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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant amendment filed 06/02/2026 has been entered and is currently under consideration. Claims 1-6 remain pending in the application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsukamoto et al. (JP6719231 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Tsukamoto in view of Kitada et al. (JP2011240364 of record with reference made to examiner provided machine translation) hereinafter Kitada, Ye et al. (US2003/0155333 of record) hereinafter Ye, and Okada (US2015/0001195 of record).
Regarding claim 6, Tsukamoto teaches:
A composite material processing method for applying processing to a composite material to manufacture an aircraft component, the composite material having fibers and a resin compounded therein ([0001-0002]), the composite material processing method comprising:
by an irradiation unit, irradiating a front face of the composite material with a laser beam (Fig 1: laser light source unit 1, CFRP 20);
by an ejection unit, ejecting an assist gas for discharging fumes from within a groove formed in the composite material to an area at or near an irradiation point that is a point irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation unit (Fig 1: gas nozzle 8a; [0045-0046]); and
the ejection unit is arranged on a front face side of the composite material about the irradiation point in a plan view of the composite material (Fig 1),
an angle between a direction in which the ejection unit ejects the assist gas and the front face of the composite material is greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees (Fig 1).
Tsukamoto does not teach by a first ejection unit and a second ejection unit arranged above the first ejection unit, ejecting an assist gas to an area at or near an irradiation point that is a point irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation unit; and
the first ejection unit and the second ejection unit are arranged in the same quadrant on a front face side of the composite material about the irradiation point in a plan view of the composite material,
a first angle between a direction in which the first ejection unit ejects the gas and the front face of the composite material differs from a second angle between a direction in which the second ejection unit ejects the gas and the front face of the composite material, and
the first angle and the second angle are greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees.
In the same field of endeavor regarding laser processing, Kitada teaches:
by a first ejection unit and a second ejection unit arranged above the first ejection unit, ejecting a gas to an area at or near an irradiation point that is a point irradiated with the laser beam by the irradiation unit (Fig 6: annular gap 216, injection flow channel 217, arrow F1, arrow F2, laser oscillator 309; [0066]); and
the first ejection unit and the second ejection unit are arranged in the same quadrant on a front face side of the composite material about the irradiation point in a plan view of the composite material (Fig 6),
a first angle between a direction in which the first ejection unit ejects the gas and the front face of the composite material differs from a second angle between a direction in which the second ejection unit ejects the gas and the front face of the composite material (Fig 6), and
the first angle and the second angle are greater than 0 degrees and less than 90 degrees (Fig 6) for the motivation of supplying both dry air and cooling gas to the workpiece ([0066]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the ejection unit as taught by Tsukamoto with the ejection units as taught by Kitada in order to supply both dry air and cooling gas to the workpiece.
Tsukamoto in view of Kitada does not teach moving the irradiation point in a plate thickness direction of the composite material every time a predetermined number of times of scans with the laser beam are performed and a moving irradiation point that is moving in the plate thickness direction of the composite material.
In the same field of endeavor regarding laser processing, Ye teaches moving an irradiation point in a plate thickness direction of a material every time a predetermined number of times of scans with a laser beam are performed for the motivation of refocusing the beam on the next layer ([0029]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Tsukamoto in view of Kitada with the scanning and lowering of the irradiation point as taught by Ye in order to refocus the beam on the next layer.
Tsukamoto in view of Kitada and Ye does not teach moving an ejection target point of the assist gas in the first ejection unit and the second ejection unit to follow the moving irradiation point.
In the same field of endeavor regarding laser processing, Okada teaches using a nozzle position adjusting unit to move an ejection target point of a gas in an ejection unit to follow a moving irradiation point for the motivation of blowing a cutting gas to the site of the target object to be processed as the laser scans ([0009]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method as taught by Tsukamoto in view of Kitada and Ye with the nozzle position adjusting unit as taught by Okada in order to blow a cutting gas to the site of the target object to be processed as the laser scans.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 06/02/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the gases of Kitada F1 and F2 are not assist gases because they are disclosed by Kitada as F1 providing drying air for preventing condensation and F2 as cooling gas. First, the examiner notes that there is no special definition or disavowal of scope for the claim term “assist gas”. Therefore the term must be given its plain meaning under BRI. See MPEP 2111.01. Since the gas flows F1 and F2 of Kitada assist the operation of a laser processing apparatus, the gas flows F1 and F2 are considered to be assist gasses. While Kitada does not explicitly recite an assist gas for discharging fumes from within a groove formed in the composite material, Tsukamoto teaches that resin is vaporized during laser processing ([0045-0046]). Tsukamoto also teaches the gas nozzle 8a for targeting the irradiation point/groove (Fig 1). Therefore the gas stream from gas nozzle 8a must implicitly remove at least some of the fumes generated via convection. Since Tskukamoto teaches generation of resin vapors, any gas flow taught by the prior art that is targeted at the irradiation point, including those of Kitada, would inherently be capable of removing said fumes in a similar manner. While Kitada references a specific assist gas, the existence of such a gas does not preclude any of the above teachings or interpretations within the scope of BRI as applied to the claims.
Applicant argues that neither Ye nor Okada teaches moving the ejection target point of the gas to follow the irradiation point as it moves in the plate thickness direction. Applicant argues that Okada only teaches adjusting a position of the nozzle in a top plan parallel or substantially parallel to the target object to be processed. However, the examiner notes that this teaching is specifically referencing the movement of the nozzle, not the ejection target point of the gas as claimed, which are two distinct and fundamentally different concepts. In all instances of the prior art ejection units relied upon by the art rejection, including Okada, the ejection units eject gas having a vertical component to the direction of the gas flow. Furthermore, as recited by the applicant, Okada teaches “a cutting nozzle configured to adjust a position of the cutting nozzle in a top plan parallel or substantially parallel to the target object to be processed in synchronism with an operation of the deflecting direction adjusting unit” ([0009]). Ye teaches moving the irradiation point in the plate thickness direction of the composite material during multiple scans ([0029]). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand to adjust the position of the cutting nozzle in sync with the irradiation point as taught by Okada as the irradiation point moves in the thickness direction as taught by Ye. That the nozzle itself is limited to XY movement does not limit the ejection target point to only XY movement. For example, if the ejection unit were completely vertically oriented, removal of a layer of the composite material would allow the gas to act on the layer underneath. Moving the ejection target point of the gas in this example requires no movement of the ejection unit in any direction. If the ejection unit were angled from the vertical such as in the prior art examples, removal of the top layer of the composite material would allow one to target the next layer simply by adjusting the ejection unit in only the XY direction until the gas flow intersects with the new ejection target point. Therefore, given the disclosed capabilities of the prior art devices and the desire to target the irradiation site using an ejection gas, it would be completely within the scope of one of ordinary skill in the art to arrive at the claimed step of moving an ejection target point of the assist gas to follow the moving irradiation point. "A person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton." "[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle." See MPEP 2141.03.
For at least the above reasons, the application is not in condition for allowance.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALEXANDER A WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-5361. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8 am-4 pm EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on 571-270-7001. 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.
/ALEXANDER A WANG/ Examiner, Art Unit 1741
/ALISON L HINDENLANG/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1741
Prosecution Insights