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 10/21/2025 has been entered and accepted. The amendment with regard to the 112a and 112b rejections has been accepted and the rejections are withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Regarding the applicant’s argument that Pacher refers to a state after processing while the claimed language refers to state during processing (Page 7 of Applicant’s arguments failed 10/21/2025), the current claims do not limit the interpretation to that which the applicant argues. Furthermore, Pacher shows that the monitoring device is inline with the laser during processing (Pacher Figure 1). Furthermore, Paragraphs 88-89 of Pacher clearly teach that the step of directing a laser beam at the workpiece (step a) occurs at the same at the same time as the acquiring of images of the working zone (step c). Thus, the inline capturing of images at the same time of laser processing would result in Pacher capturing a state during processing.
Regarding the applicant’s argument that “Pacher does not disclose the “peak value” of the “light intensity” of the claimed invention (Page 7 of Applicant’s arguments failed 10/21/2025), the intensity at the high-intensity zones can reasonably be interpreted as peak value of the light intensity under BRI.
Applicant’s other arguments, see applicant’s remarks, filed 10/21/2025, have been fully considered and are persuasive. A new rejection has been made in view of PACHER (US 20210213567 A1) in view of KESSLER (DE 102012216928 A1). A full rejection can be found below.
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 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: “a laser processing unit” in claim 1, “an imaging device” in claim 1, “a control device” in claim 1, “a storage unit” in claim 2, “an image processing unit” in claim 2, and “a control unit” in claim 2.
Regarding “a laser processing unit” in claim 1, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of at least a laser oscillator (per para. 0029).
Regarding “an imaging device” in claim 1, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of at least a camera (per para. 0029).
Regarding “a control device” in claim 1, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of at least a physical controller (per para. 30)
Regarding “a storage unit” in claim 2, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of at least a physical storage medium (per para. 43).
Regarding “an image processing unit” in claim 2, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of at least a physical controller or piece of hardware (per para. 48).
Regarding “a control unit” in claim 2, 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. A review of the specification and drawing found the corresponding structure of at least a physical piece of hardware such as a CPU (per para. 48).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 5, 7, and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PACHER (US 20210213567 A1) in view of KESSLER (DE 102012216928 A1).
Regarding claim 1, PACHER (US 20210213567 A1) teaches a laser processing machine (Paragraph 51, laser treatment machine 1) comprising:
a laser processing unit configured to process a workpiece by using a laser beam (Figure 1 Paragraph 51, laser treatment machine 1 is used to process workpiece 2 with a laser beam);
an imaging device configured to image the workpiece irradiated with the laser beam (Paragraphs 43-44, monitoring device 8 comprises at least one video camera 17 is configured to acquire a light beam 18 originating from the working zone 7); and
a control device configured to control the laser processing unit in accordance with a processing condition for processing the workpiece (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1), wherein
the control device is configured to control operation of the laser processing unit (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1) such that size of an optical image and a peak value of light intensity observed from image information obtained by imaging the workpiece with the imaging device approach preset reference values (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1 in a feedback manner; Paragraphs 67-69 and 74, characteristic parameter is defined by a length and intensity of the high-intensity zone; Paragraphs 85 and 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters based on a quality value chosen by the operator),
the processing condition that defines operation of the laser processing unit controlled by the control device includes a focus position of the laser beam and processing velocity of the laser beam relative to the workpiece (Paragraph 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters which include the velocity between the laser beam and workpiece as well as the position of focus of the laser beam)
the control device is configured to control operation of the laser processing unit such that the processing velocity and/or the focus position is changed based on the size of the optical image being smaller than the reference value (Paragraphs 69-70, length and/or widths are used to define the characteristic parameters; Paragraph 88 the control device controls in feedback the position of focus of the laser beam and the velocity between the laser beam and the workpiece based on the function of the quality value), and
the control device is configured to control operation of the laser processing unit such that the processing velocity and/or the focus position is changed based on the size of the optical image is larger than the reference value (Paragraphs 69-70, length and/or widths are used to define the characteristic parameters; Paragraph 88 the control device controls in feedback the position of focus of the laser beam and the velocity between the laser beam and the workpiece based on the function of the quality value).
While PACHER fails to explicitly teach that “processing velocity is increased and/or the focus position is raised, in a case where the size of the optical image is smaller than the reference value” and that “processing velocity is decreased and/or the focus position is lowered, in a case where the size of the optical image is larger than the reference value”, KESLER (DE 102012216928 A1) teaches of a method for determine laser processing parameters when processing a workpiece using a laser comprising creating a large number of individual images of the processing area and wherein Figures 4a and 6a as well as Paragraphs 36-37 teach that increasing the feed rate causes the focal spot to assume a larger and elongated oval shape. Thus, since the feed rate has a direct relationship with the velocity of the laser beam, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PACHER with KESLER and increased the processing velocity when the size of the optical image is too small and decrease the processing velocity when the size of the optical image is too big. This would have been done to obtain a quality value substantially equal to the desired quality value (KESLER Paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 5, PACHER (US 20210213567 A1) teaches a laser processing machine (Paragraph 51, laser treatment machine 1) comprising:
a laser processing unit configured to process a workpiece by using a laser beam (Figure 1 Paragraph 51, laser treatment machine 1 is used to process workpiece 2 with a laser beam);
an imaging device configured to image the workpiece irradiated with the laser beam (Paragraphs 43-44, monitoring device 8 comprises at least one video camera 17 is configured to acquire a light beam 18 originating from the working zone 7); and
a control device configured to control the laser processing unit in accordance with a processing condition for processing the workpiece (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1), wherein
the control device is configured to control operation of the laser processing unit (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1) such that size of an optical image and a peak value of light intensity observed from image information obtained by imaging the workpiece with the imaging device approach preset reference values (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1 in a feedback manner; Paragraphs 67-69 and 74, characteristic parameter is defined by a length and intensity of the high-intensity zone; Paragraphs 85 and 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters based on a quality value chosen by the operator),
the processing condition that defines operation of the laser processing unit controlled by the control device includes a focus position of the laser beam and processing velocity of the laser beam relative to the workpiece (Paragraph 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters which include the velocity between the laser beam and workpiece as well as the position of focus of the laser beam),
the control device is configured to control operation of the laser processing unit such that the processing velocity and/or the focus position is changed, in a case where the peak value of the light intensity is smaller than the reference value (Paragraphs 67-68, peak intensity regions are regions which have intensities equal to or greater than determined intensity threshold; Paragraphs 69-70, length and/or widths are used to define the characteristic parameters; Paragraph 88 the control device controls in feedback the position of focus of the laser beam and the velocity between the laser beam and the workpiece based on the function of the quality value; the control device would increase the processing velocity during normal operation when a portion of captured image contains a peak value of light intensity smaller than the reference value), and
the control device is configured to control operation of the laser processing unit such that the processing velocity and/or the focus position is changed, in a case where the peak value of the light intensity is larger than the reference value (Paragraphs 67-68, peak intensity regions are regions which have intensities equal to or greater than determined intensity threshold; Paragraphs 69-70, length and/or widths are used to define the characteristic parameters; Paragraph 88 the control device controls in feedback the position of focus of the laser beam and the velocity between the laser beam and the workpiece based on the function of the quality value; the control device would decrease the processing velocity during normal operation when a portion of captured image contains a peak value of light intensity greater than the reference value).
While PACHER fails to explicitly teach that “processing velocity is increased and/or the focus position is lowered, in a case where the peak value of the light intensity is smaller than the reference value” and that “processing velocity is decreased and/or the focus position is raised, in a case where the peak value of the light intensity is larger than the reference value”, KESLER (DE 102012216928 A1) teaches of a method for determine laser processing parameters when processing a workpiece using a laser comprising creating a large number of individual images of the processing area and wherein Figures 4a and 6a as well as Paragraphs 36-37 teach that intensity or brightness of the capillary increases with increasing feed rate. Thus, since the feed rate has a direct relationship with the intensity, 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 PACHER with KESLER and increased the processing velocity when the size of intensity is too small and decrease the processing velocity when the intensity is too big. This would have been done to obtain a quality value substantially equal to the desired quality value (KESLER Paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 7, PACHER (US 20210213567 A1) teaches a processing method by a laser processing machine including a laser processing unit configured to process a workpiece by using a laser beam (Figure 1 Paragraph 51, laser treatment machine 1 is used to process workpiece 2 with a laser beam); an imaging device configured to image the workpiece irradiated with the laser beam (Paragraphs 43-44, monitoring device 8 comprises at least one video camera 17 is configured to acquire a light beam 18 originating from the working zone 7); and a control device configured to control the laser processing unit in accordance with a processing condition for processing the workpiece (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1), the processing method comprising
performing processing by controlling, by the control device (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1), operation of the laser processing unit such that size of an optical image and a peak value of light intensity observed from image information obtained by imaging the workpiece with the imaging device satisfy preset reference values (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1 in a feedback manner; Paragraphs 67-69 and 74, characteristic parameter is defined by a length and intensity of the high-intensity zone; Paragraphs 85 and 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters based on a quality value chosen by the operator)
compensating the processing condition such that the size of the optical image and the peak value of the light intensity approach the reference values (Paragraphs 67-69 and 74, characteristic parameter is defined by a length and intensity of the high-intensity zone; Paragraphs 85 and 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters based on a quality value chosen by the operator), and controlling operation of the laser processing unit in accordance with the compensated processing condition (Paragraph 54, creation of dross occurs in function of one or more process parameters; Paragraph 59, quality value is indicative of the quality of the cutting/piecing and the presence of dross formed at the working zone; Paragraph 88, one or more process parameters are controlled in feedback mode in function of the quality value; Paragraphs 112-113, process parameters are checked in view of and controlled such as to obtain a quality value substantially qual to the desired quality value).
the compensated processing condition includes a focus position of the laser beam and processing velocity of the laser beam relative to the workpiece (Paragraph 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters which include the velocity between the laser beam and workpiece as well as the position of focus of the laser beam)
compensating the processing condition such that the processing velocity and/or the focus position is adjusted, in a case where the size of the optical image is smaller than the reference value (Paragraphs 69-70, length and/or widths are used to define the characteristic parameters; Paragraph 88 the control device controls in feedback the position of focus of the laser beam and the velocity between the laser beam and the workpiece based on the function of the quality value); and
compensating the processing condition such that the processing velocity and/or the focus position is adjusted, in a case where the size of the optical image is larger than the reference value (Paragraphs 69-70, length and/or widths are used to define the characteristic parameters; Paragraph 88 the control device controls in feedback the position of focus of the laser beam and the velocity between the laser beam and the workpiece based on the function of the quality value).
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.
The limitations “in a case” are conditional, the limitations based on that detection are not required.
While PACHER fails to explicitly teach that “the processing velocity is increased and/or the focus position is raised, in a case where the size of the optical image is smaller than the reference value” and that “that the processing velocity is decreased and/or the focus position is lowered, in a case where the size of the optical image is larger than the reference value”, KESLER (DE 102012216928 A1) teaches of a method for determine laser processing parameters when processing a workpiece using a laser comprising creating a large number of individual images of the processing area and wherein Figures 4a and 6a as well as Paragraphs 36-37 teach that increasing the feed rate causes the focal spot to assume a larger and elongated oval shape. Thus, since the feed rate has a direct relationship with the velocity of the laser beam, it would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PACHER with KESLER and increased the processing velocity when the size of the optical image is too small and decrease the processing velocity when the size of the optical image is too big. This would have been done to obtain a quality value substantially equal to the desired quality value (KESLER Paragraph 113).
Regarding claim 11, PACHER (US 20210213567 A1) teaches a processing method by a laser processing machine including a laser processing unit configured to process a workpiece by using a laser beam (Figure 1 Paragraph 51, laser treatment machine 1 is used to process workpiece 2 with a laser beam); an imaging device configured to image the workpiece irradiated with the laser beam (Paragraphs 43-44, monitoring device 8 comprises at least one video camera 17 is configured to acquire a light beam 18 originating from the working zone 7); and a control device configured to control the laser processing unit in accordance with a processing condition for processing the workpiece (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1), the processing method comprising
performing processing by controlling, by the control device (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1), operation of the laser processing unit such that size of an optical image and a peak value of light intensity observed from image information obtained by imaging the workpiece with the imaging device satisfy preset reference values (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1 in a feedback manner; Paragraphs 67-69 and 74, characteristic parameter is defined by a length and intensity of the high-intensity zone; Paragraphs 85 and 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters based on a quality value chosen by the operator)
compensating the processing condition such that the size of the optical image and the peak value of the light intensity approach the reference values (Paragraphs 67-69 and 74, characteristic parameter is defined by a length and intensity of the high-intensity zone; Paragraphs 85 and 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters based on a quality value chosen by the operator), and controlling operation of the laser processing unit in accordance with the compensated processing condition (Paragraph 54, creation of dross occurs in function of one or more process parameters; Paragraph 59, quality value is indicative of the quality of the cutting/piecing and the presence of dross formed at the working zone; Paragraph 88, one or more process parameters are controlled in feedback mode in function of the quality value; Paragraphs 112-113, process parameters are checked in view of and controlled such as to obtain a quality value substantially qual to the desired quality value)
the compensated processing condition includes a focus position of the laser beam and processing velocity of the laser beam relative to the workpiece (Paragraph 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters which include the velocity between the laser beam and workpiece as well as the position of focus of the laser beam)
compensating the processing condition such that the processing velocity and/or the focus position is adjusted, in a case where the peak value of the light intensity is smaller than the reference value (Paragraphs 67-68, peak intensity regions are regions which have intensities equal to or greater than determined intensity threshold; Paragraphs 69-70, length and/or widths are used to define the characteristic parameters; Paragraph 88 the control device controls in feedback the position of focus of the laser beam and the velocity between the laser beam and the workpiece based on the function of the quality value; the control device would increase the processing velocity during normal operation when a portion of captured image contains a peak value of light intensity smaller than the reference value); and
compensating the processing condition such that the processing velocity and/or the focus position is adjusted, in a case where the peak value of the light intensity is larger than the reference value (Paragraphs 67-68, peak intensity regions are regions which have intensities equal to or greater than determined intensity threshold; Paragraphs 69-70, length and/or widths are used to define the characteristic parameters; Paragraph 88 the control device controls in feedback the position of focus of the laser beam and the velocity between the laser beam and the workpiece based on the function of the quality value; the control device would decrease the processing velocity during normal operation when a portion of captured image contains a peak value of light intensity greater than the reference value).
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.
The limitations “in a case” are conditional, the limitations based on that detection are not required.
While PACHER fails to explicitly teach that “compensating the processing condition such that the processing velocity is increased and/or the focus position is lowered, in a case where the peak value of the light intensity is smaller than the reference value” and that “compensating the processing condition such that the processing velocity is decreased and/or the focus position is raised, in a case where the peak value of the light intensity is larger than the reference value”, KESLER (DE 102012216928 A1) teaches of a method for determine laser processing parameters when processing a workpiece using a laser comprising creating a large number of individual images of the processing area and wherein Figures 4a and 6a as well as Paragraphs 36-37 teach that intensity or brightness of the capillary increases with increasing feed rate. Thus, since the feed rate has a direct relationship with the intensity, 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 PACHER with KESLER and increased the processing velocity when the size of intensity is too small and decrease the processing velocity when the intensity is too big. This would have been done to obtain a quality value substantially equal to the desired quality value (KESLER Paragraph 113).
Claim(s) 2 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PACHER (US 20210213567 A1) and KESSLER (DE 102012216928 A1) as applied to claims 1 and 5 above, and further in view of NISHIWAKI (US 20220226935 A1).
Regarding claim 2, PACHER teaches the laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein
the control device includes:
an image processing unit configured to analyze the image information, and calculate the size of the optical image and the peak value of the light intensity (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1 in a feedback manner; Paragraphs 67-69 and 74, characteristic parameter is defined by a length and intensity of the high-intensity zone; Paragraphs 85 and 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters based on a quality value chosen by the operator); and
a control unit configured to operate the laser processing unit such that the size of the optical image and the peak value approach the reference values stored in the storage unit (Paragraph 54, creation of dross occurs in function of one or more process parameters; Paragraph 59, quality value is indicative of the quality of the cutting/piecing and the presence of dross formed at the working zone; Paragraph 88, one or more process parameters are controlled in feedback mode in function of the quality value; Paragraphs 112-113, process parameters are checked in view of and controlled such as to obtain a quality value substantially qual to the desired quality value).
KESSLER further teaches:
an image processing unit configured to analyze the image information, and calculate the size of the optical image and the peak value of the light intensity (Paragraph 35, during image processing calculate the length, width, and diameter of the spots as well as the brightness value of the pixels in the area)
a control unit configured to operate the laser processing unit such that the size of the optical image and the peak value approach the reference values stored in the storage unit (Paragraphs 7-8, laser processing parameters can be understood as output signals of this controlled system and continuously compared with desired setpoint values by a control device such as to control input signals such as the focus position, feed rate, or the laser beam power)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 1.
PACHER fails to teach:
a storage unit configured to store the reference values;
NISHIWAKI (US 20220226935 A1) teaches a machine learning device for adjusting a laser processing to its optimum machining condition, comprising:
a storage unit configured to store the reference values (Paragraph 71, second information storage unit 12 stores in the form of a table numerical values such as information of the machining conditions);
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 PACHER with NISHIWAKI and used a storage unit to store the reference values. This would have been done to store the parameters and desired quality value to which the detected quality value and parameters are compared to (NISHIWAKI Paragraph 81).
Regarding claim 18, PACHER teaches the laser processing machine according to claim 5, wherein
the control device includes:
an image processing unit configured to analyze the image information, and calculate the size of the optical image and the peak value of the light intensity (Paragraph 27, control unit 3 is configured to control process parameters of the laser treatment machine 1 in a feedback manner; Paragraphs 67-69 and 74, characteristic parameter is defined by a length and intensity of the high-intensity zone; Paragraphs 85 and 88, establishing a quality value from these detected parameters and controlling in feedback the process parameters based on a quality value chosen by the operator); and
a control unit configured to operate the laser processing unit such that the size of the optical image and the peak value approach the reference values stored in the storage unit (Paragraph 54, creation of dross occurs in function of one or more process parameters; Paragraph 59, quality value is indicative of the quality of the cutting/piecing and the presence of dross formed at the working zone; Paragraph 88, one or more process parameters are controlled in feedback mode in function of the quality value; Paragraphs 112-113, process parameters are checked in view of and controlled such as to obtain a quality value substantially qual to the desired quality value).
KESSLER further teaches:
an image processing unit configured to analyze the image information, and calculate the size of the optical image and the peak value of the light intensity (Paragraph 35, during image processing calculate the length, width, and diameter of the spots as well as the brightness value of the pixels in the area)
a control unit configured to operate the laser processing unit such that the size of the optical image and the peak value approach the reference values stored in the storage unit (Paragraphs 7-8, laser processing parameters can be understood as output signals of this controlled system and continuously compared with desired setpoint values by a control device such as to control input signals such as the focus position, feed rate, or the laser beam power)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 5.
PACHER as modified fails to teach:
a storage unit configured to store the reference values;
NISHIWAKI (US 20220226935 A1) teaches a machine learning device for adjusting a laser processing to its optimum machining condition, comprising:
a storage unit configured to store the reference values (Paragraph 71, second information storage unit 12 stores in the form of a table numerical values such as information of the machining conditions);
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 PACHER with NISHIWAKI and used a storage unit to store the reference values. This would have been done to store the parameters and desired quality value to which the detected quality value and parameters are compared to (NISHIWAKI Paragraph 81).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761