DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 01/16/2026 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 101 rejection has been accepted and the rejection has been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “Harrison does not disclose, nor contemplate identifying whether the shape is symmetric or asymmetric” (Page 10 of applicant’s remarks filed 01/16/2026). However, Paragraph 74 of Harrison teaches of detecting, using a camera, a pattern of a laser light on a target and whether the observed properties of the pattern meet predetermined requirements such as shape and size. Geometric shapes include definitions of symmetry as a subset of their definitions and thus detecting the shape of a pattern also detects the symmetry of said pattern. As such, Harrison does disclose identifying whether a shape of an area irradiated by the laser beam is symmetric or asymmetric.
Applicant further argues that argues that “Harrison does not set up an imaging system to see the shape of a laser focus” (Page 10 of applicant’s remarks filed 01/16/2026). However, Figures 5B and 5C and Paragraphs 66-58 of Harrison teach that an image of the work area can be viewed and the laser light transmitted to the work area. This indicates that the laser light impinging on the target 72 can be imaged by the camera, and thus Harrison can see the shape of a laser focus. Furthermore, Paragraph 74 of Harrison directly states that image that the camera captures an image pattern on the target made by a laser light and that the shape of said pattern is determined. Thus, Harrison would clearly be capable of seeing the shape of a laser focus. The Office further notes that a lower power laser beam as described in Paragraph 74 of Harrison can reasonably read upon the limitation of a laser beam as said laser beam is not being required to process the workpiece by the claims.
Applicant further argues that argues that “Gumennik provides no teaching of real-time adjustment during irradiation of a workpiece” (Page 13 of applicant’s remarks filed 01/16/2026). However, the current claims are not limited to real-time adjustment during irradiation of a workpiece. As currently stated, the adjustment is only limited as a response to detection of a laser beam being in an out-of-focus state. Nowhere in the claim does there exist the requirement that the laser beam being detected need to also be processing the workpiece, nor is the laser beam even required under broadest reasonable interpretation to be capable of processing said workpiece. The limitation “workpiece to be processed” can be processed by a different laser beam or a completely different method if the preamble is interpreted as non-limiting. If the applicant wishes to specify the laser beam to be that of a processing laser beam, the Office encourages the applicant to limit the claims such as to include said limitations. Gumennik Paragraphs 44-46 teaches that there is a known relationship between the propagation distance of a laser beam and the shape of said laser beam wherein the circular shape of said laser beam is known in the art to be desirable. As such, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious upon detecting a noncircular shape as a result of the detection method of Harrison to have moved the relative distance between the object and the lens to the target zone of the circular cross section.
Furthermore, although the Office does not concede the point, even if the prior art of Harrison and Gumennik do not properly disclose the limitations of “wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface comprises, using the position image, identifying whether a shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is symmetric”, a position image of the laser beam on the surface of the workpiece is captured, and, using the position image, identifying whether a shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is symmetric”, the Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04II. Since the limitation “when the state of the laser beam on the surface is an out-of-focus state, adjusting a relative distance between a laser focal position and the surface” is conditional and the limitation of “wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface comprises” draws antecedent basis from a conditional limitation, the limitations based on that detection are not required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Harrison (US 20080044178 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Harrison (US 20080044178 A1) teaches an automatic surface tracing method for laser processing (Figure 6), the method comprising:
identifying a state of a laser beam on a surface of a workpiece to be processed (Paragraph 74, camera 96 captures a laser spot on the surface of target 72; Paragraph 87, laser cutting system 160 is intended to be used for cutting or welding);
when the state of the laser beam on the surface is an out-of-focus state, adjusting a relative distance between a laser focal position and the surface by adjusting a relative distance between a microscope objective for focusing the laser beam and the surface, while simultaneously identifying the state of the laser beam, until the state of the laser beam is determined to be an in-focus state;
The Office teaches that the MPEP teaches that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04II.
Since the limitation “when the state of the laser beam on the surface is an out-of-focus state” is conditional, the limitations based on that detection are not required.
wherein identifying the state of the laser beam includes: capturing a position image of the laser beam on the surface of the workpiece (Paragraph 74, camera 96 captures the image pattern of the laser formed on the surface of the target 72); and identifying the state of the laser beam according to the position image (Paragraph 74, observing the shape, size, crispness, or intensity of the pattern such as to determine the integrity and focus of focusing lens 48).
and wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface (conditional limitation) comprises, using the position image, identifying whether a shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is symmetric (Paragraph 74, the shape of the image pattern is determined and compared to whether it is within a margin of error of an initial calibration image; geometric shapes are defined as being symmetric or asymmetric).
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04II.
Since the limitation “when the state of the laser beam on the surface is an out-of-focus state, adjusting a relative distance between a laser focal position and the surface” is conditional and the limitation of “wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface comprises” draws antecedent basis from a conditional claim, the limitations based on the conditional limitation are not limiting.
The Office further notes that Thompson (US 5483055 A) teaches a method and apparatus for performing an automatic focus operation, wherein: when the state of the laser beam on the surface is an out-of-focus state, adjusting a relative distance between a laser focal position and the surface by adjusting a relative distance between a microscope objective for focusing the laser beam and the surface, while simultaneously identifying the state of the laser beam, until the state of the laser beam is determined to be an in-focus state (Column 8 Lines 23-49, target 112 is moved relative to the objective lens while the electronic focus signal 115 is less than the threshold value 302 until the electronic focus signal 15 exceeds the threshold value and the target 112 is stopped relative to the objective lens 110). There is also sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified Harrison with Thompson such as to perform automatic focusing operation. While Thompson teaches the use of a photodetector, the Office further notes that Paragraphs 54-55 of Spiess (US 20150224600 A1) teach that the measuring device for determining the intensity of detected process radiation in laser processing can be either a photodiode or camera which indicate that the two are known in the art to be substitutes for each other when calculating the average intensity of detected radiation.
Regarding claim 4, Harrison teaches the automatic surface tracing method according to claim 1, wherein identifying the state of the laser beam further comprises:
using the position image (Paragraph 74, camera 96 captures an image of the laser light pattern on the target 72),
calculating a size of the laser beam on the surface (Paragraph 74, the size of the pattern is compared with the initial calibration image to determine whether if the characteristics match within a predetermined margin of error);
comparing the size of the laser beam on the surface with a size threshold, the size threshold being a preset maximum size required to indicate that the state of the laser beam is an in-focus state (Paragraph 74, the size of the pattern is compared with the initial calibration image to determine whether if the characteristics match within a predetermined margin of error);
wherein:
when the size of the laser beam is smaller than the size threshold, the state of the laser beam is determined to be an in-focus state, and
when the size of the laser beam is not smaller equal to or greater than the size threshold, the state of the laser beam is determined to be an out-of-focus state.
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04II.
Since the limitations “when the size of the laser beam is smaller than the size threshold” and “when the size of the laser beam is not smaller equal to or greater than the size threshold” are conditional, the limitations based on that detection are not required.
The Office further notes that it is well known in the art that defocusing the laser beam on the surface of the workpiece causes the laser spot of the laser beam to become larger as evidenced by Nakanishi (US 20170297144 A1). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have similarity used a threshold to determine whether the laser beam is focused or not similarity to the determination of the intensity of the reflected laser beam as taught by Column 8 Lines 23-49 Thompson (US 5483055 A).
Regarding claim 6, Harrison as modified teaches the automatic surface tracing method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface (conditional limitation) comprises:
using the position image, determining an angle between a long axis direction of the elliptical shape and a predetermined reference direction (Paragraph 74, the shape and size of the image pattern is determined and compared to whether it is within a margin of error of an initial calibration image);
determining whether the angle is a first predetermined reference value or a second predetermined reference value (Paragraph 74, the shape and size of the image pattern is determined); and
when the angle is the first predetermined reference value, decreasing the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a first direction by a preset step distance; and
when the angle is the second predetermined reference value, decreasing the relative distance between the microscope objective and the working surface in a second direction that is opposite the first direction by a preset step distance.
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04II.
Since the limitation “when the state of the laser beam on the surface is an out-of-focus state, adjusting a relative distance between a laser focal position and the surface” is conditional and the limitation of “wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface comprises” draws antecedent basis from a conditional claim, the limitations based on the conditional limitation are not limiting.
Furthermore, since the limitations “when the angle is the first predetermined reference value” and “when the angle is the second predetermined reference value” are conditional, the limitations based on that detection are not required.
The Office further notes that Paragraphs 9 and 61 of SAMBI (US 20230057548 A1) teach of a laser cutting head for machine tools wherein heat absorption from heat generated by laser beams traveling through lenses is absorbed which causes astigmatism. Thus, astigmatism is introduced into every laser cutting apparatus to some degree. Paragraph 111 of Ehrmann (US 20050017156 A1) teaches that astigmatism can cause a laser beam to form an elliptical shape. Thus, the astigmatism introduced can reasonably cause the shape of the laser beam to become elliptical. Thus, the apparatus of Harrison does introduce an astigmatism which causes the shape of the area to be elliptical and thus teaches “introducing an astigmatism so that, when the state of the laser beam is an out-of-focus state, the shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is elliptical”.
The Office further notes that Gumennik (US 20170036398 A1) teaches a technique for ensuring that the laser light has a circular cross section, wherein when the angle is the first predetermined reference value, decreasing the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a first direction by a preset step distance (Figure 5 Paragraphs 44-46, a circular cross section exists beyond and to the right of the target zone which is further in the propagation direction and would require a decrease in distance from the lens to adjust to the target zone); and when the angle is the second predetermined reference value, decreasing the relative distance between the microscope objective and the working surface in a second direction that is opposite the first direction by a preset step distance (Figure 5 Paragraphs 44-46, a non-circular cross section exists before and to the left of the target zone which would require an increase in distance from the lens to adjust to the target zone). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harrison with Gumennik and have the laser device identify the shape of the laser beam on the surface of the target and move the relative distance between the lens and the target based on whether the shape of the laser beam is determined to be asymmetric or not. This would be done to ensure that the cross section of the beam is circular (Gumennik Paragraph 22) of which some of the calibration marks are shaped as (Harrison Figures 8-9). The Office further notes that it is well known in the art that laser processing apparatus advantageously correct laser beams for astigmatism as evidenced by Column 4 Line 64 – Column 5 Line 1 of Schnetzer (US 5632915 A).
Regarding claim 7, Harrison teaches the automatic surface tracing method according to claim 1, wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface (conditional limitation) comprises:
adjusting the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a first direction by a first preset step distance; and
adjusting the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a second direction opposite the first direction by a second preset step distance smaller than the first preset step distance until the state of the laser beam is determined to be an in-focus state.
The Office notes that the MPEP teaches that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04II.
Since the limitation “when the state of the laser beam on the surface is an out-of-focus state, adjusting a relative distance between a laser focal position and the surface” is conditional and the limitation of “wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface comprises” draws antecedent basis from a conditional claim, the limitations based on the conditional limitation are not limiting.
The Office further notes that SHIMAMOTO (JP 2001150171 A) teaches a method for automatically adjusting the focus in a laser processing machine, wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface comprises:
adjusting the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a first direction by a first preset step distance (Paragraph 18, laser torch 3 moves upward to a position at point A); and
adjusting the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a second direction opposite the first direction by a second preset step distance smaller than the first preset step distance until the state of the laser beam is determined to be an in-focus state (Paragraphs 18-20, laser torch 3 is lowered by a predetermined distance and then stopped until the laser torch is moved to point B which brings the lens into just focus).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harrison with SHIMAMOTO and performed the process as specified above. This would have been done to provide a focus adjustment method which performs focus adjustment with high precision (SHIMAMOTO Paragraph 5).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2-3 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 20080044178 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of BAUDIMONT (US 20160228987 A1).
Regarding claim 2, Harrison teaches the automatic surface tracing method according to claim 1, wherein:
using the position image, calculating an intensity of the laser beam on the surface of the workpiece within a laser irradiation area (Paragraph 74, controller determines the intensity of the image on the target 72), said laser irradiation area at least encompassing an area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam (Paragraph 74, determining if the intensity of the pattern is within the predetermined requirement);
comparing the average light intensity with a light intensity threshold, the light intensity threshold being a preset minimum light intensity required to indicate that the state of the laser beam is an in-focus state (Paragraph 74, a camera 96 captures the reflected light from a low-power visible light laser such as to determine the focus of focusing lens 48 by comparing the image detected to an initial calibration image to determine whether the intensity of the pattern meets the predetermined requirements)
wherein: when the average light intensity is lower than the light intensity threshold, the state of the laser beam is determined to be an out-of-focus state; and when the average light intensity is equal to or greater than the light intensity threshold, it is determined that the laser beam is an in-focus state
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04II.
Since the limitation “when the average light intensity is lower than the light intensity threshold” and “when the average light intensity is equal to or greater than the light intensity threshold” is conditional, the limitations based on that detection are not required.
The Office further notes that it is well known in the art that defocusing the laser beam on the surface of the workpiece causes the laser spot of the laser beam to become larger as evidenced by Nakanishi (US 20170297144 A1). Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to have similarity used a threshold to determine whether the laser beam is focused or not similarity to the determination of the intensity of the reflected laser beam as taught by Column 8 Lines 23-49 Thompson (US 5483055 A).
While Harrison fails to explicitly teach of “calculating an average light intensity of the laser beam”, BAUDIMONT (US 20160228987 A1) teaches a method for monitoring the energy density of a laser beam using parameters of a laser beam wherein the light intensity is determined through averaging the intensity profile of each image by measuring the grey levels of the surface exposed to the laser beam in several points and producing the average of the grey level over the entire surface (BAUDIMONT Paragraphs 20 and 57) such that said value is compared with a reference light intensity value to verify processing parameters (BAUDIMONT Paragraphs 62-64). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harrison with BAUDIMONT and calculated the average of the greyscale values of the camera. This would have been done as the value can be used to compare with reference values to ensure that the energy density is stable (BAUDIMONT Paragraph 64).
The Office further notes that Thompson (US 5483055 A) teaches a method and apparatus for performing an automatic focus operation, wherein: when the average light intensity (Column 3 Lines 61-64, analog electronic focus signal 115 which is proportional to the intensity f reflected laser beam 123 measured by the photodetector) is lower than the light intensity threshold, the state of the laser beam is determined to be an out-of-focus state (Column 8 Lines 28-33, the electronic focus signal is less than the threshold value which indicates that the target is out of focus); and when the average light intensity is equal to or greater than the light intensity threshold, it is determined that the laser beam is an in-focus state (Column 5 Lines 6-11, a focused condition is said to exist when the electronic focus signal 115 exceeds the threshold value). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harrison with Thompson such as to perform automatic focusing operation for a laser using a single discrete value of an average light intensity of the laser beam (Thompson Column 1 Lines 25-28). This would have been done to ensure the possibility of missing a focused condition is eliminated (Thompson Column 8 Lines 50-53).
While Thompson teaches the use of a photodetector, the Office further notes that Paragraphs 54-55 of Spiess (US 20150224600 A1) teach that the measuring device for determining the intensity of detected process radiation in laser processing can be either a photodiode or camera which indicate that the two are known in the art to be substitutes for each other when calculating the average intensity of detected radiation. Paragraph 91 of Harrison also teaches that the use of signal sensors as photodiodes and phototransistors among others.
Regarding claim 3, Harrison as modified teaches the automatic surface tracing method according to claim 2, wherein:
calculating the average light intensity of the laser beam on the surface comprises:
calculating a grayscale value of the laser irradiation area in the position image;
converting the calculated grayscale value, to obtain the average light intensity (Paragraph 60, image capture by camera 62 captures the image in grey scale; Paragraph 73, camera 96 captures images from points along the beam path 58 same as camera 62; Paragraph 64, the image is compared such as to determine fit the characteristics match within a predetermined margin of error)
BAUDIMONT further teaches:
calculating the average light intensity of the laser beam on the surface comprises:
calculating a grayscale value of the laser irradiation area in the position image (Paragraphs 56-57, image processing system 5 measures the grey levels of the surface exposed to the laser beam in several points from an image acquired by the image acquisition system);
converting the calculated grayscale value, to obtain the average light intensity (Paragraph 57, image processing system 5 measures the grey levels of the surface exposed to the laser beam in several points wherein a reference light intensity is determined by producing an average of the grey level over the whole of the points of the exposed surface)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, Harrison as modified teaches the automatic surface tracing method according to claim 2, wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface (conditional limitation) comprises:
when the shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is symmetric, decreasing the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a first direction by a preset step distance; and
when the shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is asymmetric, decreasing the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a second direction opposite the first direction by a preset step distance.
The Office further notes that the MPEP teaches that the broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04II.
Since the limitation “when the state of the laser beam on the surface is an out-of-focus state, adjusting a relative distance between a laser focal position and the surface” is conditional and the limitation of “wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface comprises” draws antecedent basis from a conditional claim, the limitations based on the conditional limitation are not limiting.
Since the limitations “when the shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is symmetric” and “when the shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is asymmetric” are conditional, the limitations based on that detection are not required.
