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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 04/27/2026 has been entered.
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).
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over KANO (US 2017/0232558).
Regarding claim 20, KANO teaches a method for piercing a metallic workpiece (W) by a pulsed laser beam (L) (para. 0022; 0027; 0033), comprising: radiating the pulsed laser beam onto the metallic workpiece to form a piercing breakthrough (abstract; as shown in Fig. 3); wherein a radiated mean pulse power of the pulsed laser beam is reduced during piercing up to the piercing breakthrough (as shown in Fig. 4), wherein a first mean pulse power in a first piercing step at a start of piercing is greater than or equal to a predetermined mean limit pulse power from which on a piercing stop occurs (as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein a second mean pulse power in a second piercing step is less than the first mean pulse power or than the predetermined mean limit pulse power (as shown in Fig. 4).
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.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 04/27/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “ARAI does not relate to piercing a metallic workpiece. ARAI relates to drilling a blind hole in a printed circuit board (ARAI title and para. [0001]). However, the most common base material for a printed circuit board is based on epoxy resin. Thus, the general conditions of present claim 1 are not disclosed in ARAI. As the response of a workpiece to laser drilling is very much dependent on the material as well as the parameters of the laser pulses, ARAI can only teach drilling printed circuit boards, and, at most, optimum or workable ranges of a thickness of a printed circuit board may be derivable based on ARAI. It must furthermore be noted that a thickness of at least 10mm is by far larger than what the skilled person could expect as a workable thickness range of printed circuit boards for applying the teaching of ARAI. Moreover, ARAI deals with producing a hole having a desired taper shape while preventing damage to the inner layer copper foil, in the case of machining a bottomed hole (ARAI, para. [0014]). In the case of applying the teaching of ARAI to the case of a through hole, ARAI likewise desires that the hole has a conical surface (ARAI, paras. [0015] and [0016], "process the hole shape as intended"). It is not at all obvious that such teaching could be applied to a metallic workpiece, let alone a metallic workpiece having a thickness of at least 10mm. In particular, for the skilled person, there was no reasonable expectation of success for applying the teaching of ARAI to a metallic workpiece. Therefore, the feature of the "metallic workpiece having a thickness of at least 10 mm" cannot be obvious over ARAI.” on remarks page 7, lines 13-28, and page 8, lines 1-5. In response to Applicant’s arguments, the combination of ARAI and KANO is done to use the method of ARAI that reduces pulse power during piercing up to the piercing breakthrough in a metallic workpiece (KANO; para. 0022; 0027; 0033), one of ordinary skill in the art would have modified the laser parameters used in ARAI (to pierce a PCB) to pierce a metallic workpiece. 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.
Regarding claim 20, Applicant argues that “ARAI merely describes that the described processing was also applicable to the case of a through hole (ARAI, para. [0015]). The problem of an occurrence of a piercing stop is not mentioned or dealt with at all in ARAI. Nothing in paras. [0010]-[0011] of ARAI relates to an occurrence of a piercing stop (The Final Office Action, page 5, relating to claim 9). On the contrary, ARAI deals with producing a hole having a desired taper shape while preventing damage to the inner layer copper foil, in the case of machining a bottomed hole (ARAI, para. [0014]). Preventing damage to the inner layer copper foil means that the depth of the bottomed hole is intentionally limited - this is fundamentally different from avoiding an occurrence of a piercing stop.” on remarks page 9, lines 1-9. In response to Applicant’s arguments, KANO teaches a method for piercing a metallic workpiece (W) by a pulsed laser beam (L) (para. 0022; 0027; 0033), comprising: radiating the pulsed laser beam onto the metallic workpiece to form a piercing breakthrough (abstract; as shown in Fig. 3); wherein a radiated mean pulse power of the pulsed laser beam is reduced during piercing up to the piercing breakthrough (as shown in Fig. 4), wherein a first mean pulse power in a first piercing step at a start of piercing is greater than or equal to a predetermined mean limit pulse power from which on a piercing stop occurs (as shown in Fig. 4), and wherein a second mean pulse power in a second piercing step is less than the first mean pulse power or than the predetermined mean limit pulse power (as shown in Fig. 4). 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 reviews on the same arguments, therefore, the same response applies.
Conclusion
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 06/11/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights