unit with a look-up table with which to associate a set of parameters to each type of laser processing operation that can be selected from said set of types of laser processing operations, the set of parameters comprising:
- an orientation of at least one orientable optical component of said set of orientable optical components (16); and
ALBERT (US 20170259373 A1) teaches a method and apparatus for laser welding, comprising:
- providing said control unit with a look-up table with which to associate a set of parameters to each type of laser processing operation that can be selected from said set of types of laser processing operations (Paragraph 40, determination of the set-point process parameter according to the method can be carried out by means of the evaluation unit on the basis of a database in the form of a so-called “look-up table” in which, for a plurality of input parameter combinations, corresponding process parameter, which for example have been empirically determined, are stored; Paragraph 32, evaluation unit gathers measurements by means of the sensor system which determines the type of processing operation to be performed), the set of parameters comprising:
- a state of power supply of at least one laser source of said at least two laser sources (12, 14), which are different from one another and are configured for supplying respective laser beams having wavelengths different from one another (Paragraph 33, power control of the laser is performed); and
- an orientation of at least one orientable optical component of said set of orientable optical components (16) (Paragraph 24, process parameters include angle of incidence of the laser beam)6;
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with ALBERT and have the control unit control the processes of the welding apparatus by means of a lookup table. This would have been done to such that the selection of the process parameter to be applied can be carried out automatically by the evaluation and control unit (ALBERT Paragraph 40).
Regarding claim 17, MURATANI as modified teaches the laser-processing apparatus according to claim 15.
Pratt further teaches:
at least one further parameter from between:
- a position between retracted and protruding of one or more nozzles of said set of nozzles (position; Column 4 Lines 16-43, single point feed nozzle is attached to a mechanical activator means for moving the nozzle between a retracted position during a penetration weld and an extended portion during a surfacing/cladding type welding operation);
and
- an orientation of one or more nozzles of said set of nozzles.
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
MURATANI fails to teach:
- providing said control unit with a look-up table with which to associate, to each type of laser processing operation that can be selected from said set of types of laser processing operations
ALBERT (US 20170259373 A1) teaches a method and apparatus for laser welding, comprising:
- providing said control unit with a look-up table with which to associate, to each type of laser processing operation that can be selected from said set of types of laser processing operations (Paragraph 40, determination of the set-point process parameter according to the method can be carried out by means of the evaluation unit on the basis of a database in the form of a so-called “look-up table” in which, for a plurality of input parameter combinations, corresponding process parameter, which for example have been empirically determined, are stored; Paragraph 32, evaluation unit gathers measurements by means of the sensor system which determines the type of processing operation to be performed)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with ALBERT and have the control unit control the processes of the welding apparatus by means of a lookup table. This would have been done to such that the selection of the process parameter to be applied can be carried out automatically by the evaluation and control unit (ALBERT Paragraph 40).
The Office further notes that MIYAGI (US 20120145683 A1) teaches of a laser processing system, comprising controlling “an orientation of one or more nozzles of said set of nozzles” (Page 14 Line 26-Page 15 Line 26, the frame moving from a lowered to a raised position changes the angle of inclination). Thus, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified MURATANI with MIYAGI and have the angle of the powder nozzles be adjustable. This would have been done to control the position at which the powder is concentration (MIYAGI Paragraph 38).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office further notes that adjusting the parameters of a laser processing apparatus (including parameters regarding the gas, laser, and feed material) based on the desired type of operating mode selected is well known in the art as evidenced by Beutler (US 9839975 B2).
2 The Office further notes that adjusting the parameters of a laser processing apparatus (including parameters regarding the gas, laser, and feed material) based on the desired type of operating mode selected is well known in the art as evidenced by Beutler (US 9839975 B2).
3 The Office notes that use of an electrical cable to connect a signal from a signal processer to an actuator is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 30 of Mayer (US 20020108939 A1).
4 The Office notes that supplying current such as to cause the joint to bend as a typical function of a shape memory alloy is well known as evidenced by Column 3 Lines 15-20 of Jacobsen (US 5481184 A).
5 The Office further notes that adjusting the parameters of a laser processing apparatus (including parameters regarding the gas, laser, and feed material) based on the desired type of operating mode selected is well known in the art as evidenced by Beutler (US 9839975 B2).
6 The Office further notes that control of powder delivery by means of a lookup table is known in the art as evidenced by CLARK (US 20110253680 A1).
Prosecution Insights