DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 0 has been entered.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1, line 3, “a first coupling device for coupling”
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional language attributed to the “device” includes: “for coupling”
To support the claimed functional language the specification includes: Para. [00021]: “[t]he first coupling device and/or the second coupling device may comprise a coupling element, for example a flange”.
Claim 1, line 5, “a second coupling device for coupling”
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional language attributed to the “device” includes: “for coupling”
To support the claimed functional language the specification includes: Para. [00021]: “[t]he first coupling device and/or the second coupling device may comprise a coupling element, for example a flange”.
Claim 5, line 3, “a guide element with which said holder is coupled so as to be slidable”
The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional language attributed to the “element” includes: “slidable”
To support the claimed functional language the specification includes: Para. [00020]: “a guide element, such as a rail for guiding the holder”.
Claim 7, lines 5-7, “a first coupling element … couples said second optical input to said first optical output”
The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional language attributed to the “element” includes: “couples”
To support the claimed functional language the specification includes: Para. [00023]: “[t]he first coupling device and/or the second coupling device may comprise a coupling element, for example a flange”.
Claim 14, lines 4-6, “a second coupling element … couples the process radiation”
The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional language attributed to the “element” includes: “couples”
To support the claimed functional language the specification includes: Para. [00023]: “[t]he first coupling device and/or the second coupling device may comprise a coupling element, for example a flange”.
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.
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, 2, 4, and 7-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuermann (WO 2013/110467) in view of Gaskin (US 2016/0041359).
PNG
media_image1.png
769
867
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Schuermann teaches a sensor unit (Fig. 3, para. [0042]: “camera 38”) for monitoring a laser machining process (para. [0003]: “a laser processing head … for controlling and regulating the focal spot position and size in laser material processing as well as for visualizing the processing surface, weld pool, process lights and vapor capillary in laser processing processes”),
a first optical input for a process radiation coupled out of said laser machining device (Para. [0042], see annotated Fig. 3 above, the portion of dashed line “observation path 36” coupled out of “beam path 15” to “imaging optics 40”);
a first optical output for the process radiation (Fig. 3, section of dashed line “observation path 36” from “imaging optics 40” to “camera 38”);
a focusing optics (Para. [0042]: “imaging optics 40”) which is arranged between said first optical input and said first optical output and is displaceable along an optical axis of said focusing optics (Fig. 3 shows “imaging optics 40” placed along an optical axis of “observation path 36”).
Schuermann does not expressly disclose an alignment module for coupling a sensor unit to a laser machining device, said alignment module comprising:
a first coupling device for coupling to said laser machining device,
a second coupling device for coupling to said sensor unit,
a first adjustment module, which is arranged between said first coupling device and said second coupling device and is configured to tilt said second coupling device relative to said first coupling device and/or displace said second coupling device in at least one direction perpendicular to a central axis of said first optical input; and
wherein said first adjustment module comprises a ball joint, wherein said ball joint is configured to allow the process radiation to pass through.
PNG
media_image2.png
791
1042
media_image2.png
Greyscale
However, Gaskin teaches an alignment module (Fig. 4c, alignment device 400’’) for coupling a sensor unit (Para. [0003]: “receiver includes a detector that is capable of detecting the emitted material, electromagnetic waves”, para. [0005]: “an alignment device may alternatively or additionally be used at a receiver end of the line of sight, to align the receiver and detection means with the laser light source”) to a laser device (Paras. [0003]-[0004]: “laser beam source (transmitter)”), said alignment module comprising:
a first coupling device for coupling to said laser device (Para. [0045]: “housing 410”), said first coupling device including a first optical input (Fig. 4c ) for a process radiation (Para. [0043]: “transmission … optical radiation”) coupled out of said laser device (Para. [0043]);
a second coupling device (Para. [0044]: “coupling means 455”) for coupling to said sensor unit (Para. [0044]: “coupling means 455 for connecting to devices”), said second coupling device including a first optical output for the process radiation (Para. [0044]: “longitudinal axis defines a “line of sight” for an optical transmitter or receiver”);
a first adjustment module (Para. [0044]: “mount 405”), which is arranged between said first coupling device and said second coupling device and is configured to tilt said second coupling device relative to said first coupling device and/or displace said second coupling device in at least one direction perpendicular to a central axis of said first optical input (Fig. 4c, para. [0055]: “alignment of mount 405 relative to housing 410 of alignment device 400 is adjusted and locked by adjustment means 435”),
wherein said first adjustment module comprises a ball joint (Para. [0046]: “end of the mount 405 that is proximate to the base flange 425 is fashioned such that it contains a set of curved bearing surfaces”), wherein said ball joint is configured to allow the process radiation to pass through (Para. [0044]: “mount 405 comprises, a hollow body having a central through bore whose longitudinal axis defines a “line of sight” for an optical transmitter or receiver when connected to the mount”, para. [0046]: “[t]he curved bearing surfaces of the mount 405 are preferably shaped such that they act to centre the longitudinal axis of the mount within housing 410 … each of these bearing surfaces is defined by a spherical sector centred at the same point on the longitudinal axis of the alignment device”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify the sensor unit and laser processing system of Schuermann to include the adjusting coupling device as taught by Gaskin. One of ordinary skill would have utilized the adjusting coupling device of Gaskin in order to “align a transmitter and receiver with respect to one another such that the output of the transmitter is successfully detected at the receiver” (Para. [0003]) “that can predictably and repeatably align a transmitter and receiver system” (Para. [0016]).
Regarding claim 2, Schuermann as modified by Gaskin further teach said first adjustment module is configured to adjust an angle and/or an offset between the central axis of said first optical input and a central axis of said first optical output (Para. [0054]: “giving azimuth and elevation adjustment for the line of sight”).
Regarding claim 4, Schuermann further teaches said focusing optics (imaging optics 40) is displaceable along the central axis of said first optical input or along the central axis of said first optical output (See Fig. 3 above and para. [0042]: “a first observation beam path 36 of a camera 38 with an imaging optics 40 arranged in front of it in the beam path is coupled into the beam path 15 of the working laser beam 14”).
PNG
media_image3.png
750
643
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Schuermann further teaches a sensor module (see Fig. 3 above) for a laser machining system for monitoring a laser machining process (Paras. [0017]-[0020]), said sensor module comprising:
an alignment module according to claim 1 (see 103 rejection above); and
the sensor unit (camera 38), and at least one detector for detecting the process radiation (para. [0042]: “a first sensor area 42 of the camera 38”),
Schuermann does not expressly disclose including a second optical input for the process radiation emerging from said alignment module, a first coupling element which is coupled to said second coupling device of said alignment module and couples said second optical input to said first optical output of said alignment module,
wherein said alignment module is configured to align a central axis of said second optical input of said sensor unit to the process radiation entering said first optical input of said first coupling device.
PNG
media_image4.png
793
1042
media_image4.png
Greyscale
However, Gaskin teaches an alignment module (see rejection for claim 1 above), including a second optical input for the process radiation emerging from said alignment module, a first coupling element (Fig. 4c, flange of second coupling device) which is coupled to said second coupling device of said alignment module and couples said second optical input to said first optical output of said alignment module (See Fig. 4c above),
said alignment module is configured to align a central axis of said second optical input of said sensor unit to the process radiation entering said first optical input of said first coupling device (Paras. [0054]-[0055]: “giving azimuth and elevation adjustment for the line of sight which is, nominally, along the tube axis”).
It is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device (method or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(D). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a base device upon which the claimed invention can be seen as an “improvement”, (2) teach a known technique that is applicable to the base device, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique would have yielded predictable results and resulted in an improved system.
In this case, Schuermann teaches a sensor unit for a laser machining head. Gaskin teaches a coupling device for aligning a laser to a sensor. One of ordinary skill would recognize that the improvements brought by an alignment device of Gaskin would achieve predictable results of providing an improved way to couple a sensor and align the laser beam in the laser machining head of Schuermann.
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 monitoring system of Schuermann to include the alignment device of Gaskin because one of ordinary skill in the art would have been capable of applying this known technique to a known device (method, or product) that was ready for improvement and the results would have been predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 8, Schuermann further teaches said sensor unit comprises one of the at least one detector arranged on the central axis of said second optical input (Fig. 3 shows camera 38, which comprises sensor area 42, located on the same central axis of observation beam path 36)
Regarding claims 9 and 10, Schuermann further teaches said sensor unit further comprises:
at least one further detector (second sensor area 44) arranged spaced apart from the central axis of said second optical input (Para. [0017]: ”an imaging of the beam shaping optics imaging region onto a second sensor region of the camera is carried out by a second observation beam path via the beam shaping optics and the imaging optics”); and
at least one beam splitter (Para. [0043]: “beam splitter 34”) which is arranged on the central axis of said second optical input (Fig. 3) and is configured to couple a partial beam out of the process radiation and to direct it to said further detector (Para. [0043]: “a further image of the beam shaping optical image region 30 is applied to a second sensor region 44 of the camera 38 through a second observation beam path 46 via the imaging optics 40 and the beam shaping optics 32”); and
wherein the detectors are each configured to detect different wavelengths of the process radiation (Para. [0007]: “two optical sensors for different wavelengths”), and/or
wherein said beam splitter is configured to reflect or transmit partial beams with a specific wavelength (Para. [0070]: “pattern element 66 is sharply imaged onto the second sensor surface 44 at the illumination wavelength λK, the working laser beam 14 … at the wavelength XsubL”).
Regarding Claim 11, Schuermann further teaches the at least one detector of said sensor unit is calibrated for rays along the central axis of said second optical input of said sensor unit (See Fig. 3, camera unit 38 positioned along same optical axis).
Regarding claim 12, Schuermann further teaches wherein said sensor unit further comprises:
a control unit (Para. [0050]: “evaluation unit 62”) configured to receive analog measurement signals from the at least one detector and convert them into digital measurement signals (Para. [0050]: “laser processing head 10 … has an evaluation unit 62 which processes image data from the camera 38, controls the fourth actuator 60 of the imaging optics 40 and reads its setting position in order to be able to carry out a focus position compensation by controlling the first, second or third actuator”).
Regarding claim 13, Schuermann does not expressly disclose said sensor unit is detachably attached to said alignment module or is formed integrally with said alignment module.
However, Gaskin teaches in an alignment coupling device wherein said sensor unit is detachably attached to said alignment module (Fig. 4c shows a flange mount to be able to bolt onto the sensor unit or be removed, para. [0059]: “alignment device 400 may incorporate or allow to be temporarily or permanently attached”) or is formed integrally with said alignment module (Para. [0044]: “coupling means 455 for connecting to devices may also be separate to mount 405 and integrated onto mount 405 by suitable coupling means”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the detachable alignment module of Gaskin in the laser system of Schuermann. One of ordinary skill would include the ability to detach a sensor unit from the coupling device without changing the alignment settings (Para. [0055]).
Regarding claim 14, Schuermann further teaches a laser machining system (Abstract), comprising:
a sensor module according to claim 7 (see 103 rejection above); and
the laser machining device (laser processing head 10) for machining a workpiece (workpiece 12) by a laser beam (laser beam 14). Schuermann does not expressly disclose a process radiation output and a second coupling element which is coupled to said first coupling device of said alignment module and couples the process radiation output of said laser machining device to said first optical input of said alignment module.
PNG
media_image5.png
793
1042
media_image5.png
Greyscale
However, Gaskin teaches a process radiation output (Fig. 4c, para. [0043]: optical radiation) and a second coupling element (Fig. 4c) which is coupled to said first coupling device of said alignment module (Fig. 4c) and couples the process radiation output of said laser to said first optical input of said alignment module (Fig. 4c).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the securing means of Gaskin in the laser system of Schuermann. One of ordinary skill would include different securing means depending on the arrangement (Para. [0045]), in order to “find utility in any system in which it is desirable to align one apparatus with respect to another in order to enable transmission between the two apparatuses” (Para. [0043]).
Regarding claim 15, Schuermann further teaches said laser machining device further comprises a beam splitter (Para. [0042]: beam splitter 34) for coupling process radiation out of the beam path of the laser beam of said laser machining device (Para. [0042]: “first beam splitter 34 is arranged in the beam path 15 of the working laser beam 14 between the beam shaping optics 32 and the focusing optics 18”).
Claims 3, 5, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2016/0041359 by Gaskin et al. (“Gaskin”) and WO 2013/110467A1 by Schuermann et al. (“Schuermann”) in further view of US 2004/0027562 by Otsuka et al. (“Otsuka”).
Regarding claim 3, Schuermann does not expressly disclose said first adjustment module further comprises a linear guide, and/or a micrometer screw.
However, Otsaku teaches an adjusting optical unit (Abstract) wherein said first adjustment module (Para. [0060]: “beam center adjusting mechanism 20”) further comprises a linear guide (Fig. 28, Para. [0142]: “horizontal slide mechanism 162 … has a drive shaft coupled to a ball screw 166”), and/or a micrometer screw (Paras. [0061]-[0062]: first micrometer 34 and second micrometer 44).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the adjustment module of Schuermann and Gaskin the linear guide and micrometer screw adjustments of Otsaku at the adjusting screws of Gaskin. One of ordinary skill would be motivated to include these features because “it is desirable to make alignment adjustments accurately for layout adjustments, focal point measurements, etc. of various optical components in order to reliably perform high-quality laser machining processes and highly accurate laser measuring processes” (Para. [0003]).
Regarding claims 5 and 6, Schuermann further teaches a second adjustment module (Fig. 3, “fourth actuator 60”) for adjusting a position of said focusing optics (Para. [0049]: “a fourth actuator 60 is further provided to linearly displace the imaging optics 40 along the observation beam path 46”), Schuermann does not expressly disclose wherein said second adjustment module includes a holder of said focusing optics and a guide element with which said holder is coupled so as to be slidable along the optical axis of said focusing optics and wherein the guide element is fixedly connected to said first coupling device or fixedly connected to said second coupling device.
However, Otsuka teaches an adjustable optical unit (Abstract, 100) a second adjustment module (Fig. 7, first slide base 104) for adjusting a position of said focusing optics (Para. [0073]), wherein said second adjustment module includes a holder of said focusing optics (Fig. 7, body of 118 mounted on second slide base 114) and a guide element with which said holder is coupled so as to be slidable along the optical axis of said focusing optics (Para. [0073]: “[w]hen the first slide knob 106 is rotated, the first slide base 104 is moved back and forth in the directions indicated by the arrow A”), and
wherein the guide element is fixedly connected to said first coupling device or fixedly connected to said second coupling device (Figs. 7-8, para. [0073]: “optical axis detecting unit 100 has a unit base 102 fixedly mounted on the measurement base 22”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the laser system and alignment module of Schuermann and Gaskin with the adjustment module as taught by Otsuka. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include such a feature in order to provide “an optical unit which is capable of making alignment adjustments of an optical component efficiently and accurately with a simple arrangement” (Para. [0015]).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 2003/0123808 by Smith et al. discloses an optical alignment system using an adjustable ball joint that allows the process radiation to pass through.
PNG
media_image6.png
504
712
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 (EST).
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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights