nDETAILED 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
Applicant's amendment filed on 12/15/2025 has been entered.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 10/23/2025 objections to the drawings.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 15-18 have been amended.
Claims 4, 9, and 13-14 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-18 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 15, and 18 being independent.
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 10/23/2025 rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Applicant's amendment overcomes some of the 10/23/2025 rejections of claims 1-18 under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant's amendment overcomes the 10/23/2025 rejections of claims 1-6 and 10-18 under 35 U.S.C. 103.
Claim Interpretation
Regarding claims 1 and 2, which recite “a sensor incorporating the optical sensor, and built into the processing head…” wherein claim 1 further requires the reference beam source and beam sensor be mounted on a side wall of a housing of the sensor (line 20), and wherein claim 2 further requires at least one of the reference beam source or the beam sensor be mounted on the sensor (line 6);
The term “sensor” is used by the claims (in line 17 of claim 1, and line 3 of claim 2) to mean the housing of the optical sensor;
i.e., ‘sensor’ (claim 2, line 6) is equivalent to ‘a side wall of a housing of the sensor’ (claim 1, line 20); see:
figs. 1 and 10; para. 0019: “Figure 10 is a perspective view illustrating appearance of a sensor unit incorporating an optical path switching unit of a preferred configuration example.”
para. 0013: “…providing the optical sensor in a sensor unit built into the processing head, or disposed in proximity to the processing head; mounting, on the sensor unit, a reference beam source that generates a reference beam for calibrating the optical sensor”;
para. 0027: “The sensor unit 30 also has an integral or assembled cylindrical housing. In the housing of the sensor unit 30, the optical sensor 50 is provided in an upper end of the housing”.
Furthermore, since the claims also recite an optical sensor (claim 1, line 2) and a beam sensor (claim 1, line 13), Examiner suggests amending claims 1 and 2 to recite “a [[sensor]]housing incorporating the optical sensor” instead of simply “sensor” so as to avoid any confusion of an additional optical/beam sensor; and correspondingly:
claim 1, line 20 should be amended to recite “mounted on a side wall of [[a]]the housing [[of the sensor]]”
claim 2, line 6 should be amended to recite “mounted on the [[sensor]]housing”
Regarding claim 15, similar to claim 1 above, also recites “a sensor” in line 9, “an optical sensor” in line 2, and “a beam sensor” in line 14,
Examiner suggests the claim be similarly amended so as to avoid any confusion of an additional optical/beam sensor.
Regarding claim 3, which recites “…wherein an optical path switch for selecting a first optical path… a second optical path…, or a third optical path”;
The term “optical path switch” is used by the claim to mean a cylindrical mirror support and a plurality of mirrors [para. 0075: “As illustrated in Figure 12 and Figure 13, the optical path switching unit 105 has a cylindrical mirror support 140 and a plurality of mirrors”].
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Regarding claim 5, which recites “a first optical system… a second optical system”
the limitation “optical system” is being interpreted including lenses, mirrors, protective glasses, and equivalents thereof [see fig. 1; para. 0025: “In the housing of the emission unit 28, a collimating lens 38, a dichroic mirror 40, a focusing lens 42 and a protective glass 44 are arranged in a vertical line from a top to a bottom, as the laser optical system”]
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Objections
Regarding claim 2,
Claim 1 has been amended to require that the optical sensor, being disposed in a processing head, is also ‘incorporated by a sensor’ (i.e., see Claim Interpretation for claims 1 and 2 above, i.e., that the optical sensor is in a housing of sensor unit 30 incorporating the optical sensor), specifically, claim 1 has been amended to recite “by an optical sensor disposed in a processing head ” wherein the housing is “built into the processing head”, however, claim 2 also recites (see 112b rejections below): “a sensor incorporating the optical sensor, and built into the processing head, or disposed in proximity to the processing head.” In view of para. 0096, which recites “However, the sensor unit 30 can be separated from the emission unit 28 to be used as an independent unit, and can be disposed near the processing head 20 or the emission unit 28 so as to be directed toward the workpiece W”, it seems that the claim 2 is introducing the feature that the sensor unit (i.e., the housing with the optical sensor disposed therein) may be detached from the processing head so as to be ‘near’ the processing head. Applicant is advised that it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to make a given structure portable and/or separable, and thus this feature falls within the scope of claim 1. See MPEP 2144.04(V).
Therefore, should claim 1 be found allowable, claim 2 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, claim 1 recites “a sensor incorporating the optical sensor, and built into the processing head, wherein the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument are mounted on a side wall of a housing of the sensor” and claim 2 recites “a sensor incorporating the optical sensor, and built into the processing head, or disposed in proximity to the processing head, wherein at least one of the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument is mounted on the sensor”, the remaining difference between claims 1 and 2 being wherein claim 2 only requires one of the reference beam source or the beam sensor mounted on the sensor (which also falls within the scope of claim 1).
Regarding claim 16,
Applicant is advised that should claim 15 be found allowable, claim 16 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, since claim 15 has been amended to require mounting the beam sensor on a side wall of a housing of the sensor (lines 13-17), and a third optical path (lines 23-25), and claim 16 requires a third optical path, and that the beam sensor is mounted on the sensor, claim 16 falls within the scope of claim 15.
Regarding claim 18,
the claim is objected to because of the following informalities: extraneous line break between lines 16 and 17. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 1-14, 16, and 18 are 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.
Regarding claim 1,
the limitations requiring the reference beam source be provided in the processing head (line 9) and be mounted on a side wall of a housing of the sensor (lines 19-20), renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if “a housing of the sensor” is intended to be distinct from “the processing head”. In view of the interpretation of “a sensor” in claim 1 (see Claim Interpretation), and in view of figs. 1 and 17 (showing reference beam source 100 mounted on a sidewall of a sensor unit 30 connected to processing head 20), and since it has been held by the courts that making an integral structure separable only requires ordinary skill (MPEP 2144.04(V)), Examiner will interpret “reference beam source provided in the processing head” as indicating the reference beam source is connected to the processing head.
Regarding claim 2,
the limitation “a sensor” in line 2 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to be distinct from the optical sensor, beam sensor, or sensor of claim 1. For the purposes of this office action, in view of the claim interpretation above (i.e., that it would have been obvious to make the housing containing the optical sensor be portable/separable), and in view of the amendment to claim 15 (lines 9-10: “providing the optical sensor in a sensor ”), Examiner will interpret claim 2 as reciting: “a sensor incorporating the optical sensor, and built into the processing head, ”;
the phrase “in proximity to” in line 4 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term is not defined by the claim, and while it seems this is directed towards the sensor being detachable (see Claim Objections above) such that it is disposed ‘near’ the processing head (see para. 0096), the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 6, which recites “the optical path switch is provided… in proximity to the optical sensor…” and “the reference beam source and the beam sensor… is provided near the optical path switch”
the recitations of “proximity” and “near” is used by the claim to indicate a relative position while the accepted meaning is nearness without any specific range. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term, and it is unclear what relative distances fall within the scope of the claims. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret proximity and near to indicate that components are disposed in the same structure and/or adjacent to each other.
Regarding claim 8, the limitation “a side surface of the mirror support” in line 5 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to be distinct from “a side surface of the mirror support” in claim 7, lines 8-9.
Regarding claim 14, which recites “the reference beam source has a light-emitting diode or a semiconductor laser having a radiation characteristic near a black body”
the recitation of “near” is used by the claim to indicate a relative value (“closeness”) of a radiation spectrum distribution [para. 0051: “The reference beam source 100 is a beam source that generates infrared rays containing the wavelength of beam LM to be measured, and preferably has radiation characteristics close to the radiation spectrum distribution of the ideal black body in Figure 2.”] while the accepted meaning is nearness without any specific range. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term, and it is unclear what relative values fall within the scope of the claims. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 14 as indicating that black body radiation is observed.
Regarding claim 16, the limitation “a third optical path” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation is intended to be distinct from “a third optical path” in claim 15, line 23.
Regarding claim 18,
the recitation of “proximity” in line 9 is used by the claim to indicate a relative position while the accepted meaning is nearness without any specific range. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term, and it is unclear what relative distances fall within the scope of the claims. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret proximity indicate that respective components are disposed in the same structure and/or adjacent to each other.
Claims 2-14 are also rejected due to dependence on a rejected.
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.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 13, and 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 20050199780 A1) in view of Turner (US 20060219014 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Iwata discloses:
A laser processing monitoring device for photoelectrically converting a predetermined beam to be measured by an optical sensor [i.e., a light receiving sensor]
disposed in a processing head [para. 0021: “The focus head 3 has a photo sensor such as a photo diode (desirably three or more photo sensors) mounted. A detected signal is amplified by a sensor amplifier, and input into the control unit 1.”]
to acquire a sensor output signal representing light intensity of the beam to be measured, and monitoring the laser processing based on the sensor output signal, during irradiation to a workpiece with a laser beam for laser processing by the processing head, the predetermined beam to be measured being generated or reflected in a vicinity of a processing point of the workpiece [para. 0021: “The photo sensor making up the photo detecting means 2 senses a light produced by irradiation with the laser beam 6 through a hole of the nozzle 5. The quantity of light detected by the photo detecting means 2 is monitored by a monitoring portion 12 of the control unit 1 to determine the processing state. The monitoring portion controls the laser oscillator 10, based on the detected quantity of light, so that the excellent processing result may be obtained by changing the processing conditions.”],
the laser processing monitoring device comprising:
a reference beam source provided in the processing head [para. 0022: “Also, the laser beam processing apparatus is provided with reference light generating means 8.”], and
configured to generate a reference beam for calibrating the optical sensor [para. 0034: “Generally, there is a dispersion in the characteristic of the light receiving sensor. Conventionally, when it is desired to monitor the processing situation, especially in cutting the thick plate, at high precision, it was required to calibrate the light receiving sensor. Herein, the calibration operation for each light receiving sensor is dispensed with by providing the reference light generating means 8 and the correlation adjusting means 11.”];
a reference beam source power supply unit configured to supply, to the reference beam source [para. 0022: “The reference light generating means 8 comprises a light emitting element such as an LED, an LED power source such as a constant current source, and a guide 9 provided to cover the light emitting element.”],
adjustable power for generating the reference beam [para. 0029: “Also, the reference light is emitted at two or more emission levels and measured in view of the input/output characteristic of reference light to light receiving sensor.”];
a sensor incorporating the optical sensor, and built into the processing head [see fig. 1, showing optical sensor 2 mounted to a side wall of a housing of processing head 3]
Although Iwata discloses the known practice of using a monitoring portion to calibrate the optical sensor of a processing head, Iwata does not address any such calibration or verification of the monitoring portion itself. Specifically, Iwata does not explicitly disclose:
an optical measuring instrument having a beam sensor (in addition to the optical sensor) for receiving the reference beam from the reference beam source in order to calibrate the reference beam source, and configured to measure light intensity of the received reference beam or a predetermined physical quantity equivalent to the light intensity,
wherein the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument are mounted on a side wall of a housing of the sensor.
Turner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the known structure of
a beam sensor for receiving a beam [i.e., optical assembly 214], configured to measure light intensity of the received beam or a predetermined physical quantity equivalent to the light intensity [para. 0029: “Optical assembly 214 may include visual cameras, depth cameras, range detectors, narrowband cameras or other like optical sensors known to those having skill in the art”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Iwata by including a beam sensor for receiving the reference beam, specifically an optical measuring instrument having a beam sensor for receiving the reference beam from the reference beam source in order to calibrate the reference beam source, and configured to measure light intensity of the received reference beam or a predetermined physical quantity equivalent to the light intensity, wherein the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument are mounted on a side wall of a housing of the sensor, since Turner teaches that sensors require calibration in order verify the ability of the device to integrate information gathered [para. 0029: “These optical sensors each may require calibrations prior to performing an inspection. This calibration verifies the ability of the system to integrate information gathered by various sensors.”]. Furthermore, regarding the limitation requiring that the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument are mounted on a side wall of a housing of the sensor, in view of Iwata disclosing the known practice of compensating for influences from different mounting positions [para. 0030: “By making the adjustments in this way, the reference light is detected under the actual processing conditions, whereby the reference light measuring operation is automatically performed by eliminating the influence due to a dispersion in the nozzle state or the light receiving sensor, and a difference in the mounting position.”] selecting a given location of the reference beam source and the beam sensor would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a mounting position of the reference beam source or the beam sensor, since the applicant has not disclosed that its location solves any problem or is for a particular reason.
Regarding claim 2, Iwata in view of Turner discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 1.
In view of the potential objection of claim 2 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 1 (see Claim Objections above), Iwata as modified by Turner discloses the device further comprising:
a sensor incorporating the optical sensor, and built into the processing head, or disposed in proximity to the processing head, wherein
at least one of the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument is mounted on the sensor.
Regarding claim 13, Iwata in view of Turner discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 1.
Iwata as modified by Turner, specifically Turner further discloses wherein:
the reference beam source has a light-emitting diode or a semiconductor laser having a radiation characteristic including a wavelength band of the beam to be measured [para. 0007: “A laser diode may be added to a multimode target to provide an additional target mode for optical components of the system.”].
Regarding claim 15,
Iwata discloses:
A laser processing monitoring method for photoelectrically converting a beam to be measured by an optical sensor [i.e., a light receiving sensor]
disposed in a processing head [para. 0021: “The focus head 3 has a photo sensor such as a photo diode (desirably three or more photo sensors) mounted. A detected signal is amplified by a sensor amplifier, and input into the control unit 1.”]
to acquire a sensor output signal representing light intensity of the beam to be measured, and monitoring the laser processing based on the sensor output signal, during irradiation to a workpiece with a laser beam for laser processing by the processing head, the beam to be measured being generated or reflected in a vicinity of a processing point of the workpiece [para. 0021: “The photo sensor making up the photo detecting means 2 senses a light produced by irradiation with the laser beam 6 through a hole of the nozzle 5. The quantity of light detected by the photo detecting means 2 is monitored by a monitoring portion 12 of the control unit 1 to determine the processing state. The monitoring portion controls the laser oscillator 10, based on the detected quantity of light, so that the excellent processing result may be obtained by changing the processing conditions.”],
the laser processing monitoring method comprising:
providing the optical sensor in a sensor built into the processing head [see fig. 1, showing optical sensor 2 mounted to a side wall of a housing of processing head 3];
mounting, on a side wall of a housing of the sensor, a reference beam source that generates a reference beam for calibrating the optical sensor [para. 0022: “Also, the laser beam processing apparatus is provided with reference light generating means 8.”];
setting a first optical path optically connecting the processing point of the workpiece and the optical sensor inside the sensor when the laser processing is performed [fig. 2: S5; para. 0023: “The main processing portion actually processes the processing object by irradiation of a laser beam (S5).”];
setting a second optical path optically connecting the reference beam source and the optical sensor inside the sensor unit when the optical sensor is calibrated [para. 0034: “Herein, the calibration operation for each light receiving sensor is dispensed with by providing the reference light generating means 8 and the correlation adjusting means 11.”];
Although Iwata discloses the known practice of using a monitoring portion to calibrate the optical sensor of a processing head, Iwata does not address any such calibration or verification of the monitoring portion itself. Specifically, Iwata does not explicitly disclose:
causing the reference beam emitted from the reference beam source to be incident on a beam sensor of an optical measuring instrument in order to calibrate the reference beam source, and configured to measure light intensity of the received reference beam or a predetermined physical quantity equivalent to the light intensity, and adjusting output of the reference beam source such that a measured value of the optical measuring instrument coincides with a reference value; and
setting a third optical path optically connecting the reference beam source and the beam sensor inside the processing head when the reference beam source is calibrated.
Turner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the known structure of
a beam sensor for receiving a beam [i.e., optical assembly 214], configured to measure light intensity of the received beam or a predetermined physical quantity equivalent to the light intensity [para. 0029: “Optical assembly 214 may include visual cameras, depth cameras, range detectors, narrowband cameras or other like optical sensors known to those having skill in the art”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Iwata by including an optical measuring instrument having a beam sensor for receiving the reference beam from the reference beam source in order to calibrate the reference beam source, and adjusting an output of the reference beam source such that a measured value coincides with a reference value [Turner teaches the known practice of comparing measured values with reference values in a calibration process; para. 0039: “The system is calibrated by comparing and correcting the measured results to the known information associated with the multimode target.”], since Turner teaches that sensors require calibration in order verify the ability of the device to integrate information gathered [para. 0029: “These optical sensors each may require calibrations prior to performing an inspection. This calibration verifies the ability of the system to integrate information gathered by various sensors.”]; wherein it would have been obvious to a PHOSITA to set a third optical path (which would inherently exist between the reference beam source and the beam sensor) optically connecting the reference beam source and the beam sensor, during said required calibration of the beam sensor. Furthermore, regarding the limitation requiring that the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument are mounted on a side wall of a housing of the sensor, in view of Iwata disclosing the known practice of compensating for influences from different mounting positions [para. 0030: “By making the adjustments in this way, the reference light is detected under the actual processing conditions, whereby the reference light measuring operation is automatically performed by eliminating the influence due to a dispersion in the nozzle state or the light receiving sensor, and a difference in the mounting position.”] selecting a given location of the reference beam source and the beam sensor would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a mounting position of the reference beam source or the beam sensor, since the applicant has not disclosed that its location solves any problem or is for a particular reason.
Regarding claim 16, Iwata in view of Turner discloses the laser processing monitoring method according to claim 15.
In view of the potential objection of claim 16 as being a substantial duplicate of claim 15 (see Claim Objections above), Iwata as modified by Turner discloses the method further comprising:
mounting the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument on the sensor, and setting a third optical path optically connecting the reference beam source and the beam sensor inside the processing head when the reference beam source is calibrated.
Regarding claim 17, Iwata in view of Turner discloses the laser processing monitoring method according to claim 15.
Iwata as modified by Turner further discloses:
detachably mounting the reference beam source on the sensor, and detaching the reference beam source from the sensor to cause the reference beam generated by the reference beam source outside the sensor unit to be incident on the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument when the reference beam source is calibrated.
In this case, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the claimed invention was made to detachably mount the reference beam source, since it has been held by the courts making an integral structure separable (e.g. in a plurality of pieces), if so is desired, would require only ordinary skill. See MPEP 2144.04(V).
Claims 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 20050199780 A1) in view of Turner (US 20060219014 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Dane (US 20110255088 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Iwata in view of Turner discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 2.
Iwata as modified by Turner discloses:
a first optical path optically connecting the processing point of the workpiece and the optical sensor, a second optical path optically connecting the reference beam source and the optical sensor, or a third optical path optically connecting the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument [i.e., corresponding paths between the optical sensor, processing point, and beam receiver]
However, neither Iwata nor Turner disclose
an optical path switch for selecting the optical paths is provided in the sensor unit.
Dane, in the same field of endeavor, teaches an optical path switch for selecting optical paths [see fig. 5, showing beam splitters/mirrors WS58, WS60, WS62, WS63, WS68, WS69 ] is provided in a sensor [fig. 5: support structure 50].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the laser processing monitoring device of Iwata and Turner by including the optical path switch of Dane since Dane teaches that when monitoring beam characteristics, a weak sample may be selected from the beam, wherein optical path selecting of the weak sample can be predictably achieved using optical components such as beam splitters and mirrors [para. 0005: “There is generally a need to monitor beam characteristics such as pulse energy, pulse duration, and beam profile for applications using high energy laser systems. This can be done by taking a weak sample of the beam using a beam splitter or by monitoring the low level transmission of a high-reflectivity mirror coating…However, if the optical control system relies on the 0.5% transmitted beam to determine the energy in the main beam, then this 0.1 % change will cause an unacceptably large 20% calibration error.”; para. 0009: “It is desirable to provide systems that overcome one or more of the problems outlined above, including a beam splitter and a diagnostic system for high power systems that are polarization independent.”].
Regarding claim 4, Iwata in view of Turner and Dane discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 3.
Iwata as modified by Turner and Dane, specifically Dane teaches an optical filter for selecting a predetermined wavelength band including a wavelength of the beam to be measured and allowing the beam in the predetermined wavelength band to pass is provided on the second optical path [Dane teaches that it is well known to include optical filters in an optical system; para. 0063: “Conventional attenuation components which would be needed to produce a low power sample, such as a neutral density filter, would be damaged by the full pulse energy of the laser peening beam.”].
Regarding claim 5, Iwata in view of Turner and Dane discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 3.
Iwata as modified by Turner and Dane, specifically Dane further discloses wherein the processing head has
an emitter integrally or detachably connected to the sensor unit through a unit connection opening [see fig. 5, showing a connection opening WS59 between a first unit and second unit],
a first optical system configured to irradiate the processing point of the workpiece with the laser beam, and separate the beam to be measured from the vicinity of the processing point from the laser beam to allow the separated beam to be measured to pass through the unit connection opening is provided in the emitter [see fig. 5, showing a first optical system comprising protective window W39, beam splitters WS58/WS68, wave plate WP75, lenses SP76/L77/L78], and
a second optical system for guiding, to the optical sensor, the beam to be measured which enters from the emitter through the unit connection opening is provided in the sensor [see fig. 5, similarly showing L64/L65/L70, WS59/WS60/WS63/WS66/WS69].
Regarding claim 6, Iwata in view of Turner and Dane discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 5.
Iwata as modified by Turner and Dane, specifically Dane further discloses wherein
the optical path switch is provided in the second optical system or in proximity to the optical sensor with respect to the second optical system inside the sensor [see fig. 5, showing WS60, WS63, WS69 provided in the second optical system], and
the reference beam source and the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument is provided near the optical path switch [see fig. 5, teaching a beam receiver 840 and a beam source 800 near optical path switching unit components 801, 802, 803, 811, 812].
Claims 10-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 20050199780 A1) in view of Turner (US 20060219014 A1) and Dane (US 20110255088 A1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Bae (US 20210121980 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Iwata in view of Turner and Dane discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 3.
Iwata as modified by Turner and Dane, specifically Dane further discloses wherein
the optical path switch has one or more folding mirrors [i.e., mirror coatings of WS60, WS63, WS69].
However, Iwata as modified by Turner and Dane does not disclose:
wherein the folding mirrors are capable of moving between a first position for retreating from the first optical path in order to select the first optical path, and a second position for blocking the first optical path and reflecting the reference beam from the reference beam source toward the optical sensor in order to select the second optical path.
Bae, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a folding mirror [figs. 9, 10: mirror 320] capable of moving between
a first position for retreating from a first optical path in order to select the first optical path [fig. 9], and
a second position for blocking the first optical path and reflecting a beam from a beam source toward an optical sensor in order to select a second optical path [see fig. 10, showing sensor 350].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Iwata, Turner, and Dane by substituting the movable folding mirror of Bae as an equivalent method for selecting the optical paths, since Bae teaches that this predictably redirects a beam towards a sensor [para. 0114: “For example, as shown in FIG. 10, the nozzle-side reflective mirror 320 may be arranged to totally reflect the laser beam LB entering the laser nozzle 310 along the machining optical path OP.sub.p such that the traveling direction of the laser beam LB is changed to the vertical direction.”].
Regarding claim 11, Iwata in view of Turner, Dane, and Bae discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 10.
Iwata as modified by Turner, Dane, and Bae further discloses wherein the optical path switch moves the folding mirror to the first position in order to select the third optical path.
In this case, selecting a given position of a movable folding mirror relative to the selection of a corresponding optical path would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Specifically, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to design the positions of the movable folding mirror to correspond to desired optical paths according to process limitations [e.g., space constraints].
Regarding claim 12, Iwata in view of Turner and Dane discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 3.
Iwata as modified by Turner and Dane, specifically Dane further discloses wherein
the optical path switch has one or more folding mirrors [i.e., mirror coatings of WS60, WS63, WS69].
However Iwata as modified by Turner and Dane does not disclose:
wherein the folding mirrors are capable of moving among a first position for retreating from the first optical path in order to select the first optical path, and a second position for blocking the first optical path and reflecting the reference beam from the reference beam source toward the optical sensor in order to select the second optical path, and a third position for retreating from the third optical path in order to select the third optical path.
Bae, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a folding mirror [figs. 9, 10: mirror 320] capable of moving between a first position for retreating from a first optical path in order to select the first optical path [fig. 9], and a second position for blocking the first optical path and reflecting a beam from a beam source toward an optical sensor in order to select a second optical path [see fig. 10, showing sensor 350].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Iwata, Turner, and Dane by substituting the movable folding mirror of Bae as an equivalent method for selecting the optical paths, since Bae teaches that this predictably redirects a beam [para. 0114: “For example, as shown in FIG. 10, the nozzle-side reflective mirror 320 may be arranged to totally reflect the laser beam LB entering the laser nozzle 310 along the machining optical path OP.sub.p such that the traveling direction of the laser beam LB is changed to the vertical direction.”].
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 20050199780 A1) in view of Turner (US 20060219014 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kuba (US 20170043431 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Iwata in view of Turner discloses the laser processing monitoring device according to claim 1.
Iwata as modified by Turner, specifically Turner further discloses wherein
the reference beam source has a light-emitting diode or a semiconductor laser having a radiation characteristic including a wavelength band of the beam to be measured [para. 0007: “A laser diode may be added to a multimode target to provide an additional target mode for optical components of the system.”].
However, Iwata in view of Turner does not explicitly disclose wherein
the reference beam source has a light-emitting diode or a semiconductor laser having a radiation characteristic near a black body.
Kuba, in the same field of endeavor, teaches that when monitoring a laser process, strong black body radiation is observed [para. 0007: “In this apparatus, however, a strong black-body radiation-like light emission is observed in a wide wavelength range from visible light to near-infrared region in the above mentioned processing point-emitted light, and the intensity is particularly high when the processing point-emitted light is in the visible light region, hence the peak intensity of the illumination light required for imaging in the visible light region becomes high.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the laser processing monitoring device of Iwata and Turner wherein the reference beam source has a radiation characteristic near a black body, since Kuba teaches that black body radiation may be observed during laser process monitoring, and since the reference beam source is configured for calibrating the optical sensor of the monitoring device detecting the near black body radiation.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Iwata (US 20050199780 A1) in view of Turner (US 20060219014 A1) and Matsuda (JP 2007030032 A).
Regarding claim 18,
Iwata discloses:
A laser processing device comprising:
a laser oscillation unit configured to oscillate and output a laser beam for laser processing [Abstract: “A laser beam processing apparatus includes a laser oscillator for producing a laser beam for processing a processing object”];
a processing head optically connected to the laser oscillation unit [para. 0021: “The focus head 3 has a photo sensor such as a photo diode (desirably three or more photo sensors) mounted. A detected signal is amplified by a sensor amplifier, and input into the control unit 1.”]; and
a laser processing monitor unit configured to monitor laser processing [para. 0008: “… a control unit for controlling the laser oscillator by monitoring the processing situation of the processing object from the detected quantity of light during the actual processing that is adjusted by the correlation adjusting unit.”], wherein the laser processing monitor unit has:
an optical sensor disposed in the processing head or in proximity to the processing head, and configured to output a sensor output signal representing light intensity of a predetermined beam to be measured, the predetermined beam to be measured being generated or reflected in a vicinity of the processing point of the workpiece [para. 0021: “The focus head 3 has a photo sensor such as a photo diode (desirably three or more photo sensors) mounted. A detected signal is amplified by a sensor amplifier, and input into the control unit 1.”];
a sensor signal processor [fig. 1: correlation adjusting means 11] configured to generate sensor, and display and output [para. 0036: “In this invention, when the detection light quantity is smaller than a predetermined value in measuring the reference light, the correlation adjusting means 11 determines abnormality, and displays a warning message for this situation, preventing this faulty processing in advance.”];
a reference beam source configured to generate a reference beam for calibrating the optical sensor [para. 0022: “Also, the laser beam processing apparatus is provided with reference light generating means 8.”; para. 0034: “Generally, there is a dispersion in the characteristic of the light receiving sensor. Conventionally, when it is desired to monitor the processing situation, especially in cutting the thick plate, at high precision, it was required to calibrate the light receiving sensor. Herein, the calibration operation for each light receiving sensor is dispensed with by providing the reference light generating means 8 and the correlation adjusting means 11.”];
a reference beam source power supply unit configured to supply, to the reference beam source [para. 0022: “The reference light generating means 8 comprises a light emitting element such as an LED, an LED power source such as a constant current source, and a guide 9 provided to cover the light emitting element.”], adjustable power for generating the reference beam [para. 0029: “Also, the reference light is emitted at two or more emission levels and measured in view of the input/output characteristic of reference light to light receiving sensor.”];
Although Iwata discloses the known practice of using a monitoring portion to calibrate the optical sensor of a processing head, Iwata does not address any such calibration or verification of the monitoring portion itself. Specifically, Iwata does not explicitly disclose:
an optical measuring instrument having a beam sensor for receiving the reference beam from the reference beam source in order to calibrate the reference beam source, and configured to measure light intensity of the received reference beam or a predetermined physical quantity equivalent to the light intensity;
wherein
the processing head is connected to the laser oscillation unit via an optical fiber cable, and
a waveform of the sensor output signal is the data generated and displayed.
Turner, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the known structure of
a beam sensor for receiving a beam [i.e., optical assembly 214], configured to measure light intensity of the received beam or a predetermined physical quantity equivalent to the light intensity [para. 0029: “Optical assembly 214 may include visual cameras, depth cameras, range detectors, narrowband cameras or other like optical sensors known to those having skill in the art”].
Matsuda, in the same field of endeavor, teaches
the known structure of an optical fiber, wherein a processing head is connected to a laser oscillation unit via the optical fiber cable [pp. 1-2: “Further, remote laser welding using an optical fiber is possible, and it is not uncommon for welding to be performed at a remote location, for example, 30 m to 50 m away from the laser oscillator.”]; and
the known technique of using a waveform of the sensor output signal as the data generated and displayed [pp. 6-7: “In FIG. 3, a laser beam measurement calculation unit 52 terminates the optical fiber 14 in the laser processing head 12 based on the light intensity detection signal S .sub.L sent from the laser beam detector 26 mounted on the laser irradiation unit 12. A light intensity measurement value P .sub.L of the laser beam LB immediately after being emitted from the surface is obtained. In general, the laser beam LB for laser welding is oscillated and output as a pulsed laser beam having a substantially rectangular laser output waveform as shown in FIG… The control unit 50 may display and output the laser beam intensity measurement value P .sub.L from the laser beam measurement calculation unit 50 as it is on the panel display unit 16b.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Iwata by including an optical measuring instrument having a beam sensor for receiving the reference beam from the reference beam source in order to calibrate the reference beam source, and configured to measure light intensity of the received reference beam or a predetermined physical quantity equivalent to the light intensity, since Turner teaches that sensors require calibration in order verify the ability of the device to integrate information gathered [para. 0029: “These optical sensors each may require calibrations prior to performing an inspection. This calibration verifies the ability of the system to integrate information gathered by various sensors.”]. Furthermore, it would have been obvious to use an optical fiber to connect the processing head and laser oscillation unit, and to use a waveform as the data generated and displayed, since Matsuda teaches that an optical fiber allows welding to occur remotely from the laser oscillator, and that a waveform of a sensor output signal can be used to represent a laser beam intensity.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 7-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
In this case, although Wei (CN 108994455 A) teaches an optical path switch comprising a cylindrical mirror support rotatable around an axis intersecting with an optical path [see figs. 1 and 2, showing polygon mirror 65 rotatable around an axis intersecting an optical path], none of the cited references fail to individually disclose, or suggest when combined: “…an end surface opening formed in a first end surface of the mirror support in order to introduce the reference beam from the reference beam source; first and second side openings formed in a side surface of the mirror support so as to face each other; a third side opening formed in the side surface of the mirror support between the first side opening and the second side opening in a circumferential direction; a first folding mirror disposed on an inner side of a second end surface of the mirror support so as to face the end surface opening, and configured to receive, at an oblique incident angle, the reference beam introduced from the reference beam source through the end surface opening, and reflect the reference beam in a predetermined direction; and a second folding mirror disposed on the inner side of the side surface of the mirror support so as to face the third side opening, and configured to receive the reference beam from the first folding mirror at an oblique incident angle and reflect the reference beam outward through the third side opening, when the first optical path is selected, a rotational position of the mirror support is selected or adjusted such that the first and second side openings face the optical sensor, when the second optical path is selected, the rotational position of the mirror support is selected or adjusted such that the third side opening faces the optical sensor, and when the third optical path is selected, the rotational position of the mirror support is selected or adjusted such that the third side opening faces the beam sensor of the optical measuring instrument” recited in claim 7.
No prior art was found teaching individually, or suggesting in combination, all of the features of the applicants’ invention, specifically the structural limitations of the optical path switching unit, in combination with the recited structural limitations of the claimed invention.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments regarding amended claim 1 (as representative to claims 15 and 18) in view of Iwata and Turner (see pp. 10-11), are not persuasive. Specifically, Applicant argues “In contrast, Iwata discloses providing a reference light generating means 8 separate from a focus head 3 (see Iwata, Fig. 1, below). Turner merely discloses an optical assembly 214. Therefore, even if Iwata and Turner are combined, it would not have been obvious, or even possible, to provide the optical sensor, the reference light source and the optical measuring instrument in the sensor unit, and build the sensor unit into the processing head, as in the claimed invention.”
Claim 1 merely requires: an optical sensor disposed in a processing head (see claim 1, lines 2-3), a reference beam source provided in the processing head (see claim 1, line 9), an optical measuring instrument having a beam sensor (see claim 1, line 13 ), wherein the reference beam source and the beam sensor are mounted on a side wall of a housing (see claim 1, lines 19-20) of a sensor (‘sensor’ being interpreted as the structure/housing the optical sensor is disposed in) incorporating the optical sensor, the sensor built into the processing head (see claim 1, lines 17-18), the sensor being built into the processing head, and is not directed towards, for example, any additional structure required from this particular selection of positions for these elements.
And as presented above in the 103 rejection of claim 1, and in view of the interpretation of “a sensor” (see Claim Interpretation above), the prior art has been shown to disclose or teach an optical sensor, a processing head, a reference beam source, a beam sensor, and corresponding housings with sidewalls. And while dependent claims 7-9 are directed towards additional structure that facilitates the pathing of the predetermined beam/reference beam towards the corresponding optical/beam sensors, the limitations of claim 1 requiring a particular location for each of the optical sensor, the reference beam source, and the beam sensor have been shown to be an obvious matter of design choice, since the applicant has not disclosed that its location solves any problem or is for a particular reason, and since the reference beam source, and the optical/beam sensors would function equally well (as beam sources / beam sensors) positioned as disclosed by the prior art. Iwata has also been presented as disclosing the known practice of compensating for different mounting positions [para. 0030: “By making the adjustments in this way, the reference light is detected under the actual processing conditions, whereby the reference light measuring operation is automatically performed by eliminating the influence due to a dispersion in the nozzle state or the light receiving sensor, and a difference in the mounting position.”].
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 THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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 F 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761