DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 18 December 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Specification and Claim objections. The Specification and Claim objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments and argument that an “optical system” has a plain and ordinary meaning (page 10 of the Arguments filed 18 December 2025 / definition revealed through the recommended Google search was “a combination of lenses, mirrors, and prisms”) have been fully considered and have overcome the 35 USC 112a/b rejections based on interpretation under 35 USC 112f. Accordingly, the claim interpretation section and associated 35 USC 112a/b rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s argument that a “processor” is inherent structure within the Specification have been fully considered but are not persuasive. New 35 USC 112(a) rejections have been provided in the present Office action based on the Applicant’s amendments.
Applicant’s argument that claim 11 is definite has been fully considered but is not persuasive. Therefore, there is still grounds for a 35 USC 112(b) rejection in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 18 December 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-2, 6, and 8-12 have been amended. Claims 13-19 are new.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The “processor” of claims 1, 9, and 10 is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. As a result, by using the claim limitation “processor,” the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
In claim 1, the limitation “the first laser beam and the second laser beam being input to the entrance after passing through the multiplexing optical system to form a single combined laser beam within the optical fiber” is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead, the Specification discloses that “the core 52 transmits light having entered the optical fiber 51. The cladding 53 has a role of confining the light in the core 52.” As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
In claim 18, the limitation “wherein the quality information on the machining result includes at least one of a shape of the machined workpiece, a sound signal generated during machining, or an optical signal generated during machining” is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead, the Specification discloses that “the shape of the machined workpiece, a sound signal generated during machining, an optical signal, or the like may be acquired and used instead of the beam profile.” As a result, by using this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claims 2-8, 11-17, and 19 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claim. These new rejections have been added based on the amended portions of the claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 11 recites: “wherein an upper limit of a value of a beam parameter product of the combined laser beam is at least three times a lower limit, the beam parameter product being capable of being modulated.” It is unclear which structure of the apparatus claim 1 is responsible for this limitation. This limitation also appears to be a range, e.g., a “lower limit” and an “upper limit” are recited. However, it is unclear what this range is or how one of ordinary skill in the art would know if they were infringing on this range. For example, if an upper limit of a range was four times the lower limit, would this broad range infringe on this limitation (it appears that it would)? What if instead there was a smaller range with an upper limit that was two times the lower limit, would this narrower range infringe on this limitation (it appears that it would not)? How can a broad range infringe on the limitation, but a narrower range not infringe on the limitation? Since there is no way of determining the requisite range of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-8, 11-17, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haug et al. (US-20190262942-A1) in view of Chann et al. (US-20170307827-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Haug teaches a laser machining apparatus (“laser welding devices for deep welding a workpiece,” title; “the Specification references JP2015-500571 and refers to it as a “laser machining apparatus;” welding is construed as “machining” based on this reference) comprising:
a first laser light source (“first laser source,” para 0036) configured to generate a first laser beam (first beam 11, fig. 1);
a second laser light source (“second laser source,” para 0036) configured to generate a second laser beam (second beam 12, fig. 1) having propagation characteristics different from propagation characteristics of the first laser beam (beam 12 has a different angle W2 and a different radius R2 than angle W1 and radius R1 for beam 11, fig. 9);
a multiplexing optical system (“beam splitter,” para 0036) configured to multiplex the first laser beam and the second laser beam (para 0036);
an optical fiber (fiber 30, fig. 6) including a core (core fiber 31, fig. 6) and a cladding (ring fiber 32, fig. 6), the optical fiber having an entrance (left side of fiber 30, fig. 6) and an exit (fiber end 30a, fig. 6), the single combined laser beam being emitted from the exit (the “exiting laser beams 11, 12,” para 0082 and shown to the right of the fiber in fig. 6 and also shown in fig. 1, are construed as the “single combined laser beam;” “combined,” para 0027; the beams combine to perform the welding, fig. 1); and
a condensing optical system (focusing optical unit 5, fig. 1) configured to perform machining (“deep welding,” para 0056) of a workpiece (workpiece 2, fig. 1) by concentrating, on the workpiece, the single combined laser beam (beams 11 and 12, fig. 1) emitted from the optical fiber (fig. 6), wherein
the propagation characteristics include a converging angle (angles W1 and W2, fig. 9) and a beam radius (radii R1 and R2, fig. 9) of the first laser beam and the second laser beam (beams 11 and 12, fig. 6).
Haug, figs. 1 and 6
PNG
media_image1.png
1347
1225
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1003
603
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Haug does not explicitly disclose an output ratio control unit including a processor configured to control the first laser source and the second laser light source to change an output ratio that is a ratio between an output of the first laser beam and an output of the second laser beam; the first laser beam and the second laser beam being input to the entrance after passing through the multiplexing optical system to form a single combined laser beam within the optical fiber, and beam propagation characteristics of the single combined laser beam at the exit varying depending on the output ratio.
However, in the same field of endeavor laser machining (para 0006), Chann teaches an output ratio controller (“controller 220,” para 0070) including a processor (controller includes a processor, para 0051) configured to control the first laser source and the second laser light source (“controls the various emitters of each of the input beams,” para 0070) to change an output ratio that is a ratio between an output of the first laser beam and an output of the second laser beam(“selectively altering a power of at least one of the beams (e.g., a controller for modulating power into and/or out of at least one beam emitter) to achieve the target spatial power distribution,” para 0021); the first laser beam (beam at aperture 1125, fig. 11B) and the second laser beam (beam at aperture 1120, fig. 11B) being input to the entrance (apertures 1120 and 1125, fig. 11A) after passing through the multiplexing optical system (splitter 1110, fig. 11A), and beam propagation characteristics of the single combined laser beam at the exit varying depending on the output ratio (“an output beam having a BPP adjustable on the basis of the ratio of power levels of the two recombined beams,” para 0071; the combined output beam is construed as the claimed “single combined laser beam”).
Chann, figs. 11A and 11B
PNG
media_image3.png
1067
551
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Haug, in view of the teachings of Chann, by using a controller 220, as taught by Chann, to control the laser powers L1 and L2, as taught by Haug, and by using a polarization beam splitter 1110, as taught by Chann, instead of using a using the beam splitter and before the beams 11 and 12 are directed onto a fiber 30, as taught Haug, in order to control the BPP that is adjustable on the basis of the ratio of power levels of recombined beams that have been polarized, for the advantage of varying the beam quality or BPP as well as the power-level ratio, which will vary depending on the type of processing or type of material being processed, enabling use of a laser system that is versatile and readily adaptable to different types of laser processing (Chann, paras 0005 and 0071).
In the fig. 11A-B embodiment, Chann does not explicitly disclose a single combined laser beam within the optical fiber.
However, in fig. 2B, Chann teaches a single combined laser beam within the optical fiber (annotated in fig. 2B below).
Chann, fig. 2B (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
378
992
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Haug/figs. 11A-11B of Chann, in view of the teachings of fig. 2B of Chann, where the beam that is directed into the aperture 1125 into the cladding and the other beam that is directed into aperture 1120 into the core, as taught in figs. 11A-B of Chann, are combined to form a combined power distribution, as taught in fig. 2B of Chann, in order to achieve the desired power distribution (and thus the desired output BPP), which will vary depending on the type of processing or type of material being processed, enabling use of a laser system that is versatile and readily adaptable to different types of laser processing (Chann, paras 0005 and 0051).
Regarding claim 2, Haug teaches wherein the multiplexing optical system (“beam splitter,” para 0036) is configured to coaxially (para 0031) superimpose the first laser beam and the second laser beam (para 0036). Additionally, Chann teaches wherein the multiplexing optical system (splitter 1110, fig. 11A) is configured to coaxially superimpose the first laser beam and the second laser beam (the beams into apertures 1120 and 1125 are combined onto the same axis, fig. 11B; the construed axis is the center of fig. 11B).
Regarding claim 3, Haug teaches wherein the first laser beam (beam 11, fig. 6) and the second laser beam (beam 12, fig. 6) enter the optical fiber (fiber 30, fig. 6) at different entry angles (angles W1 and W2, fig. 9) and an entry angle (angle W2, fig. 9) of the second laser beam (beam 12, fig. 9) is larger than an entry angle (angle W1, fig. 9) of the first laser beam (beam 11, fig. 9) by 10% or more (“W1=0.68*W2,” para 0063; W1 is the angle of beam 11; W2 is the angle of beam 12, para 0029; based on the equation, W2 is 47% larger than W1).
Regarding claim 4, Haug teaches wherein the first laser beam (beam 11, fig. 6) and the second laser beam (beam 12, fig. 6) enter the optical fiber (fiber 30, fig. 6) with different beam diameters (twice the length of R2 and R1, fig. 9), and an incoming beam diameter (two times R2, fig. 9) of the second laser beam is smaller than an incoming beam diameter (two times R1, fig. 9) of the first laser beam by 10% or more (“5.8 times,” para 0086; construed as 480%).
Regarding claim 5, Haug teaches wherein the optical fiber (fiber 30, fig. 6) includes a single core (core fiber 31, fig. 6) and a single cladding (ring fiber 32, fig. 6).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Haug in view of Chann as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Chann teaches wherein the multiplexing optical system (polarization beam splitter 1110, fig. 1A) is configured to perform polarization coupling of the first laser beam and the second laser beam (para 0071) using a polarization-selective element (polarization beam splitter 1110, fig. 1A).
Regarding claim 7, Haug teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the first laser beam and the second laser beam are equal in wavelength.
However, in the same field of endeavor laser machining (para 0006), Chann teaches wherein the first laser beam and the second laser beam are equal in wavelength (“The input beams received in the embodiments herein may be single-wavelength,” para 0008).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Haug, in view of the teachings of Chann, by using a single wavelength, as taught by Chann, for laser beams 11 and 12, as taught by Haugh, in order to use the same wavelength for the beams prior to reaching the waveplate 1105, so that a rotation of the waveplate will cause both beams to be polarized according to a common wavelength, in order to control the BPP based on the ratio of power levels of recombined beams that have been polarized, for the advantage of varying the beam quality or BPP as well as the power-level ratio, which will vary depending on the type of processing or type of material being processed, enabling use of a laser system that is versatile and readily adaptable to different types of laser processing (Chann, paras 0005 and 0071).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Haug in view of Chann as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Chann teaches wherein the multiplexing optical system (polarization beam splitter 1110, fig. 1A) is configured to superimpose the first laser beam and the second laser beam (beams are superimposed onto the apertures, figs. 11A-B) using a wavelength-selective element (polarization beam splitter 1110, fig. 1A; construed as equivalent to a dichroic filter because S-light splits away while P-light passes through, para 0071).
Regarding claim 11, Haug teaches wherein an upper limit of a value of a beam parameter product (“BPP1,” para 0086; the BPP of the first laser beam is construed as being an “upper limit” of the combined laser beams) of the single combined laser beam (beams 11 and 12, fig. 1) is at least three times a lower limit (“BPP2,” para 0086; the BPP of the second laser beam is construed as being a “lower limit” of the combined laser beams) of the value of the beam parameter product of the single combined laser beam (“BPP1≥4*BPP2,” para 0027), the beam parameter product being capable of being modulated (paras 0066 and 0068).
Regarding claim 12, Haug teaches wherein the single combined beam emitted from the optical fiber (beams 11 and 12, figs. 1 and 6) is concentrated on the workpiece (workpiece 2, fig. 1) with a spot diameter that is adjustable within a range of 100 micrometers to 1200 micrometers (“focus diameters 110 μm and 440 μm,” para 0070; a focus diameter, as shown in fig. 1, is construed as being a spot diameter at the surface of the workpiece 2).
Regarding claim 14, Haug teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising a third laser light source configured to generate a third laser beam, wherein the processor of the output ratio control unit is configured to change the output ratio that is a ratio between the output of the first laser beam, the output of the second laser beam, and an output of the third laser beam, and the third laser beam is input to the entrance of the optical fiber to form the single combined laser beam with the first laser beam and the second laser beam.
However, in fig. 9G, Chann teaches comprising a third laser light source (annotated in fig. 9G below) configured to generate a third laser beam (annotated in fig. 9G below), wherein the processor (para 0051) of the output ratio control unit (redirecting elements 950, fig. 9G) is configured to change the output ratio that is a ratio between the output of the first laser beam, the output of the second laser beam, and an output of the third laser beam (the beams are annotated in fig. 9G below; “the spacing 910 results in an entry angle 920 that directly impacts the output BPP of the laser system 900,” par 0066; adjusting the entry angle of the beams causes a change in the ratio output BPP, para 0049), and the third laser beam is input to the entrance of the optical fiber (fiber 115, fig. 9G) to form the single combined laser beam with the first laser beam and the second laser beam (“output BPP of the laser system 900,” para 0066).
