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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 4/10/2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s arguments that Kumamoto does not teach the amended
Applicant’s arguments, filed 3/11/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C 103 in view of Kumamoto have been fully considered and are persuasive because the arguments are directed towards the unexamined amendments of the amended claims of 3/11/2026 of “setting the depth of the focal position within the workpiece such that the laser beam is defocused at the workpiece surface, to reduce a power density at the workpiece surface and broaden a cutting gap”. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 20200238438 A1 Kuba.
Applicant's arguments filed 3/11/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments directed towards the amended claim language “wherein an increase in the laser power in a range between 10 kW and 20 kW increases a cutting speed with increasing laser power” the examiner argues that this is a recitation of a new surprising result of an obvious and known inherent property of a laser beam as taught by the combination of US 20120031883 A1 Kumamoto in view of US 20150352666 A1 Fujita in view of US 20200238438 A1 Kuba and that the mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249.
In response to applicant’s argument that it is improper to combine US 20120031883 A1 Kumamoto in view of US 20150352666 A1 Fujita because Kumamoto teaches away from placing a focal point of a laser beam at a depth greater than half the thickness of the workpiece. The argument that Kumamoto teaches away from placing a focal point of a laser at a depth greater than half the depth of the workpiece relies upon the assertion that because Kumamoto discusses the disadvantages of “increasing a focal depth excessively results in a reduction in light intensity at a light collecting part, leading thus to a reduction in machining speed”, Kumamoto teaches away from machining with increased focal lengths. This argument is without merit because, while the preferred embodiment of Kumamoto does show experiments where a focal depth is set greater than half the distance of the workpiece (as discussed below), a statement indicating the desirability of having a focal point of a laser at a depth greater than half the depth of the workpiece in no way criticizes, discredits, or otherwise discourages the solution of Kumamoto in combination with Fujita the claimed increasing the focal depth to or past half the thickness of a workpiece because the thickness of the workpiece is dependent on a user defined workpiece and Kumamoto merely discourages machining at depths greater than half the thickness of a workpiece defined in the experiment being at 6mm or more, therefore, in no way teaches away from Kumamoto. Essentially, the workpiece thickness is defined by experimentation and it is obvious to set a focal distance greater than half the thickness of a workpiece provided the thickness ofhte workpiece is less than the 6mm disclosed by Kumamoto. Being that the applicant has not claimed a thickness of a workpiece to be outside the bounds of the art of Kumamoto, the rejection of Kumamoto still stands.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120031883 A1 Kumamoto in view of US 20150352666 A1 Fujita in view of US 20200238438 A1 Kuba.
Regarding claim 1,
Kumamoto teaches, except where struck through,
A method for flame cutting [par. 1] of a workpiece comprising the steps of: providing a workpiece [workpiece 7] having a thickness of at least 10 mm [par. 10 teaches 6mm or more; par. 21 teaches “FIG. 11 is a table containing exemplary machining conditions for cutting soft steel of various thicknesses including 6 mm, 12 mm and 16 mm while a collected beam diameter is set to about 0.7 mm.”] directing a focal position of a laser beam (par. 50 through 53 teach directing a focal position of a laser beam towards a workpiece) workpiece, such that the focal position in the beam direction of the laser beam is located in the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half the thickness of the workpiece (par. 3 teaches that it is well known and obvious to adjust an optical path length and beam diameter to match the thickness of a target, par. 8 teaches that it is obvious to match a focal depth to a target such that the intensity becomes sufficient to achieve a machining threshold which is usually at about 1/3 the thickness of the target and that it is not precluded to have deeper focal points which is evidenced by figs. 6 and 7 and par. 51 to 54 which teach threshold equivalent beam diameters for a top hat and gaussian laser profile at varying depths of penetration into a work piece of 6mm which includes a depth greater than half a thickness), the laser beam emerging from a nozzle opening of a cutting gas nozzle together with oxygen as a cutting gas [fig. 1 teaches the assist gas and laser beam exiting the cutting nozzle towards a workpiece and par 37 teaches the assist gas as oxygen];
and the laser beam having a Gaussian intensity profile at the workpiece surface (claims 15, 21, pars. 9, 24, 25, 35, 45-55 teach the use of a top hat and gaussian beam profile)
.
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kumamoto does not teach having a power of at least 10kW in a beam direction of the laser beam within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece… setting a distance of a workpiece-side nozzle end face from a workpiece surface to be at least 2 mm…and setting the depth of the focal position within the workpiece such that the laser beam is defocused at the workpiece surface, to reduce a power density at the workpiece surface and broaden a cutting gap, wherein an increase in the laser power in a range between 10 kW and 20 kW increases a cutting speed with increasing laser power.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Fujita teaches a laser machining device (10) configured to machine a workpiece (W) with a laser beam (L) with a gaussian profile (par. 167) and also teaches having a power of at least 10kW in a beam direction of the laser beam (par. 162 teaches 100w to 20kw) within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece, [par. 125 teaches maintaining a focal depth LD that is greater than the a plate thickness WT of the workpiece W and is therefore greater than half a thickness of the workpiece because its greater than the whole thickness of the workpiece]… setting a distance of a workpiece-side nozzle end face from a workpiece surface to be at least 2 mm (par. 162 teaches setting a focal length to 40mm to 400mm which is at least 2mm where the focal point of the laser is at an irradiation point IP at the surface of the workpiece).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kumamoto reference such that Kumamoto has a power of at least 10kW in a beam direction of the laser beam within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece… setting a distance of a workpiece-side nozzle end face from a workpiece surface to be at least 2 mm as suggested and taught by Fujita to create a tapered hole or cut in the workpiece (Fujita par. 125) with satisfactory machining quality (Fujita par. 32).
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Kuba teaches a laser processing machine (200) with a laser beam with a paraxial focus set at 0 mm and also teaches defocusing at negative and positive focal positions relative to the paraxial focus point (fig. 11 and par. 69) and therefore teaches that a laser beam is unfocused at a distance above and below a focal point as being an anticipated property of laser beams with focal points. Therefore, Kuba also teaches that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that setting the depth of the focal position within the workpiece such that the laser beam is defocused at the workpiece surface, to reduce a power density at the workpiece surface and broaden a cutting gap is anticipated.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to try placing the focal point of the laser beam of Kumamoto within the workpiece such that the laser beam gets defocused at the surface of the workpiece as taught by Kuba for the purpose of avoiding splatter (fig.5 and par. 55). "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but or ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding wherein an increase in the laser power in a range between 10 kW and 20 kW increases a cutting speed with increasing laser power, the mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249).
Regarding claim 2,
Kumamoto teaches,
which further comprises generating the laser beam in a laser beam generator which is connected via an optical fiber to a cutting head where the cutting gas nozzle is attached, the optical fiber being configured as a single core fiber or as a multi-core fiber [par. 22 teaches a fiber 20 having a core diameter of 0.4mm which is a single core fiber].
Regarding claim 5,
Kumamoto teaches, except where struck through,
A method for flame cutting of a workpiece [par. 1], comprising the steps of:
providing a workpiece [workpiece 7] having a thickness of at least 10 mm [par. 10 teaches 6mm or more; par. 21 teaches “FIG. 11 is a table containing exemplary machining conditions for cutting soft steel of various thicknesses including 6 mm, 12 mm and 16 mm while a collected beam diameter is set to about 0.7 mm.”]:
directing a focal position of a laser beam (par. 50 through 53 teach directing a focal position of a laser beam towards a workpiece) position in the beam direction of the laser beam is located in the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half the thickness of the workpiece (par. 3 teaches that it is well known and obvious to adjust an optical path length and beam diameter to match the thickness of a target, par. 8 teaches that it is obvious to match a focal depth to a target such that the intensity becomes sufficient to achieve a machining threshold which is usually at about 1/3 the thickness of the target and that it is not precluded to have deeper focal points which is evidenced by figs. 6 and 7 and par. 51 to 54 which teach threshold equivalent beam diameters for a top hat and gaussian laser profile at varying depths of penetration into a work piece of 6mm which includes a depth greater than half a thickness), the laser beam emerging from a nozzle opening of a cutting gas nozzle together with oxygen as a cutting gas [fig. 1 teaches the assist gas and laser beam exiting the cutting nozzle towards a workpiece and par 37 teaches the assist gas as oxygen];
setting a focal diameter of the laser beam at the focal position to be between 150 um and 300 um [par. 37 teaches “a collected beam diameter is 0.3 mm” which is 300 um and is within the range of the disclosure of the instant application]
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kumamoto does not teach having a power of at least 10 kW in a beam direction of the laser beam within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece … setting a distance of a workpiece-side nozzle end face from a workpiece surface to be at least 2 mm… and setting the depth of the focal position within the workpiece such that the laser beam is defocused at the workpiece surface, to reduce a power density at the workpiece surface and broaden a cutting gap, wherein an increase in the laser power in a range between 10 kW and 20 kW increases a cutting speed with increasing laser power.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Fujita teaches a laser machining device (10) configured to machine a workpiece (W) with a laser beam (L) with a gaussian profile (par. 167) and also teaches having a power of at least 10kW in a beam direction of the laser beam (par. 162 teaches 100w to 20kw) within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece, [par. 125 teaches maintaining a focal depth LD that is greater than the a plate thickness WT of the workpiece W and is therefore greater than half a thickness of the workpiece because its greater than the whole thickness of the workpiece]… setting a distance of a workpiece-side nozzle end face from a workpiece surface to be at least 2 mm (par. 162 teaches setting a focal length to 40mm to 400mm which is at least 2mm where the focal point of the laser is at an irradiation point IP at the surface of the workpiece).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kumamoto reference such that Kumamoto has a power of at least 10kW in a beam direction of the laser beam within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece… setting a distance of a workpiece-side nozzle end face from a workpiece surface to be at least 2 mm as suggested and taught by Fujita to create a tapered hole or cut in the workpiece (Fujita par. 125) with satisfactory machining quality (Fujita par. 32).
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Kuba teaches a laser processing machine (200) with a laser beam with a paraxial focus set at 0 mm and also teaches defocusing at negative and positive focal positions relative to the paraxial focus point (fig. 11 and par. 69) and therefore teaches that a laser beam is unfocused at a distance above and below a focal point as being an anticipated property of laser beams with focal points. Therefore, Kuba also teaches that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that and setting the depth of the focal position within the workpiece such that the laser beam is defocused at the workpiece surface, to reduce a power density at the workpiece surface and broaden a cutting gap is anticipated.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to try placing the focal point of the laser beam of Kumamoto within the workpiece such that the laser beam gets defocused at the surface of the workpiece as taught by Kuba for the purpose of avoiding splatter (fig.5 and par. 55). "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but or ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding wherein an increase in the laser power in a range between 10 kW and 20 kW increases a cutting speed with increasing laser power, the mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249).
Regarding claim 6, Kumamoto does not expressly disclose, which further comprises generating the laser beam by means of a solid-state laser or by means of a diode laser as the laser beam generator. A person of ordinary skill in the art, upon reading a solid-state laser or by means of a diode laser, would have recognized that selecting a solid-state laser or by means of a diode laser is one of a finite number of laser types for a fiber laser known to be useful for generating a laser beam. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to try the a solid-state laser or by means of a diode laser of fiber laser oscillator 19 in the method by Kumamoto because a person with ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but or ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007)., further, Examiner wishes to point out that in order to be entitled weight in method claims, the recited structure limitations therein must affect the method in a manipulative sense, and not amount to the mere claiming of a use of a particular structure. Ex parte Pfeiffer, 135 USPQ 31.
Regarding claim 7, Kumamoto teaches, wherein a pressure of the cutting gas before an emergence from the cutting gas nozzle is between 0.4 bar and 1 bar [claim 24 teaches “a gas pressure is 0.05 to 0.12 Mpa” which when converted to bar is 0.5 to 1.2 bar which is within the range disclosed in the instant application].
Regarding claim 8, Kumamoto teaches, except where struck through, which further comprises: using a planar workpiece as the workpiece [fig. 2 teaches workpiece 22 to be a flat and planar, further It has been held that a mere change in shape without affecting the functioning of the part would have been within the level of ordinary skill in the art, In re Dailey et al., 149 USPQ 47; Eskimo Pie Corp. v, Levous et aI., 3 USPQ 23];
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kumamoto does not teach setting the distance of the workpiece-side nozzle end face from the workpiece surface to be at least 3 mm.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Fujita teaches a laser machining device (10) configured to machine a workpiece (W) with a laser beam (L) with a gaussian profile (par. 167) and also teaches and setting the distance of the workpiece-side nozzle end face from the workpiece surface to be at least 3 mm (par. 162 teaches setting a focal length to 40mm to 400mm which is at least 5mm where the focal point of the laser is at an irradiation point IP at the surface of the workpiece).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kumamoto reference such that Kumamoto has and setting the distance of the workpiece-side nozzle end face from the workpiece surface to be at least 3 mm as suggested and taught by Fujita to create a tapered hole or cut in the workpiece (Fujita par. 125) with satisfactory machining quality (Fujita par. 32).
Regarding claim 9, Kumamoto teaches, except where struck through, A method for flame cutting of a workpiece [par. 1], comprising the steps of: providing a workpiece [workpiece 7] having a thickness of at least 10 mm [par. 10 teaches 6mm or more; par. 21 teaches “FIG. 11 is a table containing exemplary machining conditions for cutting soft steel of various thicknesses including 6 mm, 12 mm and 16 mm while a collected beam diameter is set to about 0.7 mm.”]; directing a focal position of a laser beam (par. 50 through 53 teach directing a focal position of a laser beam towards a workpiece) (par. 3 teaches that it is well known and obvious to adjust an optical path length and beam diameter to match the thickness of a target, par. 8 teaches that it is obvious to match a focal depth to a target such that the intensity becomes sufficient to achieve a machining threshold which is usually at about 1/3 the thickness of the target and that it is not precluded to have deeper focal points which is evidenced by figs. 6 and 7 and par. 51 to 54 which teach threshold equivalent beam diameters for a top hat and gaussian laser profile at varying depths of penetration into a work piece of 6mm which includes a depth greater than half a thickness), the laser beam emerging from a nozzle opening of a cutting gas nozzle together with oxygen as a cutting gas [fig. 1 teaches the assist gas and laser beam exiting the cutting nozzle towards a workpiece and par 37 teaches the assist gas as oxygen];
and setting the depth of the focal position within the workpiece such that the laser beam
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kumamoto does not teach having a power of at least 10kW in a beam direction of the laser beam within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece… and further comprises setting the distance of the workpiece-side nozzle end face from the workpiece surface to be at least 5 mm… and setting the depth of the focal position within the workpiece such that the laser beam is defocused at the workpiece surface, to reduce a power density at the workpiece surface and broaden a cutting gap, wherein an increase in the laser power in a range between 10 kW and 20 kW increases a cutting speed with increasing laser power.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Fujita teaches a laser machining device (10) configured to machine a workpiece (W) with a laser beam (L) with a gaussian profile (par. 167) and also teaches having a power of at least 10kW in a beam direction of the laser beam (par. 162 teaches 100w to 20kw) within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece, [par. 125 teaches maintaining a focal depth LD that is greater than the a plate thickness WT of the workpiece W and is therefore greater than half a thickness of the workpiece because its greater than the whole thickness of the workpiece]… and further comprises setting the distance of the workpiece-side nozzle end face from the workpiece surface to be at least 5 mm (par. 162 teaches setting a focal length to 40mm to 400mm which is at least 5mm where the focal point of the laser is at an irradiation point IP at the surface of the workpiece).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kumamoto reference such that Kumamoto has a power of at least 10kW in a beam direction of the laser beam within the workpiece at a depth that is greater than half a thickness of the workpiece… and further comprises setting the distance of the workpiece-side nozzle end face from the workpiece surface to be at least 5 mm as suggested and taught by Fujita to create a tapered hole or cut in the workpiece (Fujita par. 125) with satisfactory machining quality (Fujita par. 32).
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Kuba teaches a laser processing machine (200) with a laser beam with a paraxial focus set at 0 mm and also teaches defocusing at negative and positive focal positions relative to the paraxial focus point (fig. 11 and par. 69) and therefore teaches that a laser beam is unfocused at a distance above and below a focal point as being an anticipated property of laser beams with focal points. Therefore, Kuba also teaches that it is obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art that and setting the depth of the focal position within the workpiece such that the laser beam is defocused at the workpiece surface, to reduce a power density at the workpiece surface and broaden a cutting gap is anticipated.
Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, would have been motivated to try placing the focal point of the laser beam of Kumamoto within the workpiece such that the laser beam gets defocused at the surface of the workpiece as taught by Kuba for the purpose of avoiding splatter (fig.5 and par. 55). "A person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known option within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely the product not of innovation but or ordinary skill and common sense." KSR int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727,82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Regarding wherein an increase in the laser power in a range between 10 kW and 20 kW increases a cutting speed with increasing laser power, the mere observation of still another beneficial result of an old process cannot form the basis of patentability. Allen et al. v. Cae, 57 USPQ 136; In re Maeder et al. 143 USPQ 249).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120031883 A1 Kumamoto in view of US 20150352666 A1 Fujita in view of US 20200238438 A1 Kuba in view of US11052489B2 Mizoguchi.
Regarding claim 3, The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kumamoto does not teach which further comprises setting a core diameter of the single-core fiber to be between 50 um and 150 um.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Mizoguchi teaches, which further comprises setting a core diameter of the single-core fiber to be between 50 um and 150 um [column 6 lines 19 through 27 teach performing an experiment with a 100um core diameter].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kumamoto reference, such that a core diameter of the single-core fiber to be between 50 um and 150 um, as suggested and taught by Mizoguchi, for the purpose of providing the advantage to achieve a good cutting ratio for every workpiece thickness per column 6 lines 32 through 47. It is taught in Mizoguchi to match the core diameter with the cutting thickness making the choice of a core fiber diameter between 50um to 150 um a matter of design choice and obvious.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20120031883 A1 Kumamoto in view of US 20150352666 A1 Fujita in view of US 20200238438 A1 Kuba in view of US20180043469A1 Bea.
Regarding claim 10, the difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Kumamoto does not teach further comprises setting the focal diameter of the laser beam at the focal position to be 200 um.
Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention
Further, there were design incentives for implementing the claimed variation. Specifically, Bea teaches further comprises setting the focal diameter of the laser beam at the focal position to be 200 um [par. 20 teaches matching a laser focal position and laser diameter to be a ratio and that at least 200um is meaningfully used].
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Kumamoto reference, such that further comprises setting the focal diameter of the laser beam at the focal position to be 200 um, as suggested and taught by Bea, for the purpose of providing the advantage that the focal diameter at the focal position is ideally a ratio of the workpiece thickness and that 200um can be meaningfully used per par. 20.
Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights