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
In the amendment dated 01/30/2026, claims 12-18 are newly added, claims 1-18 are pending; claims 5 and 10 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 6-9 have been amended.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
“a blow off unit configured to blow off a shield gas to an irradiation point irradiated with a laser beam by an irradiation unit that emits the laser beam in a predetermined direction to an object to be processed set on a processing stage;
an intake unit configured to take in the shield gas blown from the blow off unit”
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 generic placeholder(s) “unit” that is/are coupled with functional language(s) “blow off a shield gas to an irradiation point … set on a processing stage”, “emits the laser beam in a predetermined direction to an object to be processed set on a processing stage”, and “take in the shield gas blown from the blow off unit” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 2-4 recite the limitation(s):
“a moving unit configured to move in a second intersecting direction that intersects both the predetermined direction and the first intersecting direction with respect to the processing stage and provided with the irradiation unit”
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 generic placeholder(s) “unit” that is/are coupled with functional language(s) “move in a second intersecting direction … the irradiation unit” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claim 3 recites the limitation:
“a control unit configured to control activation and deactivation of the blow off unit and the intake unit”
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 generic placeholder(s) “unit” that is/are coupled with functional language(s) “control activation and deactivation of the blow off unit and the intake unit” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Claims 6-9 recite the limitations:
“a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit”
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 generic placeholder(s) “unit” that is/are coupled with functional language(s) “a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “a blow off unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0037 discloses: “ Each blow off unit 17 has a blow off port from which the shield gas G is blown”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “an irradiation unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0026 discloses: “the processing apparatus 10 includes a leaser head (an irradiation unit) 11 that irradiates the composite material 1 with the laser beam L”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “an intake unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0040 discloses: “Each intake unit 18 has an intake port from which the shield gas G is taken in”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “a moving unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0034, 0066 and fig.9, a moving unit (16, 32, 33) comprises the support unit 16 is a long member extending in the X-axis direction, wherein one end of the support unit 16 in the X-axis direction is fixed to the upper end of the first support leg (a moving unit) 32. Further, in the support unit 16, the other end in the X-axis direction is fixed to the upper end of the second support leg (a moving unit) 33.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “a control unit” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0083 discloses: “the control device is formed of a central processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), a computer readable storage medium, and the like.”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “an assist gas supply unit”” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0029 discloses: “the assist gas supply unit 12 is a cylindrical member, and the assist gas A flows therein”.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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 § 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.
Claims 13-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the X-axis direction” in line 3 There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim and it is unclear the direction that the limitation “the X-axis direction” refers to. For examination purposes, it is construed as the “first intersecting direction” previously recited in claim 1. Claim 14 recites the same limitation “the X-axis direction” and this claim is rejected by the same reason as discussed in claim 13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a processing stage” in last lines. It is unclear if the limitation “a processing stage” corresponds to the claimed “processing stage” previously recited in claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation “a processing stage” (claim 13) is construed as the one in claim 1. If so, the limitation “a processing stage” (claim 13) should be amended as “the processing stage”.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 6-8, 11-12 and 15-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu (US 20180345416 A1) in view of Ohnishi (US20080028907A1)
Regarding claim 1, Zhu discloses A dust collection device (laser cutting device, see abstract) comprising:
a blow off unit (3, see fig.1) configured to blow off a shield gas to an irradiation point (C, see fig.1) irradiated with a laser beam (11, see fig.1) by an irradiation unit (1, see fig.1) that emits the laser beam (11) in a predetermined direction (vertical direction, see fig.1) to an object (6, see fig.1) to be processed (see fig.1 and para.0029: “ a gas flow from the gas blow mouth 30 of the gas blow pipe 300 inclines relative to the laser beam 11 and is capable of aiming at the cutting point C”)
an intake unit (400, see fig.1) configured to take in the shield gas blown from the blow off unit (3, see fig.1 and see para.0031: “the gas suction pipe 400 is usually configured for being in fluidic communication with a negative pressure system, to suck away the high pressure gas from the gas blow pipe 300 and pollution particles including smoke and molten slag generated in the laser cutting process quickly”), wherein the blow off unit (3) and the intake unit (400) are provided so as to interpose the irradiation point (C, see fig.1) and face each other in a first intersecting direction (intersecting direction of 3 and 400, see fig.1) that intersects the predetermined direction (vertical direction, see fig.1), and wherein the blow off unit (3) and the intake unit (400) cause the shield gas to flow in one direction (see fig.1 and para.0031).
Zhu discloses the object 6 to be processed (see fig.1), but Zhu does not expressly disclose the object set on a processing stage.
Ohnishi discloses a cutting machine, comprising:
the object (14, see fig.1) set on a processing stage((13, see fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the dust collection device of Zhu to incorporate the processing stage of Ohnishi so as the object set on the processing stage as taught by Ohnishi. The stage secures the workpiece, aligns it with the laser’s coordinate system, and maintains stability throughout the process, which is essential for clean, accurate, and repeatable laser cuts.
Regarding claim 2, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Zhu does not expressly disclose a moving unit configured to move in a second intersecting direction that intersects both the predetermined direction and the first intersecting direction with respect to the processing stage and provided with the irradiation unit, wherein the blow off unit and the intake unit are provided in the moving unit.
Ohnishi further discloses a moving unit (combo moving carriage 20, 18 and the table 12, see fig.1, wherein the moving carriage 18 is movable, see para.0049) configured to move in a second intersecting direction (X-axis, see fig.1 and para.0049: “When the moving carriage 18 moves in the X-axis direction, the Y-axis boom 20 also moves with it in the X-axis direction”. Items 18 and 20, which are parts of the combo 18 and 12, moves in X-axis direction) that intersects both the predetermined direction (Z axis, see fig.1) and the first intersecting direction (Y axis, see fig.2) with respect to the processing stage (13, see fig.1) and provided with the irradiation unit (24, see figs.1-2), wherein the blow off unit (26C, see fig.2) and the intake unit (36C, see fig.2) are provided in the moving unit (combo moving carriage 18 and the table 12, see fig.2. Items 26C and 36C are provided in the table 12, which is a part of the combo 18 and 12) .
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the dust collection device of Zhu in view of Ohnishi, as set forth, to incorporate the “moving unit configured to move in a second intersecting direction that intersects both the predetermined direction and the first intersecting direction with respect to the processing stage and provided with the irradiation unit, wherein the blow off unit and the intake unit are provided in the moving unit” as taught by Ohnishi. Doing so enables the laser beam to be directed to any point on the workpiece, making it possible to cut intricate, multi-axis shapes with high accuracy and efficiency. In addition, it maximizes cut quality while creating negative air pressure to keep the workpiece safe and clean.
Regarding claim 3, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth.
Zhu does not expressly disclose a moving unit configured to move in a second intersecting direction that intersects both the predetermined direction and the first intersecting direction with respect to the processing stage and provided with the irradiation unit; and a control unit configured to control activation and deactivation of the blow off unit and the intake unit, wherein a plurality of blow off units and intake units are aligned in the second intersecting direction, and wherein, in response to movement of the irradiation unit, the control unit activates the blow off unit and the intake unit which are aligned with the irradiation unit in the first intersecting direction and deactivates the blow off units and the intake units which are not aligned with the irradiation unit in the first intersecting direction.
Ohnishi further discloses a moving unit (20, see figs.1-2) configured to move in a second intersecting direction (X-axis, see fig.1 and para.0049: “When the moving carriage 18 moves in the X-axis direction, the Y-axis boom 20 also moves with it in the X-axis direction”) that intersects both the predetermined direction (Z axis, see fig.1) and the first intersecting direction (Y axis, see fig.1) with respect to the processing stage (13, see fig.1) and provided with the irradiation unit (24, see fig.1); and
a control unit (40, see fig.1) configured to control activation and deactivation of the blow off unit (26C, see fig.2 and para.0064: “ the opening and closing of the blower dampers (see FIG. 3) 6A-6F and the exhaust dampers (see FIG. 3) 96A-96F are controlled by the controller 40”, wherein “Blower dampers (see FIG. 3) 6A-6F are provided on the blower ports 26A-26F, respectively …, and exhaust dampers (see FIG. 3) 96A-96F are provided on the exhaust ports 36A-36F,”, see para.0056), and the intake unit (36C, see fig.2), wherein a plurality of blow off units (26E-F, see fig.2) and intake units (36E-F, see fig.2) are aligned in the second intersecting direction (X-axis, see fig.2), and wherein, in response to movement of the irradiation unit (24, see fig.2), the control unit (40) activates the blow off unit (26C, see fig.2) and the intake unit (36C, see fig.2), which are aligned with the irradiation unit (24) in the first intersecting direction (Y axis, see fig.2 and para.0065: “assume a case in which the current position of the cutting head 24 with respect to one exhaust chamber 34C, as indicated by the dotted lines in FIG. 2, is moving from right to left in the diagram as the cutting head 24 moves along the X axis. In this case, the exhaust chamber 34C that corresponds to the position of the cutting head 24 (hereinafter for simplicity called “the current target exhaust chamber”) is selected as the exhaust chamber to be ventilated, and the exhaust damper of the exhaust port 36C of the current target exhaust chamber 34C is opened”) and deactivates the blow off units (26E-F) and the intake units (36E-F) which are not aligned with the irradiation unit (24) in the first intersecting direction (Y axis, see fig. 2 and para.0065: “unselected exhaust chambers 34A, 34E and 34F are not ventilated”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify the dust collection device of Zhu in view of Ohnishi, as set forth, to incorporate the “moving unit configured to move in a second intersecting direction that intersects both the predetermined direction and the first intersecting direction with respect to the processing stage and provided with the irradiation unit; and a control unit configured to control activation and deactivation of the blow off unit and the intake unit, wherein a plurality of blow off units and intake units are aligned in the second intersecting direction, and wherein, in response to movement of the irradiation unit, the control unit activates the blow off unit and the intake unit which are aligned with the irradiation unit in the first intersecting direction and deactivates the blow off units and the intake units which are not aligned with the irradiation unit in the first intersecting direction” as taught by Ohnishi. Doing so enables the laser beam to be directed to any point on the workpiece, making it possible to cut intricate, multi-axis shapes with high accuracy and efficiency. In addition, it maximizes cut quality while creating negative air pressure to keep the workpiece safe and clean.
Regarding claim 6, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except an intake rate at the intake unit is greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the flow rates of Zhu in view of Ohnishi to have the “intake rate at the intake unit is greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed”. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144). In this case, Zhu in view of Ohnishi teaches a certain intake rate at the intake unit 400 and a certain sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit 3 and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit (31) that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed (see fig.1 of Zhu),and having a specific intake rate at the intake unit is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the intake rate at the intake unit to be “greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so to prevents the assist gas from leaking to the outside of the laser cutting machine that benefits operator safety, extends the lifespan of the machine, and improves the quality of the cut.
Regarding claim 7, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2, except an intake rate at the intake unit is greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the flow rates of Zhu in view of Ohnishi to have the “intake rate at the intake unit is greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed”. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144). In this case, Zhu in view of Ohnishi teaches a certain intake rate at the intake unit 400 and a certain sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit 3 and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit (31) that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed (see fig.1 of Zhu),and having a specific intake rate at the intake unit is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the intake rate at the intake unit to be “greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so to prevents the assist gas from leaking to the outside of the laser cutting machine that benefits operator safety, extends the lifespan of the machine, and improves the quality of the cut.
Regarding claim 8, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2, except an intake rate at the intake unit is greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed.
However, It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the flow rates of Zhu in view of Ohnishi to have the “intake rate at the intake unit is greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed”. since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144). In this case, Zhu in view of Ohnishi teaches a certain intake rate at the intake unit 400 and a certain sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit 3 and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit (31) that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed (see fig.1 of Zhu),and having a specific intake rate at the intake unit is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the intake rate at the intake unit to be “greater than or equal to a sum of a flow rate of the shield gas blown from the blow off unit and a flow rate of an assist gas supplied from an assist gas supply unit that supplies the assist gas in the predetermined direction to the object to be processed” is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so to prevents the assist gas from leaking to the outside of the laser cutting machine that benefits operator safety, extends the lifespan of the machine, and improves the quality of the cut.
Regarding claim 11, Zhu further discloses the blow off unit (3, see fig.1) includes a blow off port (3) configured to blow off the shield gas (See para.0030), and except the blow off port has a slit shape.
However, Ohnishi further discloses the blow off port has a slit shape (See fig.2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the shape of the blow off port to have a slit shape as taught by Ohnishi. The slit shape can create a more gradual pressure release than a small round hole, reducing turbulence and helping to prevent sudden pressure spikes that could affect cycling consistency.
Regarding claim 12, Zhu further discloses the blow off unit (3) comprises a blow off port (30) from which a shield gas G is blown (See fig.1);
the irradiation unit (1) comprises a laser head (See fig.1 and para.0027); and
the intake unit (400) comprises an intake port (400) from which the shield gas G is taken in (See fig.1).
Regarding claim 15, Zhu further discloses the assist gas supply unit (31, see fig.1) comprises a cylindrical member (31, see fig.1) through which the assist gas flows (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 16, Zhu further discloses the assist gas supply unit (31, see fig.1) comprises a cylindrical member (31, see fig.1) through which the assist gas flows (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 17, Zhu further discloses the assist gas supply unit (31, see fig.1) comprises a cylindrical member (31, see fig.1) through which the assist gas flows (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 18, Zhu further discloses the assist gas supply unit (31, see fig.1) comprises a cylindrical member (31, see fig.1) through which the assist gas flows (see fig.1).
Claim 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu view of Ohnishi as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Gerber (US 5836224 A)
Regarding claim 13, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2, Ohnishi further discloses the moving unit (20, see fig.1-2) comprises: an elongated support member (20) extending in the X-axis direction (Y-axis direction as shown in fig.1); except a first support leg and a second support leg, each extending in a Z-axis direction wherein a first end of the support member is fixed to an upper end of the first support leg and a second end of the support member is fixed to an upper end of the second support leg; and wherein the first support leg and the second support leg are supported by a processing stage movably in a Y-axis direction.
Gerber discloses an automatically controlled cutting machine, comprising:
a first support leg and a second support leg (see annotated fig.1 below), each extending in a Z-axis direction (vertical direction, See fig.1) wherein a first end of the support member (an end of 22, see fig.1) is fixed to an upper end of the first support leg (see upper end of the annotated first support leg) and a second end of the support member (another end of 22, see fig.1) is fixed to an upper end of the second support leg (see upper end of the annotated second support leg); and wherein the first support leg and the second support leg (see annotated fig.1 below) are supported by a processing stage (cutting table 11, see figs.1-3) movably in a Y-axis direction (x direction, see fig.1).
++++++
PNG
media_image1.png
544
1033
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Gerber
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the moving unit of Zhu view of Ohnishi to have “a first support leg and a second support leg, each extending in a Z-axis direction wherein a first end of the support member is fixed to an upper end of the first support leg and a second end of the support member is fixed to an upper end of the second support leg; and wherein the first support leg and the second support leg are supported by a processing stage movably in a Y-axis direction” as taught by Gerber, in order for “holding sheet material during a work operation with minimal disturbing forces to the material itself” (see col. 2 lines 10-13 of Gerber). In addition, it allows the workpiece is unloaded from the cutting table/stage easily.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhu view of Ohnishi as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Hagenlocher (US 20170151629 A1) and further in view of Morita (US 20210323092 A1)
Regarding claim 14, the modification discloses the claimed limitations as set forth in claim 2, Ohnishi further discloses the moving unit (20) comprises: an elongated support member (20) extending in the X-axis direction (Y-axis direction as shown in fig.1); except wherein a first end of the elongated support member is supported by a first wall and a second end portion of the elongated support member is supported by a second wall, the first wall and the second wall being disposed on opposite side in the X-axis direction; and wherein the elongated support member is supported by the first wall and the second wall movably in a Y-axis direction; andwherein the control unit comprises a processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), and a computer readable storage medium.
Hagenlocher discloses a laser processing machine , comprising:
a first end of the elongated support member (see one end of the elongated support member in annotated fig.1 below) is supported by a first wall (see first wall in annotated fig.1 below) and a second end portion of the elongated support member (see another end of the annotated elongated support member in annotated fig.1 below) is supported by a second wall (see second wall in annotated fig.1 below), the first wall and the second wall being disposed on opposite side in the X-axis direction (see annotated fig.1 below); and wherein the elongated support member (elongated support member in annotated fig.1 below) is supported by the first wall and the second wall movably in a Y-axis direction (see annotated fig.1 below).
PNG
media_image2.png
640
988
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Hagenlocher
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the moving unit of Zhu view of Ohnishi to have “a first end of the elongated support member is supported by a first wall and a second end portion of the elongated support member is supported by a second wall, the first wall and the second wall being disposed on opposite side in the X-axis direction; and wherein the elongated support member is supported by the first wall and the second wall movably in a Y-axis direction” as taught by Hagenlocher. Doing so allows to hold the laser processing stably on both sides which allows to move easily and improves the accuracy when machining the workpiece.
Zhu view of Ohnishi discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except the control unit comprises a processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), and a computer readable storage medium.
Morita discloses additive manufacturing apparatus using an irradiation unit that irradiates the process area with a laser beam that melts the build material, comprising:
the control unit (1, see fig.1) comprises a processing unit (CPU) (41, see fig.3) , a random access memory (RAM) (42, see fig.1), a read only memory (ROM) (43, see fig.1)), and a computer readable storage medium (see para.0080).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify the control unit to comprise “a processing unit (CPU), a random access memory (RAM), a read only memory (ROM), and a computer readable storage medium” as taught by Morita. Doing so allows to turn the laser cutting device into a fully digital, programmable, and intelligent fabrication tool, capable of handling complex, repeatable, and high-precision cutting tasks.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112: the new amendments raise new issues so that the 11(b) rejections are maintained.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103:
Applicant’s arguments, see Remarks, filed on 01/30/2026, with respect to claim 1 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claim 1 has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made by Zhu in view of Ohnishi.
In response to the arguments, the limitation “the blow off unit and the intake unit are provided so as to interpose the irradiation point and face each other" is relied on Zhu in the new ground of rejection. Zhu teaches the blow off unit 3 and the intake unit 400 are provided so as to interpose the irradiation point C and face each other in at least fig.1 and para.0031.
It is noted that the above limitation is not relied on Ohnishi’s teachings.
For the above reasons, the rejections to claim 1 are respectfully sustained.
Claims 2-18 are rejected by the virtue of the dependency upon claim 1.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US4319120A discloses the control of shielding gas used in power-laser processes carried out on metal workpieces, such processes including, for example, cutting, drilling, welding and thermal treatments (coating of material, alloying or surface hardening).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights