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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 9, 13 and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 9, line 2, the limitation “the workpiece” should read “the metallic workpiece”.
In claim 13, line 1, the limitation “the workpiece” should read “the metallic workpiece”.
In claim 14, lines 2, 3 and 6, the limitation “the workpiece” should read “the metallic workpiece”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1-14 and 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over ARAI (JP H11145581 - mappings are to the EPO English translation) in view of KANO (US 2017/0232558).
Regarding claim 1, ARAI teaches a method for piercing a workpiece (9) by means of a pulsed laser beam (2), comprising: radiating the pulsed laser beam onto the workpiece to form a piercing breakthrough (para. 0015); wherein a radiated mean pulse power of the pulsed laser beam is reduced during piercing up to the piercing breakthrough (as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; para. 0010-0011; 0013-0015).
ARAI fails to disclose wherein a metallic workpiece having a thickness of 10mm is pierced.
KANO teaches a piercing and cutting method wherein a metallic workpiece (W) is pierced (para. 0022; 0027; 0033).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of ARAI, with KANO, by using the piercing method of ARAI in a metallic workpiece such as the one used in KANO, to assure proper piercing of the metallic workpiece before cutting. POSITA would have known that using the piercing method of ARAI in a metallic workpiece would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as proper piercing and cutting of the metallic workpiece.
ARAI and KANO fail to disclose wherein the metallic workpiece has a thickness of 10mm.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed thickness range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the radiated mean pulse power is reduced discretely and/or in steps and/or continuously (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; para. 0010-0011; 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 3, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein a line of best fit of the radiated mean pulse power has a negative slope during piercing (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; para. 0010-0011; 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 4, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the radiated mean pulse power and/or a pulse frequency is reduced in steps and, during each step, lies within a band with a predetermined minimum value and a predetermined maximum value (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; para. 0010-0011; 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 5, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the radiated mean pulse power is reduced by at least one of the following changes in pulse parameters of the pulsed laser beam: lengthening a pulse off-time, shortening a pulse on-time, reducing a pulse frequency, and reducing a relative pulse duty cycle (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; para. 0010-0011; 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 6, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the radiated mean pulse power is reduced by lengthening a pulse off-time and keeping a pulse peak power and/or a pulse on-time and/or a pulse energy constant during piercing (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 4; para. 0011).
Regarding claim 7, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein a first pulse frequency in a first piercing step at a start of piercing is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit pulse frequency (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; para. 0010-0011; 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 8, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the radiated mean pulse power is reduced in at least two steps, wherein a first pulse frequency in a first piercing step is greater than or equal to a predetermined limit pulse frequency and a second pulse frequency in a second piercing step is less than the first pulse frequency or than the limit pulse frequency (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; para. 0010-0011; 0013-0014).
Regarding claim 9, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 7 as set forth above, wherein the predetermined limit pulse frequency is based on the thickness and/or a material of the workpiece, and/or wherein the predetermined limit pulse frequency specifies a pulse frequency from which a piercing stop occurs (ARAI; para. 0010-0011).
Regarding claim 10, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein at least one of pulse parameters of the pulsed laser beam, selected from the group comprising a mean pulse power radiated, a pulse off-time, a pulse on-time, a pulse frequency, a relative pulse duty cycle and a pulse peak power, is adjusted based on a material and/or the thickness of the metallic workpiece and/or on a current piercing time and/or on a current piercing depth (ARAI; para. 0010-0011).
Regarding claim 11, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein a pulse off-time and/or a pulse on-time of the pulsed laser beam is in a range between 0.01 ms and 100 ms (ARAI; para. 0012; 0014).
Regarding claim 12, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein a pulse frequency of the pulsed laser beam is in a range between 200 Hz and 3000 Hz (ARAI; para. 0014).
Regarding claim 13, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein, when piercing a workpiece with a thickness of more than 20 mm, the radiated mean pulse power is changed in at least two steps (ARAI; para. 0011).
Regarding claim 14, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the radiated mean pulse power is controlled as a function of at least one of the following parameters: thickness of the workpiece, material of the workpiece, current piercing time, current piercing depth, type of process gas, process gas pressure, imaging ratio of an optical system of a laser machining head, focal position, focal diameter, intensity distribution of the laser beam, nozzle type, nozzle diameter, and nozzle distance from the workpiece (ARAI; para. 0011).
Regarding claim 16, ARAI and KANO combined teach a method of laser cutting (ARAI; abstract; KANO; abstract), comprising: a method for piercing as set forth above in claim 1 (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 2 and 4; para. 0010-0011; 0013-0015; KANO; para. 0022; 0027; 0033); and cutting by means of the laser beam starting from the formed piercing breakthrough (KANO; para. 0022); obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to assure proper workpiece cutting. POSITA would have known that using a piercing method in combination with a cutting method, would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as proper cutting of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 17, ARAI and KANO combined teach a device (ARAI; Fig. 1; KANO; Fig. 1) for laser material machining of the metallic workpiece (ARAI; 9) having a thickness of at least 10mm (obvious to one of ordinary skill as explained above in claim 1), comprising: a laser source (ARAI; 1; KANO; 1) for generating a laser beam (ARAI; 2; KANO; L); a laser machining head (ARAI; containing galvano mirrors 5 and 6 and telecentric f-theta lens 7; KANO; 3) for radiating the laser beam onto said workpiece (ARAI; as shown in Fig. 1; KANO; para. 0022); and a control device (ARAI; 11; KANO; 12-14) configured to control said device to perform the method for piercing of claim 1 as set forth above.
Regarding claims 18, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein the metallic workpiece is a metallic sheet (KANO; as shown in Fig. 1; para. 0027).
Regarding claim 19, ARAI and KANO combined teach the method of claim 1 as set forth above, wherein a pulse frequency of the pulsed laser beam is in a range between 400 Hz and 2000 Hz (ARAI; para. 0014).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/07/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “ARAI relates to drilling a hole in a printed circuit board, which will behave very much different from a metallic workpiece of a thickness of at least 10 mm. Therefore, the person having ordinary skills in the art would maintain the steps of KANO, which include increasing the laser output to a third output value at the last part of the piercing method of KANO, in order to cut a metallic workpiece of at least 10 mm, rather than apply the pulses of a large pulse width W11, a pulse width W12, and a pulse width W13 of Fig. 2 or Fig. 4 of ARAI. As such, Applicant respectfully submits that it would not have been obvious to modify the drilling a hole in a printed circuit board by a laser beam of ARAI with the laser machining method of forming a piercing hole in a workpiece of metal of KANO without the use of impermissible hindsight. In addition, Applicant respectfully submits that the combination of ARAI and KANO fails to expressly disclose or make obvious the features of amended independent claim 1 regarding a radiated mean pulse power of the pulsed laser beam is reduced during piercing up to the piercing breakthrough. KANO discloses that the first piercing process includes performing piercing by irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam while setting an output of the laser beam at a first output value. KANO explicitly teaches that during the second piercing process, the output of the laser beam is set at the second output value, and then is changed to a third output value, which is smaller than the first output value and larger than a second output value. (KANO, claim | and the upper part of Fig. 4). As such, KANO discloses that the output of the laser beam is increased from the second output value to the third output value in the second piercing process of making the piercing hole pierce through a bottom surface of the workpiece.” on remarks page 8, lines 12-29 and page 9, lines 1-5. In response to Applicant’s arguments, ARAI already discloses the claimed reduced pulse power during piercing, ARAI was combined with KANO to disclose the piercing of a metallic workpiece (para. 0022; 0027; 0033). Reducing the power during piercing reduces amount of heat spread into the surrounding material, reduces splatter, improves precision and reduces material damage, all of which improves quality, assuring proper piercing. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of ARAI, with KANO, by using the piercing method of ARAI in a metallic workpiece such as the one used in KANO, to assure proper piercing of the metallic workpiece before cutting. POSITA would have known that using the piercing method of ARAI in a metallic workpiece would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as proper piercing and cutting of the metallic workpiece. Even though ARAI and KANO fail to disclose wherein the metallic workpiece has a thickness of 10mm, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide the claimed thickness range, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
For these reasons, the arguments are not persuasive.
Regarding claims 2-14 and 16-19, Applicant relies on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
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 ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 10/22/2025
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761