Chann, fig. 9G (annotated)
PNG
media_image5.png
731
908
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Haug/figs. 11A-11B/fig. 2B of Chann, in view of the teachings of fig. 9G of Chann, where five lasers are used, as taught in fig. 9G of Chann, instead of two laser sources, as taught in Haug, and where multiple half-way plates 1105 and beam splitters 1110 were used, as taught in figs. 11A-11B of Chann, as the redirecting elements 950, as taught in fig. 9G of Chann, in order to use multiple beam emitters, such as a diode bar, where multiple wavelengths can be combined to achieve the desired power distribution (and thus the desired output BPP), which will vary depending on the type of processing or type of material being processed, enabling use of a laser system that is versatile and readily adaptable to different types of laser processing (Chann, paras 0005, 0008-0009, and 0051).
Regarding claim 15, the combination of Haug in view of figs. 11A-11B, 2, and 9G of Chann as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 15. Specifically, Chann teaches comprising a fourth laser light source (annotated in fig. 9G above) configured to generate a fourth laser beam (annotated in fig. 9G above), wherein the processor (para 0051) of the output ratio control unit (redirecting elements 950, fig. 9G) is configured to change the output ratio that is a ratio between the output of the first laser beam, the output of the second laser beam, the output of the third laser beam, and an output of the fourth laser beam (the beams are annotated in fig. 9G above; “the spacing 910 results in an entry angle 920 that directly impacts the output BPP of the laser system 900,” par 0066; adjusting the entry angle of the beams causes a change in the ratio output BPP, para 0049), and the fourth laser beam is input to the entrance of the optical fiber (fiber 115, fig. 9G) to form the single combined laser beam with the first laser beam, the second laser beam, and the third laser beam (“output BPP of the laser system 900,” para 0066).
Regarding claim 16, Haug teaches wherein the converging angle (angle W2, fig. 9) of the second laser beam (beam 12, fig. 9) that enters the optical fiber is greater than the converging angle (angle W1, fig. 9) of the first laser beam (beam 11, fig. 9; para 0086) that enters the optical fiber (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 17, Haug teaches wherein the beam radius (radius R1, fig. 9) of the second laser beam (beam 12, fig. 9) that enters the optical fiber is smaller than the beam radius (radius R2, fig. 9) of the first laser beam (beam 11, fig. 9; para 0086) that enters the optical fiber (fig. 6).
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Haug in view of Chann as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 19. Specifically, Chann teaches wherein the processor (controller includes a processor, para 0051) of the output ratio control unit (“controller 220,” para 0070) is configured to change the output ratio by controlling respective amounts of energy input to the first laser light source and the second laser light source (“selectively altering a power of at least one of the beams (e.g., a controller for modulating power into and/or out of at least one beam emitter) to achieve the target spatial power distribution,” para 0021; altering the power is construed as controlling respective amounts of energy that are inputted).
Claims 9-10 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Haug et al. (US-20190262942-A1) in view of Chann et al. (US-20170307827-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Takigawa et al. (US-20170270434-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Haug teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising: a learning device including a processor configured to: acquire training data including an output ratio control value output from the output ratio control unit, a beam profile of the single combined laser beam after passing through the condensing optical system, and quality information on a machining result; and generate a learned model for estimating an output ratio control value that allows the quality information to indicate a desired quality by using the training data.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser machining, Takigawa teaches comprising:
a learning device (machine learning apparatus 10, fig. 1; “cloud server,” para 0111) including a processor (para 0112) configured to:
acquire training data (“supervised learning…laser machining condition data and state amount of laser machining system,” para 0075) including an output ratio control value output from the output ratio control unit (“power density,” para 0067; construed as the power-level ratio taught by Haugh), a beam profile of the single combined laser beam (“power density distribution of the laser beam 19,” para 0067; construed as a beam profile for beams 11/12 taught by Haug) after passing through the condensing optical system (“emitted to the workpiece 7,” para 0067), and quality information on a machining result (“output (machined result of laser machining),” para 0075); and
generate a learned model for estimating an output ratio control value that allows the quality information to indicate a desired quality (“learning model is updated so as to reduce the difference” based on the “ideal machined result or the target machined result,” para 0075; these ideal or target results are construed as “desired quality”) by using the training data (data is used by the decision-making unit, para 0046).
Takigawa, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
990
755
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Haug/Chann, in view of the teachings of Takigawa, by using the machine learning apparatus 10, as taught by Takigawa, to improve the performance of the spatial power distributions generated using the controller 220, beam splitter 1110 and waveplate 1105, as taught by Chann, in order to use supervised learning that generates a plurality of models based on irregular input data, so that regardless of how long or short the machining takes, learning can take place based on various laser machining conditions to produce quality machining (Takigawa, paras 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 10, Haug teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose comprising: an inference device including a processor configured to: acquire an output ratio control value output from the output ratio control unit and a beam profile of the single combined laser beam after passing through the condensing optical system; acquire machining quality information; and output an output ratio control value that allows the machining quality information to indicate a desired quality based on the output ratio control value and the beam profile input by using a learned model generated by machine learning for estimating an output ratio control value that allows the machining quality information to indicate the desired quality from the output ratio control value, the beam profile, and the machining quality information.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser machining, Takigawa teaches comprising:
an inference device (machine learning apparatus 10, fig. 1; “cloud server,” para 0111) including a processor (para 0112) configured to:
acquire an output ratio control value output from the output ratio control unit (“power density,” para 0067; construed as the power-level ratio taught by Haugh) and a beam profile of the single combined laser beam (“power density distribution of the laser beam 19,” para 0067; construed as a beam profile for beams 11/12 taught by Haug) after passing through the condensing optical system (“emitted to the workpiece 7,” para 0067);
acquire machining quality information (para 0102); and
output an output ratio control value that allows the machining quality information to indicate a desired quality (“learning model is updated so as to reduce the difference” based on the “ideal machined result or the target machined result,” para 0075; these ideal or target results are construed as a “desired quality”), based on the output ratio control value and the beam profile input (“machine result of laser machining,” para 0075) by using a learned model (“learning model,” paras 0074-0075) generated by machine learning for estimating an output ratio control value (“prediction,” para 0120) that allows the machining quality information to indicate the desired quality from the output ratio control value, the beam profile, and the machining quality information (“the machine learning apparatus that carries out the supervised learning predicts and outputs output data (target variable) according to the learning result (constructed prediction model),” para 0120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Haug/Chann, in view of the teachings of Takigawa, by using the machine learning apparatus 10, as taught by Takigawa, to improve the performance of the spatial power distributions generated using the beam splitter 1110 and waveplate 1105, as taught by Chann, in order to use supervised learning that generates a plurality of models based on irregular input data, so that regardless of how long or short the machining takes, learning can take place based on various laser machining conditions to produce quality machining (Takigawa, paras 0075-0076).
Regarding claim 18, Haug teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the quality information on the machining result includes at least one of a shape of the machined workpiece, a sound signal generated during machining, or an optical signal generated during machining.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser machining, Takigawa teaches wherein the quality information on the machining result (“output (machined result of laser machining),” para 0075) includes at least one of a shape of the machined workpiece (“cutting size/shape accuracy,” para 0102), a sound signal generated during machining (Takigawa does not explicitly disclose a sound signal), or an optical signal generated during machining (“observation result of the reflected light,” para 0105).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Haug/Chann, in view of the teachings of Takigawa, by using the machine learning apparatus 10 that includes cutting size/shape accuracy or observation results of the reflected light in the target/output data during the training of the neural network, as taught by Takigawa, to improve the performance of the spatial power distributions generated using the beam splitter 1110 and waveplate 1105, as taught by Chann, in order to use supervised learning of a neural network that generates a plurality of models based on irregular input data that result in irregular target/output data, so that regardless of how long or short the machining takes, learning can take place based on various laser machining conditions to produce quality machining (Takigawa, paras 0075-0076).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 18 December 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 9 of the Arguments states that “no new matter is presented.” Also on page 9, a decision is referenced where it was determined that disclosure of “complex mathematical computations and outputs” in a Specification implies that “a general or special purpose computer” must be used to perform these calculations. The MPEP further elaborates regarding this decision that “disclosure of the structure (or material or acts) may be implicit or inherent in the specification if it would have been clear to those skilled in the art what structure (or material or acts) corresponds to the means- (or step-) plus-function claim limitation” (MPEP 2181). This topic was discussed in a recent interview, where it was noted that the Specification discloses a neural network. As a result, the Applicant stated that a “processor” must be inherent to the Specification.
The examiner agrees that a processor is inherent structure in order to train and implement a neural network. However, this neural network is described in the Specification as being part of the inference device, which includes a cloud server that is capable of executing the learning algorithm to train the neural network (paragraphs 0033-0034). A processor is not inherent structure for a cloud server, which is a virtual server in a cloud computing environment.
Furthermore, the claims have been amended to recite: “an output ratio control unit including a processor.” There is no disclosure in the Specification of the implementation of a neural network or learning algorithm within the output ratio control unit. Instead, the Specification discloses that the neural network or learning algorithm is implemented on the inference device. Thus, the Specification describes the output ratio control unit as a unit that is separate and distinct from the inference device. Specifically, the Specification describes the output ratio control unit as providing input data to the train the neural network that is on the inference device (paragraph 0039).
The examiner disagrees with the Applicant’s argument on page 10 that claim 11 “is not indefinite.” Claim 11 recites: “wherein an upper limit of a value of a beam parameter product of the single combined laser beam is at least three times a lower limit of the value of the beam parameter product of the single combined laser beam, the beam parameter product being capable of being modulated.” For example, if an upper limit of the range for a beam parameter product (BPP) was 7 and the lower limit of the range was 2, then this range (
2
≤
x
≤
7
) would fall within the scope of this limitation. However, if the upper limit of the BPP range was 5, then this smaller range (
2
≤
x
≤
5
) would not fall within the scope of this limitation. It is unclear how a larger range (
2
≤
x
≤
7
) can be within the claim scope but the smaller range (
2
≤
x
≤
5
) cannot be within the claim scope. In short, claim 11 requires an upper bound that is at least three times a lower bound, which makes sense mathematically, but which does not make sense within the framework of a claim. Recommend claiming a range for a variable that is bounded by an upper limit and a lower limit, e.g., a BPP upper limit of six and a BPP lower limit of two, as opposed to the range of a variable where the upper limit is a variable that is then dependent on a lower-limit variable.
The examiner agrees with the Applicant’s description of Haug (US20190262942) on page 11 of the arguments, specifically that Haug teaches directing one beam (beam 12) onto a central core fiber 31 and another beam (beam 11) to a surrounding ring fiber 32. The examiner agrees also that Haug teaches keeping these respective beams separate and distinct.
However, the Applicant’s arguments are at odds with what is disclosed in the Specification in the Instant Application. The Specification discloses that “the core 52 transmits light having entered the optical fiber 51. The cladding 53 has a role of confining the light in the core 52.” Thus, while the Applicant argues that the beams in their invention combine within the optical fiber, the Specification discloses that the beams actually remain separated, i.e., the beam that is transmitted to the core remains confined to the core and does not combine with the beam that is in the cladding.
As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have a broader understanding of the “single combined laser beam” in view of the Specification. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would understand that even though two beams might be separated into a core fiber and a cladding fiber, then these two beams can still be considered to form a “single combined laser beam” so long as the beams form a “combined laser beam at the exit.”
The Applicant also argues on page 12 that Chann (US20170307827) fails to disclose a “single combined laser beam.” However, this argument is conclusory and no support is provided. The examiner is now relying on Chann to teach a “single combined laser beam within the optical beam” because of the similarities between what is disclosed in figs. 2-3 of the Specification and what is shown in fig. 2B of Chann:
Fig. 2-3 of Instant Application
PNG
media_image7.png
437
368
media_image7.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image8.png
264
328
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2B of Chann
PNG
media_image9.png
387
992
media_image9.png
Greyscale
As shown above, Chann teaches an input beam that focuses on the core fiber at the center in fig. 2B and that “a fraction of the light spills over into the cladding 130,” which the ring fiber that is outside the core fiber in fig. 2B (paragraph 0050). Chann teaches that a power ratio between these two beams can be controlled to “achieve the desired power distribution.” This desired power distribution is shown as the combination of these two beams in fig. 2B of Chann (annotated in fig. 2B above). Similarly, fig. 3 of the Instant Application is disclosed as being an “intensity distribution,” which is the combined distribution of the two beams shown in fig. 2.
Of note, in the interview that was held on 2 December 2025, an amendment was discussed of requiring the two beams in the same layer (either in the cladding or in the core). This amendment is different than what was eventually provided in the Claims filed 18 December 2025, where one laser beam is directed into the core, and the other laser beam is directed into the cladding.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 9/16/2025