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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 09/30/2022 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/13/2023 and 05/15/2024 is/are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is/are being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-6, 9-11, 15-20) in the reply filed on 12/12/2025 is acknowledge. Group II (claims 7-8) and Group III (claims 12-14) are withdrawn from consideration.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “feed length” as recited in claim 3 (line 2) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The following title is suggested: CONCRETE SURFACE PROCESSING METHOD
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6, 9-11, 15-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the scanning pattern” in lines 3 and 5. This should read “the predetermined scanning pattern” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (lines 2-3).
Claims 2-6, 9-11, 15-20 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “the scanning pattern” in lines 2-3 and 3. This should read “the predetermined scanning pattern” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (lines 2-3).
Claims 16, 19 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3-5, 10-11, 15-17, 19-20 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.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “feed length” in lines 2 and 3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear what the “feed length” is since the feed length is not defined in the disclosure. Specifically, the drawings do not show/label any feed length, the specification describes “feed length” at only one place, which is in the first paragraph on page 4: “According to a 3rd aspect of the present invention, there is provided a surface processing method of concrete according to the 1st aspect, wherein the overlap ratio is a ratio of a diameter of the beam spot to a feed length in one cycle of the scanning pattern according to the feed speed of the scanning pattern.”. However, the specification does not describe specifically what the feed length is. To be more specific, for instance, it is unclear if the feed length is one whole circle as shown in Fig.3 of the drawings of the Instant Application, or the feed length is the combined length of P0 and P1 as shown in Fig.3 of the drawings of the Instant Application. Therefore, it is unclear what the limitation “feed length” recited in claim 3 (lines 2, 3) is, and thus, it is unclear how the overlap ratio is defined since the feed length is not clearly defined. For examination purposes, the limitation “feed length” will be interpreted as any length in one cycle of scanning pattern.
Claims 16, 19 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 3.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a moving speed” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 4 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same speed, or different speeds. For examination purposes, the limitation “a moving speed” recited in claim 4 (lines 1-2) will be interpreted to be same as the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the diameter” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 4 depends on claim 1; however, there is no “diameter” recited previously in claim 1 or claim 4.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the irradiation area” in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because claim 4 depends on claim 1; however, there is no “irradiation area” recited previously in claim 1 or claim 4.
Claims 17, 20 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 4.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a speed” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 5 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same speed, or different speeds. For examination purposes, the limitation “a speed” recited in claim 5 (line 2) will be interpreted to be same as the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 10 recites the limitation “a scanning pattern” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 10 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites the limitation “the scanning pattern” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same scanning pattern, or different scanning patterns. For examination purposes, the limitation “a scanning pattern” recited in claim 10 (line 2) will be interpreted to be same as the limitation “the scanning pattern” recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “a scanning pattern” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 11 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 recites the limitation “the scanning pattern” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same scanning pattern, or different scanning patterns. For examination purposes, the limitation “a scanning pattern” recited in claim 11 (line 2) will be interpreted to be same as the limitation “the scanning pattern” recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “a speed” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 15 depends on claim 2; claim 2 depends on claim 1. However, claim 1 recites the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same speed, or different speeds. For examination purposes, the limitation “a speed” recited in claim 15 (line 2) will be interpreted to be same as the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 16 recites the limitation “a speed” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 16 depends on claim 3; claim 3 depends on claim 1. However, claim 1 recites the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same speed, or different speeds. For examination purposes, the limitation “a speed” recited in claim 16 (line 2) will be interpreted to be same as the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a speed” in line 2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 17 depends on claim 4; claim 4 depends on claim 1. However, claim 1 recites the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” in line 3. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same speed, or different speeds. For examination purposes, the limitation “a speed” recited in claim 17 (line 2) will be interpreted to be same as the limitation “a predetermined feed speed” recited in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment).
Regarding claim 1, Nguyen discloses a surface processing method of concrete (concrete, see Nguyen Fig.2) (Nguyen Abstract discloses: “The performance of high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation on concrete has been investigated in the downward (along the gravitational direction) and the upward laser directions (against it)”), wherein a surface (surface, Nguyen annotated Figs.2 & 16(b) below) of the concrete (concrete, Nguyen Fig.2) is irradiated with a laser beam (laser beam, Nguyen annotated Fig.2 below) so that a beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) is scanned along a predetermined scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) (Nguyen on page 041501-7, Section 2. Performance of the laser cutting of concrete, discloses: “In the second series of experiments, the effects of the QCW laser cutting of concrete in the downward and upward direction were conducted in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. For both experiments, the peak power of 1.3kW, pulse width of 10ms, repetition rate of 10Hz, and cutting length of 20mm were the same.”) and the scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) moves along the surface (surface, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) at a predetermined feed speed (predetermined feed speed V = 6.5 mm/s as shown in Nguyen Fig.16(b)),
and wherein, when the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) repeatedly passes through a predetermined portion (predetermined portion, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) in the scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below), an overlap ratio (“OVL”, Nguyen Fig.16(b)), which is a ratio of overlapping of a passage path of the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) over a passage path of the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) in an immediately preceding irradiation (as shown in Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below), is 90% or less (Nguyen Fig.16(b) shows that the overlap ratio OVL = 42%, which is less than 90% as required by the claim).
PNG
media_image1.png
736
1076
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
765
1103
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Nguyen discloses the method set forth in claim 1, and also discloses:
wherein a scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) is set such that the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) reciprocates in a predetermined interval (predetermined interval of 20 mm as shown in Nguyen Figs.14 & 16(b)) (Nguyen on page 041501-7, Section 2. Performance of the laser cutting of concrete, discloses: “In the second series of experiments, the effects of the QCW laser cutting of concrete in the downward and upward direction were conducted in Figs. 1 and 2, respectively. For both experiments, the peak power of 1.3kW, pulse width of 10ms, repetition rate of 10Hz, and cutting length of 20mm were the same.”) on the surface (surface, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below).
PNG
media_image3.png
765
1103
media_image3.png
Greyscale
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.
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 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment) in view of Marczak (NPL, “Micromachining And Pattering In Micro/Nano Scale On Macroscopic Areas”, Published 09/2015, see attachment).
Regarding claim 2, Nguyen discloses the method set forth in claim 1, Nguyen also disclose:
wherein the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.14 below) moves on the surface (surface, Nguyen annotated Fig.14 below) along a predetermined path (predetermined path, Nguyen annotated Fig.14 below) having a width (width L, see Nguyen Fig.14 below) corresponding to a diameter of the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.14 below) (Nguyen annotated Fig.14 below shows the width L corresponding to diameter of the beam spot)
PNG
media_image4.png
735
1109
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Nguyen does not explicitly disclose:
the overlap ratio is a ratio of an overlapping width of the beam spot irradiated in an immediately preceding path and a latest path to the diameter of the beam spot
Marczak teaches a laser processing method (Marczak Figs.3-4):
wherein the beam spot (beam spot, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) moves on the surface (surface of workpiece, Marczak Fig.3) having a width (width D, Marczak Fig.4) corresponding to a diameter of the beam spot (beam spot, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) (Marczak annotated Fig.4 below shows the width D corresponding to diameter of the beam spot), and the overlap ratio (Roverlap, Marczak Fig.4) is a ratio of an overlapping width (overlapping width is D - x, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) of the beam spot (beam spot, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) irradiated in an immediately preceding path and a latest path to the diameter (diameter D of the beam spot, Marczak Fig.4) of the beam spot (beam spot, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) (Marczak Fig.4 below discloses the overlapping ratio Roverlap = ((D-x)/D) * 100%.)
PNG
media_image5.png
718
820
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the overlap ratio is a ratio of an overlapping width of the beam spot irradiated in an immediately preceding path and a latest path to the diameter of the beam spot, as taught by Marczak, in order to precisely control surface processing because the overlap ratio helps optimize parameters such as diameter of beam spot, scanning speed, frequency, spacing between successive beam spots to achieve clean material removal and effective cut depth.
Regarding claim 3, Nguyen discloses the method set forth in claim 1, Nguyen also disclose the optimum overlapping ratio is about 40%–50% (as indicated by Nguyen on right column on page 041501-8).
Nguyen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the overlap ratio is a ratio of a diameter of the beam spot to a feed length in one cycle of the scanning pattern according to the feed speed of the scanning pattern.
Marczak teaches a laser processing method (Marczak Figs.3-4):
wherein the overlap ratio is a ratio of an overlapping width to the diameter of the beam spot (Marczak Fig.4 below discloses the overlapping ratio Roverlap = ((D-x)/D) * 100%.).
