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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 03/06/2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-15 and 17-23 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 in view of Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) and GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation reads that “the analysis light is produced by guiding part of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam” However, claim 6 states that the analyzer includes “a light source that emits analysis light” and claim 1 teaches that the analyzer is a component separate from a first laser oscillator and a second laser oscillator. It is thus unclear how the analysis light can be produced by guiding part of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam, given that the light source of the analysis light appears to be separate and distinct from the source of the first laser and second laser. Page 32 Lines 21-24 of the applicant’s specification filed 05/10/2022 states that “light source 32 that emits the analysis light that irradiates workpiece 2 is not provided as a separate element, but rather the laser beam to be used for processing is also used as the analysis light instead.” However, the manner in which the claims are presented portray the light source as a separate entity from the first and second laser oscillators, given that the analyzer is introduced as a separate component to that of the oscillators. For purposes of examination, the analysis light will be interpreted as being satisfied by a reflection of at least one of the first laser beam or second laser beam.
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) 1-3 and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) and GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A).
Regarding claim 1, Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) teaches a laser processing device that processes an object including two or more types of materials using a laser beam (Figure 9 Paragraphs 70-72, laser processing an object with two layers wherein each layer is made of different material; Paragraph 72, first substrate made of sapphire, layer of GAN, and a layer of aluminum), the laser processing device comprising:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam (Paragraph 32, an assist laser 110 for generating an assist laser beam 111) having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength (Paragraph 72, green laser beam used to machine a pilot hole to assist melting);
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam (Paragraph 32, a process laser 120 for generating a process laser beam 121)1 having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (Paragraph 72, IR laser beam used to melt; Paragraph 31, wavelength refers to an approximate emission wavelength of the lasers; wavelength of green of 495nm to 570nm is outside the range of IR which is in the range of 700 nm to 10.6 um)
adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information about the two or more types of materials (Paragraph 39, characteristics of the assist laser beam 111 and the process laser beam 121 are different but complimentary and depend on the type of material as well as the type of processing application; Paragraph 71, the type of first laser beam used depends on the materials)
Mendes fails to explicitly teach:
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator; and
an analyzer that obtains material information about the two or more types of materials by analyzing signal light from the two or more types of materials included in the object,
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam.
Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) teaches of an apparatus for determining a material type and/or a surface condition of a workpiece, wherein:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the material by analyzing signal light from the object (Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the obtained material information (Paragraph 7, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), wherein
drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity2 (Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power) of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 18, computer program product which carries out all the steps of the method described previously in the prior art; Paragraph 17, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece which changes the parameters to the selected parameters; Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power; Paragraph 33, laser beam 2 strikes at a focal point F on an upper side of the workpiece 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 Mendes with Hallasch and have an analyzer obtain information of the type of material of the workpiece and adjust parameters based on the type of material. This would have been done to such as to identify the material type of a workpiece to adapt processing parameters (Hallasch Paragraph 3)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art when modifying Mendes with Hallasch to have detected the different layers of object of Mendes such as to be able to identify the material for each of the layers of the object. This would be done as Paragraph 39 of Mendes teaches that the characteristics of the assist laser beam 111 and the process laser beam 121 are different but complimentary and depend on the type of material of the object and Paragraph 71 of Mendes teaches of adjusting parameters based on the materials.
Mendes modified with Hallasch fails to teach:
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator;
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator
GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A) teaches a bonding metal members with multiple laser beams, comprising:
a first laser oscillator (Figure 4 Column 7 Line 31 – Column 7 Line 8, laser beam source 74 and laser beam source 68)
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (Column 3 Lines 16-32, a second laser beam with a longer wavelength than the first laser beam is directed at the first metal member; Figure 4 Column 7 Line 31 – Column 7 Line 8, laser beam source 74 and laser beam source 68);
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Figure 9 Column 8 Line 54 – Column 10 Line 26, controller 134 controls the oscillators)
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Figure 9 Column 8 Line 54 – Column 10 Line 26, controller 134 controls the oscillators)
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 Mendes with GORUGANTHU and a drive controller which drives each of the first and second laser oscillators. This would have been done to control the timing and various other parameters of the laser beams (GORUGANTHU Column 9 Line 54 – Column 10 Lines 26).
Regarding claim 2, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein:
to emit one of the first laser beam and the second laser beam and not emit an other of the first laser beam and the second laser beam (Paragraph 68, first laser beam is used to perform the first laser beam processing operations and then the second laser beam is used to perform the second laser beam processing operation)
Hallasch further teaches:
the drive controller drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions (Paragraph 18, computer program product which carries out all the steps of the method described previously in the prior art; Paragraph 17, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
GORUGANTHU further teaches:
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions to cause the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator to emit one of the first laser beam and the second laser beam and not emit an other of the first laser beam and the second laser beam (Column 10 Lines 1-26, the shutter of one of the laser beams is blocked based on commands from the controller; Figure 9 Column 8 Line 54 – Column 10 Line 26, controller 134 turns on and off the power supply for the lasers).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
The Office further notes that the use of a drive control unit to command a laser oscillator to turn on and off is well known in the art as evidenced by Izumi (US 20190076959 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
Hallasch further teaches:
the analyzer includes a data processor that analyzes the signal light (Paragraph 26, evaluation device configured to determine the material type based on reflectance of the surface).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Regarding claim 23, Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) teaches a laser processing device that processes an object including two or more types of materials using a laser beam (Figure 9 Paragraphs 70-72, laser processing an object with two layers wherein each layer is made of different material; Paragraph 72, first substrate made of sapphire, layer of GAN, and a layer of aluminum), the laser processing device comprising:
a first laser oscillator that emits a first laser beam (Paragraph 32, an assist laser 110 for generating an assist laser beam 111) having a peak wavelength of a first wavelength (Paragraph 72, green laser beam used to machine a pilot hole to assist melting);
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam (Paragraph 32, a process laser 120 for generating a process laser beam 121)3 having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (Paragraph 72, IR laser beam used to melt; Paragraph 31, wavelength refers to an approximate emission wavelength of the lasers; wavelength of green of 495nm to 570nm is outside the range of IR which is in the range of 700 nm to 10.6 um);
adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the material information obtained (Paragraph 39, characteristics of the assist laser beam 111 and the process laser beam 121 are different but complimentary and depend on the type of material as well as the type of processing application; Paragraph 71, the type of first laser beam used depends on the materials)
the driver controller switches between the first laser beam and the second laser beam according to the two or more types of materials included in the object (Paragraph 39, characteristics of the assist laser beam 111 and the process laser beam 121 are different but complimentary and depend on the type of material as well as the type of processing application; Paragraph 40, pulse duration of the beams with different wavelengths are different; Paragraph 71, first laser beam is used to detach a material bonded to a carrier and followed by a second laser beam to melt or weld the material; Paragraph 69, first laser beam is used to drill hole through dielectric layer and then the second laser beam is used to fill the hole; thus, the parameters of the first and second laser beam are adjusted based on the type of materials included in the object).
Mendes fails to explicitly teach:
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator; and
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object by analyzing signal light from the object,
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam
Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) teaches of an apparatus for determining a material type and/or a surface condition of a workpiece, wherein:
an analyzer that obtains material information about the object by analyzing signal light from the object (Paragraph 26, reflectance of the surface of the workpiece is detected to determine the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), and adjusts one or more processing conditions for the object based on the material information obtained (Paragraph 7, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece), wherein
the drive controller drives the laser according to the one or more processing conditions that have been adjusted by the analyzer to change an intensity4 (Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power) of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam and irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 18, computer program product which carries out all the steps of the method described previously in the prior art; Paragraph 17, selection of processing parameters for processing the workpiece based on the material type and/or surface condition of the workpiece which changes the parameters to the selected parameters; Paragraph 17, processing parameters of the processing operation include laser power; Paragraph 33, laser beam 2 strikes at a focal point F on an upper side of the workpiece 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 Mendes with Hallasch and have an analyzer obtain information of the type of material of the workpiece and adjust parameters based on the type of material. This would have been done to such as to identify the material type of a workpiece to adapt processing parameters (Hallasch Paragraph 3)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art when modifying Mendes with Hallasch to have detected the different layers of object of Mendes such as to be able to identify the material for each of the layers of the object. This would be done as Paragraph 39 of Mendes teaches that the characteristics of the assist laser beam 111 and the process laser beam 121 are different but complimentary and depend on the type of material of the object and Paragraph 71 of Mendes teaches of adjusting parameters based on the materials.
Mendes modified with Hallasch fails to teach:
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator; and
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator
GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A) teaches a bonding metal members with multiple laser beams, comprising:
a first laser oscillator (Figure 4 Column 7 Line 31 – Column 7 Line 8, laser beam source 74 and laser beam source 68)
a second laser oscillator that emits a second laser beam having a peak wavelength of a second wavelength different than the first wavelength (Column 3 Lines 16-32, a second laser beam with a longer wavelength than the first laser beam is directed at the first metal member; Figure 4 Column 7 Line 31 – Column 7 Line 8, laser beam source 74 and laser beam source 68); and
a drive controller that drives each of the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Figure 9 Column 8 Line 54 – Column 10 Line 26, controller 134 controls the oscillators); and
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator (Figure 9 Column 8 Line 54 – Column 10 Line 26, controller 134 controls the oscillators)
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 Mendes with GORUGANTHU and a drive controller which drives each of the first and second laser oscillators. This would have been done to control the timing and various other parameters of the laser beams (GORUGANTHU Column 9 Line 54 – Column 10 Lines 26).
The Office further notes that Column 10 Lines 1-26 of GORUGANTHU teaches that a delay time between the laser beams 70 and 76 is part of the parameters of the laser processing. Paragraph 71 of Mendes teaches that the method includes first processing with a first laser beam which is followed by a second laser beam. Paragraph 17 of Hallasch teaches that processing parameters are adjusted based on the detected material type and/or surface condition of the object. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have adjusted the processing parameter of the delay time between the laser beams based on the detected material type and/or surface condition of the object, or in other words to switch “between the first laser beam and the second laser beam according to the two or more types of materials included in the object”.
Claim(s) 4-6, 8-10, and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) and GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Huonker (US 20060006156 A1).
Regarding claim 4, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 3.
Mendes as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to coordinates of a processing position of the object by analyzing the signal light, the coordinates being obtained when the signal light is obtained, and
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions to cause the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator to irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam based on the coordinates of the processing position.
Huonker (US 20060006156 A1) teaches a laser welding method and apparatus, wherein:
the analyzer adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to coordinates of a processing position of the object by analyzing the signal light (Paragraphs 25-26, welding parameters are set with different power, speed, and focal position parameters based on detecting the location of a defect and the defect is identified based on comparing the defect with a stored defect), the coordinates being obtained when the signal light is obtained (Paragraph 21, light-sensitive detector detects the location of the defective welding), and
the drive controller drives the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator according to the one or more processing conditions to cause the first laser oscillator and the second laser oscillator to irradiate the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam based on the coordinates of the processing position (Paragraph 20, control unit controls the laser to perform a repair welding in accordance with the selected repair welding parameters; Paragraph 28, location of the welding defects are used when repairing defects).
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 Mendes with Huonker and have the analyzer adjust the laser processing parameters based on the coordinates of the processing position of the object. This would have been done to facilitate the detection of welding defects and to minimize the occurrence of rejects in laser welding (Huonker Paragraph 17).
The Office further notes that URASHIMA (US 20120285936 A1) teaches the use of a measurement beam to detect defects in a laser welding device.
Regarding claim 5, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Huonker further teaches:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the signal light (Paragraphs 17-18 and 27, position of the error of the seam is corrected with new position by adjusting the parameters of the laser processing).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 6, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Hallasch further teaches:
the analyzer includes:
a light source that emits analysis light (Paragraph 36, illuminating device 15); and
an optical system that irradiates the processing position of the object with the analysis light (Paragraph 36, illumination device 15 outputs illumination light which passes through optical elements to reach the workpiece), and the signal light is at least part of the analysis light reflected by a surface of the object (Paragraph 45, reflectance of various illuminating radiation 17 is used to determine material types).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 8, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Huonker further teaches:
wherein the analysis light includes a wavelength of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 19, welding is monitored by monitoring reflected process light from the welding which would have the same wavelength).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 9, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 8.
Huonker further teaches:
the analysis light is produced by guiding part of at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 19, welding is monitored by monitoring reflected process light from the welding which would have the same wavelength wherein said laser beam is guided to the surface and reflected to the monitoring system)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
See 112b rejection above.
Regarding claim 10, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Huonker further teaches:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object by analyzing a reflection intensity or a reflectance of the analysis light based on an intensity of the signal light (reflection intensity; Paragraph 24, light sensitive detection units are used to monitor the welding defects; Paragraphs 5-8, detects detect the processing zone at different wavelengths and the reflected laser radiation is detected including intensity of the reflected radiation wherein if a signal limit is exceeded a welding defect is detected and registered; Paragraph 19, position of the detected defective welding is determined and stored in a storage medium) and associating the coordinates of the processing position of the object with the reflection intensity or the reflectance (reflection intensity; Paragraphs 17-18 and 27, position of the error of the seam is corrected with new position by adjusting the parameters of the laser processing; Paragraph 28, location of the welding defects are used when repairing defects; Paragraph 19, position of the detected defective welding is determined and stored in a storage medium).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Regarding claim 15, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the light source of the analysis light is a laser oscillator or a light-emitting diode (LED) (Paragraph 15, illumination source of the illumination device may be a diode laser).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Claim(s) 7 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A), and Huonker (US 20060006156 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Dorsch (US 8890023 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the signal light includes second signal light (Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are used to determine the reflectance or the reflection intensity of the surface), the second signal light being the second analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object (Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are used to determine the reflectance or the reflection intensity of the surface), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions by comparing an intensity of the first signal light with an intensity of the second signal light at the coordinates of the processing position of the object, or comparing a reflectance at the first wavelength with a reflectance at the second wavelength at the coordinates of the processing position of the object (comparing a reflectance; Paragraph 15, illuminating radiation with different wavelengths are compared such as further discriminate between different material types and surface conditions wherein the reflectance at different wavelengths may be used as a further discriminating criterion between different material types and/or surface conditions; Paragraph 16, illuminating radiation is irradiated onto the surface coaxially with a high-energy beam laser for processing the workpiece and thus would be at the coordinate of the processing position of the workpiece).
Mendes fails to explicitly teach:
the analysis light includes first analysis light of the first wavelength and the analysis light includes second analysis light of the second wavelength
the first signal light being the first analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verify seam quality during a laser welding process, comprising:
the analysis light includes first analysis light of the first wavelength and second analysis light of the second wavelength (Column 5 Lines 23-39, first camera captures radiation in a first wavelength range in a visible light range and second camera captures radiation in a second wavelength range in a near infrared range; Mendes Paragraph 71, first laser beam is a green laser beam and second laser beam is an IR laser beam),
the signal light includes first signal light and second signal light, the first signal light being the first analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object, the second signal light being the second analysis light that irradiates and is reflected by the object (Column 5 Lines 23-39, a beam path of the CMOS camera 5a is reflected onto the workpiece surface in an area surrounding the laser beam and the beam path of the CMOS camera 5b is also reflected onto the workpiece surface in an area surrounding the laser beam), 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 Mendes with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors detecting the first and second wavelength. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Regarding claim 11, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 6.
Hallasch further teaches:
the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object (Paragraph 45, reflectance of various illuminating radiation 17 is used to determine material types)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Mendes as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes a first detector and a second detector,
the first detector receives the signal light, the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object,
the second detector receives at least part of the analysis light, and
the data processor corrects an intensity of the signal light received by the first detector with an intensity of the analysis light received by the second detector.
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verifying a seam quality during a laser welding process, wherein:
the analyzer includes a first detector and a second detector (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b), the first detector receives the signal light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges), the signal light being the analysis light reflected by the object (Paragraph 6, illumination is reflected back into the observation direction from the surface of the workpiece),
the second detector receives at least part of the analysis light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges), and
the data processor corrects an intensity of the signal light received by the first detector with an intensity of the analysis light received by the second detector (Column 6 Lines 46-63, the two spectral ranges are logically combined in order to assess seam quality).
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 Mendes with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors each receiving a part of the analysis light wherein the intensity of the signal received by the first detector is corrected by the light of the second detector. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A), and Huonker (US 20060006156 A1) as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Mendes as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates analysis light, the analysis light separated by the spectrometer irradiates the processing position of the object, the analyzer includes a detector that measures the signal light to measure a reflection spectrum, the signal light being the analysis light separated by the spectrometer and reflected by a surface of the object, the reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light, and the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum.
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates analysis light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength),
the analysis light separated by the spectrometer irradiates the processing position of the object (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source),
the analyzer includes a detector that measures the signal light to measure a reflection spectrum (Figure 3 Paragraph 255, photodetector array 118 detects the laser), the signal light being the analysis light separated by the spectrometer (Paragraph 343, light is dispersed according to its wavelength in the spectrometer) and reflected by a surface of the object (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample), the reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object).
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 Mendes with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 13, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 4.
Mendes as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes:
a spectrometer that separates the signal light; and
a detector that measures the signal light separated by the spectrometer to measure a reflection spectrum indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light, and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum.
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the analyzer includes:
a spectrometer that separates the signal light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength); and
a detector that measures the signal light separated by the spectrometer to measure a reflection spectrum (Figure 3 Paragraph 255, photodetector array 118 detects the laser) indicating a wavelength dependence of an intensity or a reflectance of the signal light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength), and
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the reflection spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object)
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 Mendes with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A), Huonker (US 20060006156 A1), and WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) as applied to claim 13 above, and further in view of Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 13.
Hallasch further teaches:
the data processor is connected to a database (Paragraphs 26-27, evaluation device 20 has access to a database),
the database stores a data set of reflection for respective materials (Paragraph 27, reference data for the reflectance of different material types and/or surface conditions may be stored in a database), and
the data processor:
compares the reflection obtained from the signal light with the data set of the reflection spectrums stored in the database (Paragraph 27, evaluation device is configured to compare the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece and compare the reflectance with reference data for different material types);
determines which of the materials stored in the database a material at the coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Paragraph 27, on the basis of a comparison it is possible to determine that material type or surface condition with comes closest to the values determined during the analysis of the image); and
adjusts the one or more processing conditions according to the material determined (Paragraph 47, access of the database is for the selection and adjustment of processing parameters)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Huonker further teaches:
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object (Paragraphs 25-26, welding parameters are set with different power, speed, and focal position parameters based on detecting the location of a defect)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Mendes as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the data set is a data set of reflection spectrums
Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1) teaches a material identification employing a grating spectrometer, wherein:
the data processor is connected to a database (Paragraph 31, correlation module 30 receives spectra data from the spectrometer 10 and is in communication with a library 20)
the database stores a data set of reflection spectrums for respective materials (Column 44-51, comparison is performed with relation to a spectrum library wherein a plurality of spectrums is stored), and
the data processor:
compares the reflection spectrum obtained from the signal light with the data set of the reflection spectrums stored in the database (Column 5 Lines 51-55, obtained spectra is compared with the spectra stored in the spectra library);
determines which of the materials stored in the database a material at the coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Column 5 Lines 62-65, identification of the material is achieved wherein the result of said identification is output)
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 Mendes with Gornushkin and compared the detected spectra with that stored in a spectra library. This would have been done to facilitate identification of the material of the object (Gornushkin Column 5 Lines 62-65).
Claim(s) 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) and GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Dorsch (US 8890023 B2).
Regarding claim 17, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
Mendes as modified fails to teach:
the analyzer includes a solid-state imaging element including a two-dimensional array of pixels that receive light, the solid-state imaging element outputs a two-dimensional image of the object to a data processor by receiving the signal light, and the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object according to a brightness corresponding to a processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image.
Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) teaches a method of verify seam quality during a laser welding process, comprising:
the analyzer includes a solid-state imaging element including a two-dimensional array of pixels that receive light (Column 4 Line 62 – Column 5 Line 39, CMOS camera 5a and InGaAs camera 5b which are used to capture wavelengths of different wavelength ranges; cameras have pixels which capture light),
the solid-state imaging element outputs a two-dimensional image of the object to a data processor by receiving the signal light (Column 6 Lines 21-30, cameras 5a and 5b are used as a detector in an image processing computer)
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object according to a brightness corresponding to a processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image (Column 3 Lines 17-23, method includes improving the seam quality by modifying parameters of the laser welding process such that the seam quality again falls within tolerance intervals; Column 6 Lines 17-21, intensity of the light irradiated onto the respective faces are evaluated by an evaluation device including the position of the focal spot relative to the joint)
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 Mendes with Dorsch and have the analyzer include a two different detectors each receiving a part of the analysis light wherein the intensity of the signal received by the first detector is corrected by the light of the second detector. This would have been done to verify the seam quality of the weld (Dorsch Column 1 Lines 32-33).
Claim(s) 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A), and Dorsch (US 8890023 B2) as applied to claim 17 above, and further in view of OGATA (US 20170304942 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 17.
Dorsch further teaches:
the solid-state imaging element (Column 3 Lines 47-50, single camera with dual bandpass filter in beam path is used to transmit visible radiation in one range and NIR radiation in another range which are captured in different zones on the detector surface of the camera) includes at least a first filter that transmits a third wavelength, a first pixel provided with the first filter (camera 5a), a second filter that transmits a fourth wavelength, and a second pixel provided with the second filter (camera 5b; Column 5 Lines 34-39, the respective beam paths 6 and 9 include filters which are used to transmit part of the process light and to reject process light outside of the spectral ranges; those ranges would include a third and fourth wavelength respectively), and
Mendes as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object by comparing pixel signal intensities at the first wavelength and the second wavelength of the signal light at the processing position of the object in the two-dimensional image generated by the solid- state imaging element
OGATA (US 20170304942 A1) teaches a direct diode laser processing apparatus, wherein:
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions for the object by comparing pixel signal intensities at the first wavelength and the second wavelength of the signal light at the processing position of the object (Paragraph 33, monitoring unit 73 compares the evaluated wavelength profile with the normal-state wavelength profile and makes a determination on an output decrease when the intensity of one wavelength is set outside an allowable range)
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 Mendes with OGATA and the processor adjust processing conditions by comparing intensities at the wavelengths of the laser. This would have been done to ensure that the lasers are operating within a predetermined normal-state range (OGATA Paragraph 33).
While OGATA does not explicitly teach comparing the intensities “in the two-dimensional image generated by the solid- state imaging element”, Column 3 Lines 47-50 of Dorsch teaches of using a single camera with a bandpass filter to transmit light intensities at different wavelengths which are captured in different zones on the detector surface of the camera. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art when further modifying with OGATA to have had the single camera further detect reflections the respective wavelengths of the lasers in their own individual regions of a single image such as to ensure that the lasers are operating within a predetermined normal-state range (OGATA Paragraph 33) without requiring the use of additional sensor equipment.
Regarding claim 19, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 18.
Dorsch further teaches:
the first filter transmits near-infrared light (Column 5 Lines 23-39, bandpass filters are used to transmit the light in the appropriate spectral range wherein the camera 5b captures radiation in the near infrared range), and the second filter transmits wavelengths of at least part of a visible light range (Column 5 Lines 23-39, bandpass filters are used to transmit the light in the appropriate spectral range wherein the camera 5a captures radiation in the visible light range).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 17.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1), GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A), Dorsch (US 8890023 B2), and OGATA (US 20170304942 A1) as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 18.
Hallasch further teaches:
determines which of materials stored in the database a material at coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Paragraph 27, evaluation device is configured to compare the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece and compare the reflectance with reference data for different material types; Paragraph 27, on the basis of a comparison it is possible to determine that material type or surface condition with comes closest to the values determined during the analysis of the image)
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object according to the material determined (Paragraph 47, access of the database is for the selection and adjustment of processing parameters).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
Huonker further teaches:
adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object (Paragraphs 25-26, welding parameters are set with different power, speed, and focal position parameters based on detecting the location of a defect)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 4.
Mendes as modified fails to teach:
the data processor: compares each of pixel signal intensities at the third wavelength and the fourth wavelength of the signal light at the processing position with a data set of reflection spectrums stored in a database;
Gornushkin (US 20050002029 A1) teaches a material identification employing a grating spectrometer, wherein:
compares each of pixel signal intensities at the third wavelength and the fourth wavelength of the signal light at the processing position with a data set of reflection spectrums stored in a database (Column 5 Lines 51-55, obtained spectra is compared with the spectra stored in the spectra library which would include a plurality of wavelengths);
determines which of materials stored in the database a material at coordinates of the processing position of the object is closest to (Column 5 Lines 62-65, identification of the material is achieved wherein the result of said identification is output);
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 Mendes with Gornushkin and compared the detected spectra with that stored in a spectra library. This would have been done to facilitate identification of the material of the object (Gornushkin Column 5 Lines 62-65).
It would further have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention when modifying Mendes with Gornushkin to have adjusted the processing conditions based on the detected spectra. This is because Paragraph 27 of Hallasch already teaches adjusting parameters based on the material type and Paragraph 9 of Hallasch teaches that of determining the reflectance of the surface of the workpiece for a plurality of different wavelengths of the illuminating radiation, and to put the respective reflectances into relation with one another (relative reflection) to determine the surface condition and/or the material type. Column 5 Lines 51-65 of Gornushkin explicitly teaches using a spectra, which readings a plurality of wavelengths, to determine a material of an object and thus would be useful to Hallasch in the adjusting of parameters based on material type.
Claim(s) 21-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mendes (US 20150246412 A1) in view of Hallasch (US 20170109874 A1) and GORUGANTHU (US 5272309 A) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1).
Regarding claim 21, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1.
Mendes as modified fails to explicitly teach:
the signal light is emission light produced during the processing as a byproduct of irradiating the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam
WEBSTER (US 20120138586 A1) teaches a method and system for coherent imaging and feedback control for modification of materials, wherein:
the signal light is emission light produced during the processing as a byproduct of irradiating the object with at least one of the first laser beam or the second laser beam (Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would be light reflected from the sample S; Paragraph 343, light is light which is backscattered from the sample which is a byproduct of irradiating the object with a 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 Mendes with WEBSTER and have the analyzer comprise a spectrometer and use the laser beam as the imaging light source. This would have been done to gather information on the intensity as a function of wavelength to facilitate feedback control of one or more processing parameters of the material modification process (WEBSTER Paragraph 343).
Regarding claim 22, Mendes as modified teaches the laser processing device according to claim 21.
Webster further teaches:
the analyzer includes a spectrometer that separates the emission light (Paragraph 255, detection is accomplished by a spectrometer; Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength) and a data processor that outputs an emission light spectrum of the emission light (Paragraph 343, detector is a spectrometer that measures intensity as a function of wavelength; Paragraph 343, spectral interferogram is converted into an electric signal by the detector and is transmitted to control electronics 518 for processing)
the data processor adjusts the one or more processing conditions corresponding to the coordinates of the processing position of the object based on the emission light spectrum (Paragraph 343, feedback controller generates feedback to control one or more of the processing parameters of the material modification process as a result of the measurements detected; Paragraph 255, modification laser 100 also serves as the imaging light source and thus would correspond to the processing position of the object).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 21.
The Office further notes that having welding parameters be adjusted based on a detected location of a defect is known in the art as evidenced by Huonker (US 20060006156 A1).
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
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office further notes that use of a first and second laser oscillator to irradiate a workpiece is well known in the art as evidenced by Sawabe (US 20180339362 A1).
2 The Office further notes that having predetermined parameters for laser processing and adjusting parameters based on detected calibration values is known in the art as evidenced by Mori (US 20170282300 A1).
3 The Office further notes that use of a first and second laser oscillator to irradiate a workpiece is well known in the art as evidenced by Sawabe (US 20180339362 A1).
4 The Office further notes that having predetermined parameters for laser processing and adjusting parameters based on detected calibration values is known in the art as evidenced by Mori (US 20170282300 A1).