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 .
Status of the Claims
Claims 20, 24, and 33 are amended. Claims 21-22, 25-31, and 34-36 are as previously presented. Claims 1-19, 23, and 32 are cancelled. Claim 37 is newly added. Therefore, claims 20-22, 24-31, and 33-37 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on December 18, 2025 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth objection of claim 33.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/18/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that primary reference Schuermann combined with secondary reference Koji would render Schuermann inoperable due to the elimination of the use of laser power of the laser cutting head to control a predetermined kerf width d. Applicant also argues that this combination of references would then be in error.
It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is not persuasive as Schuermann discloses using cutting gas pressure, feed rate, focus position, or laser power of the laser cutting head to adjust the current width d of the kerf so that it matches a predetermined value. Applicant is correct in that Schuermann lists process parameters of cutting gas pressure, feed rate, focus position, and laser power as being parameters that can be adjusted. However, Schuermann uses the word “or” and not the word “and”, where Schuermann discloses different situations where only a singular process parameter is used to control the width of the cutting gap and does not require that all process parameters be used.
As a result, the combination of Koji with Schuermann provides insight into how the width of the cutting gap can be controlled when using process parameters that are not the laser power in Schuermann. Koji discloses how laser power is kept at a minimum pulse energy level required to generate a through hole while the width of the cutting gap can be controlled through altering the focused beam diameter, which would correspond to the focus position as the position of the focus changes when the diameter is changed. Thus, the combination of Koji into Schuermann would still allow Schuermann to function as other process parameters can be used in Schuermann.
Applicant argues that Examiner’s interpretation of Schuermann’s calibration requires an Examiner affidavit due to being based at least in part on the Examiner’s own knowledge.
The Examiner disagrees with this argument as the interpretation was based on Schuermann’s disclosure. It is the Examiner’s position that Schuermann discloses calibration of the width of the cutting gap or the kerf, where the definition of calibration would be setting the width of the cutting gap to a predetermined value. Schuermann then discloses where altering the width of the cutting gap depends upon process parameters which are specific variables, Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “The current value d 'of the width of the kerf 50 is controlled by the use of actuators to the predetermined value d. As a control parameter for setting a uniform gap cutting width d, for example, the cutting gas pressure of the cutting gas, which through the nozzle 20 in the direction of the workpiece 12 emerges, or the feed rate v of the laser cutting head 10 or 52 be used. Further process parameters are, for example, the distance of the laser cutting head 10 or 52 to the workpiece surface, so the focal position of the laser beam 14 within the workpiece 12 , or the laser beam power.”. From this disclosure, Schuermann discloses that a fixed calibration value of the width of the cutting gap is set and can be dependent upon multiple process parameters like the cutting gas pressure, feed rate, focal position, or laser beam power. Schuermann provides an example of a cutting gap width in Fig. 2 that has a set beam caustic. Therefore, when the cutting gap width is being modified to meet the calibration value, the focal position can be altered while the beam caustic is kept constant through duplicating the cutting gap width in Fig. 2 so that additional channels are formed perpendicular to the feed rate direction.
Examiner has modified the language used in the rejection regarding this limitation to elaborate upon the original position.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. EP20153052.4, filed on 01/22/2020.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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:
“device” in Claim 29
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional language attributed the “device” includes: “for monitoring at least one geometric parameter of a cutting gap”.
“device” in Claim 29
The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional language attributed the “device” includes: “for regulating the monitored geometric parameter of the cutting gap”.
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.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 07/19/2022.
Regarding the device for monitoring at least one geometric parameter, Page 8, “Furthermore, the device for monitoring the at least one geometric parameter can include a detector, in particular a camera, for recording a beam reflected and/or emitted by the workpiece, in particular by a laser machining zone of the workpiece.”, where the device that monitors the geometric parameter is assumed to be a detector like a camera
Regarding the device for regulating the gap, Page 12, “The detector 20 and the focusing lens 18 are connected to one another in a data-conducting manner via a device 22 for regulating the monitored geometric parameter of the cutting gap. The device 22 can be implemented in a controller of the apparatus 10 for the laser machining.”, where the device for regulating the gap is assumed to be a controller
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.
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.
Claims 20-21, 24, 26-30, 32-33, and 35-37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuermann et al. (DE 102010020183 A1, hereinafter Schuermann) in view of Koji et al. (JP 6628939 B1, hereinafter Koji) and Regaard (DE 102013210078 A1).
Regarding claim 20, Schuermann discloses a method for laser machining a workpiece (Page 1, last Para., “a method for cutting a workpiece by means of a laser cutting head.”), with the method comprising:
a) generating a machining laser beam and imaging the machining laser beam on the workpiece with at least one optical element (Abstract, “a laser cutting head (10, 52) for cutting a workpiece (12) by means of a working laser beam (14), having a housing (16) through which a beam path for the working laser beam (14) is passed and which has focusing optics (18) for focusing the working laser beam (14) on the workpiece (12) to be cut within a work area (48)”);
b) machining the workpiece with the imaged machining laser beam and generating a cutting gap in the workpiece (Page 2, Para. 1, “The laser beam moves along a part contour and melts the material continuously. The melt is usually blown by a gas flow down from the kerf. This creates a narrow kerf between the partial and residual grid. The cutting gap is barely wider than the focused laser beam itself.”);
c) monitoring at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap during step b) (Abstract, “process image data from the camera (32) in order to obtain a current width (d ') to determine an incision gap (50) generated in the workpiece (12) by the working laser beam (14).”); and
d) regulating the monitored at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap during step c) (Page 8, Para. 3, “camera 32 recorded image data of the work area 48 with the generated kerf 50 be used to control the laser cutting process so that a current width d 'of the kerf 50 to a given value d ( 2 ) is regulated.”) for harmonization with a target value of the at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap (Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “adjusting the process parameters by the control unit 58 to the current width d 'of the kerf 50 to control to a predetermined value d and in particular to regulate.”) by varying a position of a focus of the machining laser beam in a direction of propagation thereof (Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “A control process based on this method comprises the acquisition of current process parameters such as cutting gas pressure, feed rate, focus position or laser power of the laser cutting head 10 . 52 and adjusting the process parameters by the control unit 58 to the current width d 'of the kerf 50 to control to a predetermined value d and in particular to regulate.”, where parameters that can be adjusted include the focus of the laser beam that would be along the propagation direction shown in Fig. 1 with the optical axis being L, where the laser power of the machining beam could also be adjusted which would alter the intensity distribution of the laser beam), wherein step d) is carried out independently of a caustic of the machining laser beam (Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “The value of the width of the kerf 50 can be specified in pixels of the camera sensor or after calibration in mm. However, it is also possible and even preferable to have the current width d 'directly in the interaction zone 21 to measure (where a = 0). The current value d 'of the width of the kerf 50 is controlled by the use of actuators to the predetermined value d.”, where calibration of the width with specific variables regarding the laser beam is performed, where the adjustments afterwards are independent of the calibration process; this is shown in Fig. 2, where the cutting gap width is created through the beam caustic being kept constant as the laser is moved laterally along the feed rate direction, where duplication of this process perpendicular to the feed rate direction would allow for the cutting gap width to change through controlling the focal position of the laser, where mere duplication of parts has been held to be obvious. In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). It is the Examiner’s position that duplicating the cutting gap width with a constant beam caustic would still lead to the same end result machining a workpiece, where a user would only repeat the laser machining process to create different cutting gap widths).
Schuermann does not disclose:
wherein in step d), the at least one geometric parameter, including a width of the cutting gap, is kept independent of a power of a machine laser source;
wherein step d) is carried out additionally by varying at least one parameter selected from a width of the machining laser beam, a diameter of the machining laser beam, a surface curvature of at least one of the optical elements, a focal length of an optical system that includes the at least one optical element, and an intensity distribution of the machining laser beam perpendicular to the direction of propagation thereof.
However, Koji discloses, in the similar field of laser cutting (Abstract, “pulsed laser beam (1) to a processing target from a processing head while relatively moving the processing target and the processing head in a predetermined cutting direction”), where at least one geometric parameter that is the width of the cutting gap is kept independent of a power of the machine laser source (Page 10, Para. 3, “As will be described later, the minimum pulse energy required to form a through-hole with one pulse of the pulse laser beam 1 on a processing target made of CFRP having a PAN (Polyacrylonitrile)-based carbon fiber content of 70% and having a thickness of 1 mm is as follows. It was 0.15J.”, and where the cutting gap width is equal to the beam diameter and where the beam diameter is not dependent on the power, Page 15, last Para., “The converging diameter of the pulse laser light in the cutting direction is a converging diameter d, the processing length is a processing length L, and the number of pulses of the pulse laser light applied to the processing area of the processing length L is a pulse. When the number N, the overlap ratio ro…0 <ro = (d−L / N) / d <0.5), where changing the cutting gap width is done through varying the diameter of the machining laser beam (Page 12, Para. 2, “That is, when the pulse laser beam 1 is a circular beam, the kerf width C can be regarded as the focused beam diameter of the pulse laser beam 1. In this case, by controlling the condensing diameter d, the width of the cutting groove in the laser cutting can be accurately controlled.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting gap and parameters that influence the gap in Schuermann to include a laser beam width influencing the cutting gap width while being independent of laser power as taught by Koji.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to accurately control the cutting groove width, where by setting a minimum laser power required allows for different beam widths to be used, as stated by Koji, Page 12, Para. 2, “In this case, by controlling the condensing diameter d, the width of the cutting groove in the laser cutting can be accurately controlled.”, and Page 12, Para. 3, “specific example of cutting using the laser processing apparatus 100 will be described. When the pulse energy required to penetrate with 1 pulse using a 1 mm thick PAN-based carbon fiber content of 70% CFRP as an object to be processed was examined, at least a large pulse energy of0.15 J was required.”.
Regaard discloses, in the similar field of laser cutting (Page 7, Para. 1, “laser cutting nozzle”), where a focal position is kept through adjusting a surface curvature of at least one of the optical elements and where the focal length is included by the optical element (Page 7, Para. 2 from end, “The device for changing the focus position may, for example, be a so-called adaptive mirror whose surface curvature can be specifically influenced in order to change the focus position in the beam direction of the high-energy beam. Based on the determined in the manner described above actual focus position, the device can be controlled such that the focus position is controlled to a desired focus position, which typically remains constant during the machining process and, for example, on the workpiece top or a predetermined distance to Workpiece can be located.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified varying the focal position in modified Schuermann to include adjusting the surface curvature of an optical element through the use of adaptive optics as taught by Regaard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able ensure that the focal length is kept constant through compensating when thermal load changes the focal length, as stated by Regaard, Page 7, Para. 2 from end, “In this way, the changes in the focal length of the focussing element caused by a thermal load on the focussing element can be compensated for. If the means for changing the focus position, d. H. the control element, in front of the measuring position or in front of the observation beam path, takes place a control of the focus position to the desired focus position.”.
Regarding claim 21, modified Schuermann teaches the method according to claim 20, as set forth above, discloses wherein step d) is carried out independently of a position of the beam waist of the machining laser beam (Schuermann, Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “The value of the width of the kerf 50 can be specified in pixels of the camera sensor or after calibration in mm. However, it is also possible and even preferable to have the current width d 'directly in the interaction zone 21 to measure (where a = 0). The current value d 'of the width of the kerf 50 is controlled by the use of actuators to the predetermined value d.”, where calibration of the width with specific variables regarding the laser beam is performed which would include positions of a beam waist, beam diameter, power intensity, feed rate, etc.; where the adjustments afterwards to make the cutting gap reach the predetermined value are independent of the calibration process which has a set beam waist).
Regarding claim 24, modified Schuermann teaches the method according to claim 20, as set forth above, discloses wherein in step d) width of the cutting gap is kept constant (Schuermann, Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “A control process based on this method comprises the acquisition of current process parameters such as cutting gas pressure, feed rate, focus position or laser power of the laser cutting head 10 . 52 and adjusting the process parameters by the control unit 58 to the current width d 'of the kerf 50 to control to a predetermined value d and in particular to regulate.”, where adjusting the gap width to be a predetermined width will result in a final width being held constant, where that final width is equal to the predetermined width).
Regarding claim 26, modified Schuermann teaches the method according to claim 20, as set forth above, discloses wherein in step c) a beam reflected and/or emitted by the workpiece, in particular by a laser machining zone of the workpiece, is recorded with a detector, in particular with a camera (Schuermann, Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “the optical emission of the material vapor or plasma generated by the impact of the working laser beam on the workpiece is examined in order to monitor the quality of the cutting process.”, and Page 3, Para. 2, “In order to detect the quality of a processing operation independently of a process, a monitoring device comprises a radiation-sensitive receiver arrangement with a radiation sensitive receiver and a camera for detecting radiation from a region of an interaction zone between a laser beam and a workpiece.”, where Schuermann cites prior art that includes being able to determine if the cut quality is acceptable through observing the laser radiation using a camera).
Regarding claim 27, modified Schuermann teaches the method according to claim 20, as set forth above, discloses wherein in step c) the workpiece, in particular a laser machining zone of the workpiece, is illuminated, in particular with an illumination source or an illuminating laser beam (Schuermann, Page 3, Para. 1, “a lighting device with a light source Illumination, in particular uniform illumination, of the working region of the workpiece to be cut”).
Regarding claim 28, modified Schuermann teaches the method according to claim 20, as set forth above, discloses wherein in step a) the at least one optical element is heated by the machining laser beam; and/or wherein in step a) the machining laser beam is shaped, deflected, diverted, and/or reflected by the at least one optical element (Schuermann, Page 6, Para. 4, “The first beam splitter 30 is in the passage area of the working laser beam 14 in the housing of the laser cutting head 10 arranged so that an observation beam path 22 (indicated by its optical axis) of a camera 32 coaxial with the beam path of the working laser beam 14 is coupled.”, and Page 6, Para. 2, “beam splitter 30 which directs the laser beam 14 in the direction of the focusing optics 18 deflects.”).
Regarding claim 29, modified Schuermann teaches the apparatus according to claim 20, as set forth above, discloses an apparatus for laser machining a workpiece according to the method of claim 20 (Schuermann, Abstract, “The invention relates to a laser cutting head (10, 52) for cutting a workpiece (12) by means of a working laser beam (14), having a housing (16) through which a beam path for the working laser beam (14) is passed”), the apparatus comprising:
the machining laser source for generating the machining laser beam (Schuermann, Page 6, Para. 2, “The working laser beam 14 becomes the laser cutting head 10 through an optical fiber 24 supplied, wherein the fiber end of the optical fiber 24 in a fiber holder 26 is held.”, where the laser includes a source that is connected to the optical fiber, where there must be a power source to generate a laser for cutting);
the at least one optical element for imaging the machining laser beam on the workpiece (Schuermann, Abstract, “a housing (16) through which a beam path for the working laser beam (14) is passed and which has focusing optics (18) for focusing the working laser beam (14) on the workpiece (12) to be cut within a work area (48)”);
a device configured to monitor the at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap in the workpiece generated with the machining laser beam (Schuermann, Abstract, “process image data from the camera (32) in order to obtain a current width (d ') to determine an incision gap (50) generated in the workpiece (12) by the working laser beam (14).”); and
wherein the device is further configured to regulate the monitored at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap (Schuermann, Page 8, Para. 3, “camera 32 recorded image data of the work area 48 with the generated kerf 50 be used to control the laser cutting process so that a current width d 'of the kerf 50 to a given value d ( 2 ) is regulated.”) for harmonization with the target value of the at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap (Schuermann, Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “adjusting the process parameters by the control unit 58 to the current width d 'of the kerf 50 to control to a predetermined value d and in particular to regulate.”);
wherein the device is configured to vary the position of the focus of the machining laser beam in the direction of propagation thereof when the monitored at least one geometric parameter does not correspond to the target value, and additionally configured to vary the at least one parameter (Schuermann, Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “A control process based on this method comprises the acquisition of current process parameters such as cutting gas pressure, feed rate, focus position or laser power of the laser cutting head 10 . 52 and adjusting the process parameters by the control unit 58 to the current width d 'of the kerf 50 to control to a predetermined value d and in particular to regulate.”, where parameters that can be adjusted include the focus of the laser beam that would be along the propagation direction shown in Fig. 1 with the optical axis being L, where the laser power of the machining beam could also be adjusted which would alter the intensity distribution of the laser beam);
wherein the device is further configured to regulate the at least one geometric parameter independently of a caustic of the machining laser beam (Schuermann, Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “The value of the width of the kerf 50 can be specified in pixels of the camera sensor or after calibration in mm. However, it is also possible and even preferable to have the current width d 'directly in the interaction zone 21 to measure (where a = 0). The current value d 'of the width of the kerf 50 is controlled by the use of actuators to the predetermined value d.”, where calibration of the width with specific variables regarding the laser beam is performed, where the adjustments afterwards are independent of the calibration process).
Regarding claim 30, modified Schuermann teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, as set forth above, discloses wherein the device is configured such that the at least one geometric parameter is regulated independently of a position of a beam waist of the machining laser beam (Schuermann, Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “The value of the width of the kerf 50 can be specified in pixels of the camera sensor or after calibration in mm. However, it is also possible and even preferable to have the current width d 'directly in the interaction zone 21 to measure (where a = 0). The current value d 'of the width of the kerf 50 is controlled by the use of actuators to the predetermined value d.”, where calibration of the width with specific variables regarding the laser beam is performed which would include positions of a beam waist, beam diameter, power intensity, feed rate, etc.; where the adjustments afterwards to make the cutting gap reach the predetermined value are independent of the calibration process which has a set beam waist).
Regarding claim 32, modified Schuermann teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, as set forth above, discloses wherein the at least one geometric parameter is a width (B) of the cutting gap (Schuermann, Page 4, Para. 2, “The determination of the cutting gap width is preferably carried out immediately after the generation of the gap, ie in a range of about 10 mm after the point of impact or penetration point of the working laser beam.”).
Regarding claim 33, modified Schuermann teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, as set forth above, discloses wherein the device for regulating the monitored at least one geometric parameter is configured such that the width of the cutting gap is kept constant (Schuermann, Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “A control process based on this method comprises the acquisition of current process parameters such as cutting gas pressure, feed rate, focus position or laser power of the laser cutting head 10 . 52 and adjusting the process parameters by the control unit 58 to the current width d 'of the kerf 50 to control to a predetermined value d and in particular to regulate.”, where adjusting the gap width to be a predetermined width will result in a final width being held constant, where that final width is equal to the predetermined width).
Regarding claim 35, modified Schuermann teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, as set forth above, discloses wherein the device includes a camera, for recording a beam reflected and/or emitted by a laser machining zone of the workpiece (Schuermann, Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “the optical emission of the material vapor or plasma generated by the impact of the working laser beam on the workpiece is examined in order to monitor the quality of the cutting process.”, and Page 3, Para. 2, “In order to detect the quality of a processing operation independently of a process, a monitoring device comprises a radiation-sensitive receiver arrangement with a radiation sensitive receiver and a camera for detecting radiation from a region of an interaction zone between a laser beam and a workpiece.”, where Schuermann cites prior art that includes being able to determine if the cut quality is acceptable through observing the laser radiation using a camera); and/or
wherein a second device is provided for illuminating a laser machining zone of the workpiece, the second device including an illumination source or an illuminating laser beam (Schuermann, Page 3, Para. 1, “a lighting device with a light source Illumination, in particular uniform illumination, of the working region of the workpiece to be cut”); and/or
wherein the at least one optical element is configured such that the machining laser beam is shaped, deflected, diverted, and/or reflected (Schuermann, Page 6, Para. 4, “The first beam splitter 30 is in the passage area of the working laser beam 14 in the housing of the laser cutting head 10 arranged so that an observation beam path 22 (indicated by its optical axis) of a camera 32 coaxial with the beam path of the working laser beam 14 is coupled.”, and Page 6, Para. 2, “beam splitter 30 which directs the laser beam 14 in the direction of the focusing optics 18 deflects.”).
Regarding claim 36, modified Schuermann teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, as set forth above, discloses wherein the laser machining comprises at least one machining operation selected from laser cutting, fusion cutting, and flame cutting (Schuermann, Page 1, Para. 2, “The invention relates to a laser cutting head for cutting a workpiece by means of a working laser beam and a method for cutting a workpiece by means of a laser cutting head.”, and Page 2, Para. 2, “A distinction is made between two standard methods of laser beam cutting, flame cutting and fusion cutting.”, where flame or fusion cutting can be done depending on a user’s needs as they have advantages and disadvantages, Page 2, Para. 2-3, “Flame cutting is mainly used for cutting structural steel, whereby oxygen is used as a cutting gas… Melt cutting has the great advantage that the edges remain oxide-free and do not need to be reworked.”).
Regarding claim 37, Schuermann discloses a method for laser machining a workpiece (Page 1, last Para., “a method for cutting a workpiece by means of a laser cutting head.”), with the method comprising:
a) generating a machining laser beam and imaging the machining laser beam on the workpiece with at least one optical element (Abstract, “a laser cutting head (10, 52) for cutting a workpiece (12) by means of a working laser beam (14), having a housing (16) through which a beam path for the working laser beam (14) is passed and which has focusing optics (18) for focusing the working laser beam (14) on the workpiece (12) to be cut within a work area (48)”);
b) machining the workpiece with the imaged machining laser beam and generating a cutting gap in the workpiece (Page 2, Para. 1, “The laser beam moves along a part contour and melts the material continuously. The melt is usually blown by a gas flow down from the kerf. This creates a narrow kerf between the partial and residual grid. The cutting gap is barely wider than the focused laser beam itself.”);
c) monitoring at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap during step b) (Abstract, “process image data from the camera (32) in order to obtain a current width (d ') to determine an incision gap (50) generated in the workpiece (12) by the working laser beam (14).”); and
d) regulating the monitored at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap during step c) (Page 8, Para. 3, “camera 32 recorded image data of the work area 48 with the generated kerf 50 be used to control the laser cutting process so that a current width d 'of the kerf 50 to a given value d ( 2 ) is regulated.”) for harmonization with a target value of the at least one geometric parameter of the cutting gap (Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “adjusting the process parameters by the control unit 58 to the current width d 'of the kerf 50 to control to a predetermined value d and in particular to regulate.”) by varying a position of a focus of the machining laser beam in a direction of propagation thereof (Page 8, Para. 2 from end, “A control process based on this method comprises the acquisition of current process parameters such as cutting gas pressure, feed rate, focus position or laser power of the laser cutting head 10 . 52 and adjusting the process parameters by the control unit 58 to the current width d 'of the kerf 50 to control to a predetermined value d and in particular to regulate.”, where parameters that can be adjusted include the focus of the laser beam that would be along the propagation direction shown in Fig. 1 with the optical axis being L, where the laser power of the machining beam could also be adjusted which would alter the intensity distribution of the laser beam), wherein step d) is carried out independently of a caustic of the machining laser beam (Page 8, Para. 3 from end, “The value of the width of the kerf 50 can be specified in pixels of the camera sensor or after calibration in mm. However, it is also possible and even preferable to have the current width d 'directly in the interaction zone 21 to measure (where a = 0). The current value d 'of the width of the kerf 50 is controlled by the use of actuators to the predetermined value d.”, where calibration of the width with specific variables regarding the laser beam is performed, where the adjustments afterwards are independent of the calibration process; this is shown in Fig. 2, where the focal position is altered in order to reach a calibration value and where the beam caustic is kept constant as the laser is just moved laterally).
Schuermann does not disclose:
wherein in step d), the at least one geometric parameter, including a width of the cutting gap, is kept independent of a power of a machine laser source;
wherein step d) is carried out additionally by varying at least one parameter selected from a surface curvature of at least one of the optical elements and a focal length of an optical system that includes the at least one optical element.
However, Koji discloses, in the similar field of laser cutting (Abstract, “pulsed laser beam (1) to a processing target from a processing head while relatively moving the processing target and the processing head in a predetermined cutting direction”), where at least one geometric parameter that is the width of the cutting gap is kept independent of a power of the machine laser source (Page 10, Para. 3, “As will be described later, the minimum pulse energy required to form a through-hole with one pulse of the pulse laser beam 1 on a processing target made of CFRP having a PAN (Polyacrylonitrile)-based carbon fiber content of 70% and having a thickness of 1 mm is as follows. It was 0.15J.”, and where the cutting gap width is equal to the beam diameter and where the beam diameter is not dependent on the power, Page 15, last Para., “The converging diameter of the pulse laser light in the cutting direction is a converging diameter d, the processing length is a processing length L, and the number of pulses of the pulse laser light applied to the processing area of the processing length L is a pulse. When the number N, the overlap ratio ro…0 <ro = (d−L / N) / d <0.5), where changing the cutting gap width is done through varying the diameter of the machining laser beam (Page 12, Para. 2, “That is, when the pulse laser beam 1 is a circular beam, the kerf width C can be regarded as the focused beam diameter of the pulse laser beam 1. In this case, by controlling the condensing diameter d, the width of the cutting groove in the laser cutting can be accurately controlled.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the cutting gap and parameters that influence the gap in Schuermann to include a laser beam width influencing the cutting gap width while being independent of laser power as taught by Koji.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to accurately control the cutting groove width, where by setting a minimum laser power required allows for different beam widths to be used, as stated by Koji, Page 12, Para. 2, “In this case, by controlling the condensing diameter d, the width of the cutting groove in the laser cutting can be accurately controlled.”, and Page 12, Para. 3, “specific example of cutting using the laser processing apparatus 100 will be described. When the pulse energy required to penetrate with 1 pulse using a 1 mm thick PAN-based carbon fiber content of 70% CFRP as an object to be processed was examined, at least a large pulse energy of0.15 J was required.”.
Regaard discloses, in the similar field of laser cutting (Page 7, Para. 1, “laser cutting nozzle”), where a focal position is kept through adjusting a surface curvature of at least one of the optical elements and where the focal length is included by the optical element (Page 7, Para. 2 from end, “The device for changing the focus position may, for example, be a so-called adaptive mirror whose surface curvature can be specifically influenced in order to change the focus position in the beam direction of the high-energy beam. Based on the determined in the manner described above actual focus position, the device can be controlled such that the focus position is controlled to a desired focus position, which typically remains constant during the machining process and, for example, on the workpiece top or a predetermined distance to Workpiece can be located.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified varying the focal position in modified Schuermann to include adjusting the surface curvature of an optical element through the use of adaptive optics as taught by Regaard.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able ensure that the focal length is kept constant through compensating when thermal load changes the focal length, as stated by Regaard, Page 7, Para. 2 from end, “In this way, the changes in the focal length of the focussing element caused by a thermal load on the focussing element can be compensated for. If the means for changing the focus position, d. H. the control element, in front of the measuring position or in front of the observation beam path, takes place a control of the focus position to the desired focus position.”.
Claims 22 and 31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuermann et al. (DE 102010020183 A1, hereinafter Schuermann) ) in view of Koji et al. (JP 6628939 B1, hereinafter Koji) and Regaard (DE 102013210078 A1) in further view of Yuri et al. (JP 2019511961 A, hereinafter Yuri).
Regarding claim 22, modified Schuermann teaches the method according to claim 20, as set forth above.
Modified Schuermann does not disclose:
wherein the target value of the at least one geometric parameter used in step d) will be determined or is determined as a function of at least one element selected from: a type of laser machining; a material of the workpiece; a thickness of the workpiece; a shape of the workpiece; a power of the machining laser source with which the machining laser beam is generated; an angle of incidence of the machining laser beam on the workpiece; a beam parameter product (BPP) of the machining laser beam; a focus diameter of the machining laser beam; and a divergence angle of the machining laser beam.
However, Yuri discloses, in the similar field of laser cutting (Abstract, “The laser cutting head includes a cutting nozzle for directing a laser beam to the workpiece with the gas for cutting.”), where an optical predetermined cut gap width is set according to the material or thickness being cut (Page 5, Para. 2, “move the beam in a predetermined pattern that provides a larger kerf width during the laser machining operation. It may be used. The cut width is adjusted, for example, in the range of about 150 microns to 300 microns. The kerf width may be controllably adjusted, for example for different types of material to be machined or for different thicknesses of material to be machined.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified determination of the predetermined gap width from modified Schuermann to include consideration of the material and thickness being cut as taught by Yuri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use the laser cutting system for a wider array of materials, which allows the method to have more use cases and greater functionality for a user, as stated by Yuri, Page 5, Para. 2, “The kerf width may be controllably adjusted, for example for different types of material to be machined or for different thicknesses of material to be machined.”.
Regarding claim 31, modified Schuermann teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, as set forth above.
Modified Schuermann does not disclose:
wherein the target value of the at least one geometric parameter is determined as a function of at least one element selected from: a type of laser machining; a material of the workpiece; a thickness of the workpiece; a shape of the workpiece; a power of the machining laser source with which the machining laser beam is generated; an angle of incidence of the machining laser beam on the workpiece; a beam parameter product (BPP) of the machining laser beam; a focus diameter of the machining laser beam; and a divergence angle of the machining laser beam.
However, Yuri discloses, in the similar field of laser cutting (Abstract, “The laser cutting head includes a cutting nozzle for directing a laser beam to the workpiece with the gas for cutting.”), where an optical predetermined cut gap width is set according to the material or thickness being cut (Page 5, Para. 2, “move the beam in a predetermined pattern that provides a larger kerf width during the laser machining operation. It may be used. The cut width is adjusted, for example, in the range of about 150 microns to 300 microns. The kerf width may be controllably adjusted, for example for different types of material to be machined or for different thicknesses of material to be machined.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified determination of the predetermined gap width from modified Schuermann to include consideration of the material and thickness being cut as taught by Yuri.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use the laser cutting system for a wider array of materials, which allows the method to have more use cases and greater functionality for a user, as stated by Yuri, Page 5, Para. 2, “The kerf width may be controllably adjusted, for example for different types of material to be machined or for different thicknesses of material to be machined.”.
Claims 25 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schuermann et al. (DE 102010020183 A1, hereinafter Schuermann) ) in view of Koji et al. (JP 6628939 B1, hereinafter Koji) and Regaard (DE 102013210078 A1) in further view of O’Brien et al. (CN 101980817 A, hereinafter O’Brien).
Regarding claim 25, modified Schuermann teaches the method according to claim 20, as set forth above, discloses wherein flame cutting is carried out and wherein a fusion cutting is carried out (Schuermann, Page 2, Para. 2, “A distinction is made between two standard methods of laser beam cutting, flame cutting and fusion cutting. Flame cutting is mainly used for cutting structural steel, whereby oxygen is used as a cutting gas. The oxygen reacts with the heated metal, burning and oxidizing it.”, and Page 2, Para. 3, “Melt cutting has the great advantage that the edges remain oxide-free and do not need to be reworked. However, only the energy of the laser beam is available for cutting, which is why the cutting speeds are as high as in flame cutting only in thin sheets.”).
Modified Schuermann does not disclose:
step d) is carried out by repeated and/or continuous adaptation of the focus of the machining laser beam in the upper half of the cutting gap or above the cutting gap; and/or
step d) is carried out by repeated and/or continuous adaptation of the focus of the machining laser beam in the lower half of the cutting gap.
However, O’Brien discloses, in the similar field of laser cutting (Abstract, “The scribing creates a kerf in the cutout region that widens as the laser beam advances along the sequence.”), where repeated adaptation of the focus of the machining laser beam is done on the upper half of the cutting gap and the lower half as the kerf or cutting gap depth is increased (Para. 0036, “in some embodiments, the laser focus position will be adjusted to match the depth of surface of the material in the each first continuous travel stroke. For example, if the work piece 112 thickness larger than the focused range, then it can adjust focus depth when the notch 210 depth " d " is increased.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the regulating step that can occur during flame or fusion cutting in modified Schuermann to include a continuous adjustment of the focus of the machining laser beam as taught by O’Brien.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to allow the machining laser beam to continuously be effective when creating the gap, as increasing cutting depth would require focal adjustments, as stated by O’Brien, Para. 0043, “In one embodiment, the method 400 further includes deeper into the work piece in the depth of the notch is adjusted when 414 of the laser beam focus depth. Therefore, the laser beam can continuously effectively from the cutting area is removing material when the incision is deepened.”.
Regarding claim 34, modified Schuermann teaches the apparatus according to claim 29, as set forth above, discloses wherein flame cutting is carried and wherein fusion cutting is carried out (Schuermann, Page 2, Para. 2, “A distinction is made between two standard methods of laser beam cutting, flame cutting and fusion cutting. Flame cutting is mainly used for cutting structural steel, whereby oxygen is used as a cutting gas. The oxygen reacts with the heated metal, burning and oxidizing it.”, and Page 2, Para. 3, “Melt cutting has the great advantage that the edges remain oxide-free and do not need to be reworked. However, only the energy of the laser beam is available for cutting, which is why the cutting speeds are as high as in flame cutting only in thin sheets.”).
Modified Schuermann does not disclose:
the device is configured such that the focus of the machining laser beam is repeatedly and/or continuously adapted in an upper half of the cutting gap or above the cutting gap; and/or
wherein the device is configured such that the focus of the machining laser beam is repeatedly and/or continuously adapted in a lower half of the cutting gap.
However, O’Brien discloses, in the similar field of laser cutting (Abstract, “The scribing creates a kerf in the cutout region that widens as the laser beam advances along the sequence.”), where repeated adaptation of the focus of the machining laser beam is done on the upper half of the cutting gap and the lower half as the kerf or cutting gap depth is increased (Para. 0036, “in some embodiments, the laser focus position will be adjusted to match the depth of surface of the material in the each first continuous travel stroke. For example, if the work piece 112 thickness larger than the focused range, then it can adjust focus depth when the notch 210 depth " d " is increased.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the regulating step that can occur during flame or fusion cutting in modified Schuermann to include a continuous adjustment of the focus of the machining laser beam as taught by O’Brien, where this adjustment to the focus would be done through the control unit or the device for regulating the monitored geometric parameter.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to allow the machining laser beam to continuously be effective when creating the gap, as increasing cutting depth would require focal adjustments, as stated by O’Brien, Para. 0043, “In one embodiment, the method 400 further includes deeper into the work piece in the depth of the notch is adjusted when 414 of the laser beam focus depth. Therefore, the laser beam can continuously effectively from the cutting area is removing material when the incision is deepened.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
03/25/2026
Prosecution Insights