The Office further notes that Gumennik (US 20170036398 A1) teaches a technique for ensuring that the laser light has a circular cross section, wherein adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface (Paragraph 33, position of the lens is adjusted in a precise location relative to the laser source to produce the desired beam) comprises: when the shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam is symmetric, decreasing the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a first direction by a preset step distance (Figure 5 Paragraphs 44-46, a circular cross section exists beyond and to the right of the target zone which is further in the propagation direction and would require a decrease in distance from the lens to adjust to the target zone); and when the shape of the area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam if it is asymmetric, decreasing the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a second direction opposite the first direction by a preset step distance (Figure 5 Paragraphs 44-46, a non-circular cross section exists before and to the left of the target zone which would require an increase in distance from the lens to adjust to the target zone). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harrison with Gumennik and have the laser device identify the shape of the laser beam on the surface of the target and move the relative distance between the lens and the target based on whether the shape of the laser beam is determined to be asymmetric or not. This would be done to ensure that the cross section of the beam is circular (Gumennik Paragraph 22) of which some of the calibration marks are shaped as (Harrison Figures 8-9).
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 20080044178 A1) in view of Thompson (US 5483055 A).
Regarding claim 15, Harrison (US 20080044178 A1) as modified with Thompson (US 5483055 A) teaches a non-transitory computer readable storage medium (Paragraph 92, controller 142 is typically a computer system having appropriate software and hardware for receiving input signals; controller 142/controller 68/controller block 14), wherein the storage medium stores a plurality of instructions (Paragraph 51, controller block 14 stores a plurality of instructions and information for comparing information and performing actions), and the instructions are adapted to be loaded by a processor to execute the steps in the automatic surface tracing method claim 1 (see claim 1 above).
The Office further notes that using a non-transitory memory device to store a system program such that a control unit reads said memory device to control a laser processing method is well known in the art as evidenced by Column 4 Lines 3-43 of Takahashi (US 10870172 B2).
Claim(s) 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 20080044178 A1) in view of Thompson (US 5483055 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of BAUDIMONT (US 20160228987 A1)
Regarding claim 16, Harrison as modified teaches the storage medium according to claim 15, wherein in said method identifying the state of the laser beam further comprises:
using the position image, calculating a light intensity of the laser beam on the surface of the workpiece within a laser irradiation area (Paragraph 74, controller determines the intensity of the image on the target 72), said laser irradiation area at least encompassing an area of the surface irradiated by the laser beam (Paragraph 74, determining if the intensity of the pattern is within the predetermined requirement);
comparing the average light intensity with a light intensity threshold, the light intensity threshold being a preset minimum light intensity required to indicate that the state of the laser beam is an in-focus state (Paragraph 74, a camera 96 captures the reflected light from a low-power visible light laser such as to determine the focus of focusing lens 48 by comparing the image detected to an initial calibration image to determine whether the intensity of the pattern meets the predetermined requirements);
Thompson further teaches:
calculating an average light intensity of the laser beam (Column 3 Lines 60-64, photodetector 114 generates an analog electronic focus signal 115 which represents an average light intensity)
wherein: when the average light intensity is lower than the light intensity threshold, the state of the laser beam is determined to be an out-of-focus state (Column 5 Lines 8-11, when the value of the electronic focus signal exceeds the threshold amount a focused condition is said to exist); and when the average light intensity is equal to or greater than the light intensity threshold, it is determined that the laser beam is an in-focus state (Column 8 Lines 23-49, target 112 is moved relative to the objective lens while the electronic focus signal 115 is less than the threshold value 302 until the electronic focus signal 15 exceeds the threshold value and the target 112 is stopped relative to the objective lens 110).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harrison with Thompson such as to perform automatic focusing operation for a laser using a single discrete value of an average light intensity of the laser beam (Thompson Column 1 Lines 25-28).
While Thompson teaches the use of a photodetector, the Office further notes that Paragraphs 54-55 of Spiess (US 20150224600 A1) teach that the measuring device for determining the intensity of detected process radiation in laser processing can be either a photodiode or camera which indicate that the two are known in the art to be substitutes for each other when calculating the average intensity of detected radiation.
While the Office does not concede the point, the applicant may argue that use of a photodetector does not constitute “calculating” an average intensity of the laser beam. However, BAUDIMONT (US 20160228987 A1) teaches a method for monitoring the energy density of a laser beam using parameters of a laser beam wherein the light intensity is determined through averaging the intensity profile of each image by measuring the grey levels of the surface exposed to the laser beam in several points and producing the average of the grey level over the entire surface (BAUDIMONT Paragraphs 20 and 57) such that said value is compared with a reference light intensity value to verify processing parameters (BAUDIMONT Paragraphs 62-64). It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harrison with BAUDIMONT and calculated the average of the greyscale values of the camera. This would have been done as the value can be used to compare with reference values to ensure that the energy density is stable (BAUDIMONT Paragraph 64) as well as be used for the autofocus function of Thompson.
Regarding claim 17, Harrison as modified teaches the storage medium according to claim 16, wherein
in said method calculating the average light intensity of the laser beam on the surface comprises: calculating a grayscale value of the laser irradiation area in the position image; converting the calculated grayscale value to obtain the average light intensity (Paragraph 60, image capture by camera 62 captures the image in grey scale; Paragraph 73, camera 96 captures images from points along the beam path 58 same as camera 62; Paragraph 64, the image is compared such as to determine fit the characteristics match within a predetermined margin of error)
BAUDIMONT further teaches:
in said method calculating the average light intensity of the laser beam on the surface comprises:
calculating a grayscale value of the laser irradiation area in the position image (Paragraphs 56-57, image processing system 5 measures the grey levels of the surface exposed to the laser beam in several points from an image acquired by the image acquisition system);
converting the calculated grayscale value to obtain the average light intensity (Paragraph 57, image processing system 5 measures the grey levels of the surface exposed to the laser beam in several points wherein a reference light intensity is determined by producing an average of the grey level over the whole of the points of the exposed surface)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 16.
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 20080044178 A1) in view of Thompson (US 5483055 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of Nakanishi (US 20170297144 A1).
Regarding claim 18, Harrison as modified teaches the storage medium according to claim 15, wherein in said method identifying the state of the laser beam further comprises:
using the position image, calculating a size of the laser beam on the surface (Paragraph 74, the size of the pattern is compared with the initial calibration image to determine whether if the characteristics match within a predetermined margin of error);
comparing the size of the laser beam on the surface with a size threshold, the size threshold being a preset maximum size required to indicate that the state of the laser beam is an in-focus state (Paragraph 74, the size of the pattern is compared with the initial calibration image to determine whether if the characteristics match within a predetermined margin of error),
While Harrison as modified does not explicitly teach wherein “ when the calculated size of the laser beam on the surface is smaller than the size threshold, the state of the laser beam is determined to be an in-focus state, and when the calculated size of the laser beam on the surface is equal to or greater than the size threshold, the state of the laser beam is determined to be an out-of-focus state”¸ the Office notes that it is well known in the art that defocusing the laser beam on the surface of the workpiece causes the laser spot of the laser beam to become larger as evidenced by Nakanishi (US 20170297144 A1). Since Column 8 Lines 23-49 Thompson (US 5483055 A) teaches of using a threshold of a parameter related to the focus of a laser beam to determine whether a laser beam is focused or not, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious to modified Harrison with Nakanishi to similarity have a threshold to determine whether the laser beam is focused or not similarity based on the size of the laser spot.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Harrison (US 20080044178 A1) in view of Thompson (US 5483055 A) as applied to claim 15 above, and further in view of SHIMAMOTO (JP 2001150171 A).
Regarding claim 19, Harrison as modified teaches a storage medium according to claim 15.
Harrison as modified fails to teach:
wherein in said method adjusting the relative distance between the laser focal position and the surface comprises:
adjusting the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a first direction by a first preset step distance;
adjusting the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a second direction opposite the first direction by a second preset step distance smaller than the first preset step distance until the state of the laser beam is determined to be an in-focus state.
SHIMAMOTO (JP 2001150171 A) teaches a method for automatically adjusting the focus in a laser processing machine, wherein the adjustment controller is configured to control the driver to perform the adjustment operation such that:
adjusting the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a first direction by a first preset step distance (Paragraph 18, laser torch 3 moves upward to a position at to point A; Paragraph 21, laser torch is moved up to point B which indicates the maximum value of the luminance area);
adjusting the relative distance between the microscope objective and the surface in a second direction opposite the first direction by a second preset step distance smaller than the first preset step distance until the state of the laser beam is determined to be an in-focus state (Paragraphs 18-20, laser torch 3 is lowered by a predetermined distance and then stopped until the laser torch is moved to point B which brings the lens into just focus; the movements to point A and point B is not based on pitch but based on distance between current and desired position which would be reasonably larger than the pitch).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Harrison with SHIMAMOTO and performed the process as specified above. This would have been done to provide a focus adjustment method which performs focus adjustment with high precision (SHIMAMOTO Paragraph 5).
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 FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761