PNG
media_image5.png
718
820
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in combination, by applying Marczak’s overlapping ratio equation to the Nguyen, Nguyen in view of Marczak teaches:
wherein the overlap ratio is a ratio of a diameter of the beam spot to a feed length in one cycle of the scanning pattern according to the feed speed of the scanning pattern (Nguyen on right column on page 041501-8 discloses: “the optimum overlapping ratio is about 40%–50%”; in the case where the overlapping is 50%, the total overlapping for the scan path with three beam spots as shown in Fig.16(b) below is ((D-x)/D) * 100%) + ((D-x)/D) * 100% = ((1/2)*D)/D + ((1/2)*D)/D = D/D; it is further noted that one cycle is interpreted as one beam spot on the surface, thus, the feed length L = D; therefore, the overlapping ratio is D/L; it is further noted that the “x” as shown in Marczak Fig.4 is the non-overlapping width of the beam spot diameter, which is equal to a ratio of the scanning velocity to the laser pulse repetition frequency, as indicated by Marczak Fig.4. Therefore, in combination, Nguyen in view of Marczak teaches the overlap ratio is a ratio of a diameter of the beam spot to a feed length in one cycle of the scanning pattern according to the feed speed of the scanning pattern).
PNG
media_image6.png
645
930
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the overlap ratio is a ratio of an overlapping width of the beam spot irradiated in an immediately preceding path and a latest path to the diameter of the beam spot, as taught by Marczak, in order to precisely control surface processing because the overlap ratio helps optimize parameters such as diameter of beam spot, scanning speed, frequency, spacing between successive beam spots to achieve clean material removal and effective cut depth.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment).
Regarding claim 4, Nguyen discloses the method set forth in claim 1, Nguyen also discloses (see the overlapping ratio (OVL) equation (3) on page 041501-8 of Nguyen):
the overlap ratio is OVL = (L – Lx/L) x 100 (%)
where L = d + Vt; Lx = V/f; V is the cutting speed (mm/s), t is the pulse width (s), f is the repetition rate (1/s), and d is the laser beam diameter (mm).
Nguyen does not explicitly disclose:
wherein, when a moving speed of the beam spot on the surface is V, the diameter of the beam spot is d, and the irradiation area during an irradiation time t is S, the overlap ratio is (1 - (S/(V x d x t )) x 100 (%).
However, the court has held that, based on Ex Parte Griesinger, BPAI Appeal 2007-2345, Mar. 8, 2008, a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶. In the case that Nguyen is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.
Claims 6 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment) in view of Minehara (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0263221 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Nguyen discloses the method set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein a power density of the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2 (Minehara Par.0017 teaches: “the laser beam L1 is irradiated onto the surface of the contaminated article T with the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher”; it is noted that 1 GW/cm2 = 1000 MW/cm2; therefore, Minehara teaches the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2, as taught by Minehara, in order to effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Par.0017].
Regarding claim 20, Nguyen discloses the method set forth in claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose:
wherein a power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein a power density of the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2 (Minehara Par.0017 teaches: “the laser beam L1 is irradiated onto the surface of the contaminated article T with the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher”; it is noted that 1 GW/cm2 = 1000 MW/cm2; therefore, Minehara teaches the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2, as taught by Minehara, in order to effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Par.0017].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment) in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0151431 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nguyen discloses the method set forth in claim 1, but does not disclose:
wherein an output of a laser oscillator for generating the laser beam is 2 kW or higher.
Brown teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (Brown Abstract teaches: “A method of treating a surface for the removal of a surface portion comprising irradiating the surface with laser light”, and Brown Par.0001 discloses: “The present invention concerns surface removal from inorganic non-metallic structures, in particular concrete structures, primarily though not exclusively for the purpose of removing radioactive contamination contained in surface layers.”):
wherein an output of a laser oscillator for generating the laser beam is 2 kW or higher (Brown Par.0037 teaches a 3 kW YAG laser is used for generating the laser beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nguyen, by adding the teaching of output of a laser oscillator for generating the laser beam is 3 kW, as taught by Brown, in order to effect removal of a very thin surface layer. Because high power effectively ablates (vaporizes/removes) thick, stubborn contaminants like heavy paint, oil, or rust, providing fast cleaning over large areas by achieving high power density; furthermore, the high power can quickly remove the unwanted surface layer (scabbling) without excessive heat damage to the underlying concrete.
Second rejection of claim 1:
Claims 1, 4 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0085858 A1) in view of Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment).
Regarding claim 1, Toyosawa discloses a surface processing method of concrete (laser processing method for surface 20 of concreate as shown in Toyosawa Figs.5-6 because Toyosawa Par.0054 discloses: “The present invention is mainly intended to remove a coating on the surfaces of these structures but can be also applied to treatment on surface alteration such as undercoat treatment in overhaul inspections of a large-sized tank, pre-welding treatment of a large-sized mechanical facilities and the like and removal of stains or rusts of port and harbor facilities. Moreover, stains, graffiti and the like adhering to a concrete surface can be also removed.”), wherein a surface of the concrete (surface 20 of concrete, Toyosawa Fig.5) is irradiated with a laser beam (laser beam 30, Toyosawa Fig.5) so that a beam spot (beam spot, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) is scanned along a predetermined scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) and the scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6) moves along the surface (surface 20 of concrete, Toyosawa Fig.5) at a predetermined feed speed (Toyosawa discloses predetermined feed speed because Toyosawa Par.0072 discloses: “In this laser irradiation apparatus, irradiation conditions such as an output of laser, a focal position, a beam width, a scanning speed and the like can be set as appropriate in accordance with a type, a nature and the like of the surface.” and Toyosawa Par.0111 discloses: “The driving means 49 rotates the first wedge prism 43 by rotating the support member 44 at a predetermined rotation speed ω around the optical axis L.”),
and wherein, when the beam spot (beam spot, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) repeatedly passes through a predetermined portion (predetermined portion, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) in the scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below), an overlap ratio, which is a ratio of overlapping of a passage path of the beam spot (beam spot, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) over a passage path of the beam spot (beam spot, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) in an immediately preceding irradiation (Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below shows an overlap ratio a ratio of overlapping of a passage path of the beam spot over a passage path of the beam spot in an immediately preceding irradiation).
PNG
media_image7.png
708
1009
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Toyosawa does not explicitly disclose:
the overlap ratio is 90% or less
Nguyen teaches a surface processing method of concrete (concrete, see Nguyen Fig.2) (Nguyen Abstract discloses: “The performance of high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation on concrete has been investigated in the downward (along the gravitational direction) and the upward laser directions (against it)”),
wherein, when the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) repeatedly passes through a predetermined portion (predetermined portion, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) in the scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below), an overlap ratio (“OVL”, Nguyen Fig.16(b)), which is a ratio of overlapping of a passage path of the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) over a passage path of the beam spot (beam spot, Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below) in an immediately preceding irradiation (as shown in Nguyen annotated Fig.16(b) below), is 90% or less (Nguyen Fig.16(b) shows that the overlap ratio OVL = 42%, which is less than 90% as required by the claim).
PNG
media_image2.png
765
1103
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa, by adding the teaching of the overlap ratio is 42%, as taught by Nguyen, in order to prevent the clogged kerf because at the overlapping ratio of 42%, the cut kerf is cleared by the presence of high melt ejection; thus, achieving effective cut depth and cut speed, as recognized by Nguyen [Nguyen Figs.16(a)-(b) & right column on page 041501-8].
Regarding claim 4, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Nguyen also teaches (see the overlapping ratio (OVL) equation (3) on page 041501-8 of Nguyen):
the overlap ratio is OVL = (L – Lx/L) x 100 (%)
where L = d + Vt; Lx = V/f; V is the cutting speed (mm/s), t is the pulse width (s), f is the repetition rate (1/s), and d is the laser beam diameter (mm).
Toyosawa in view of Nguyen does not explicitly teach:
wherein, when a moving speed of the beam spot on the surface is V, the diameter of the beam spot is d, and the irradiation area during an irradiation time t is S, the overlap ratio is (1 - (S/(V x d x t )) x 100 (%).
However, the court has held that, based on Ex Parte Griesinger, BPAI Appeal 2007-2345, Mar. 8, 2008, a reference is considered to teach not only what it states explicitly, but also what is mathematically equivalent to what it states: “[T]he Examiner’s use of mathematical equivalence per se to show anticipation appears to apply across all arts.”, p. 3, 3rd ¶. In the case that Toyosawa in view of Nguyen is not taken to be considered to teach this feature, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it trivial to replace a mathematical operation with another mathematical operation that is mathematically equivalent to it.
Regarding claim 10, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Toyosawa also discloses:
wherein a scanning pattern (scanning pattern, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) is set such that the beam spot (beam spot, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) turns along a predetermined shape (circle C1, Toyosawa Fig.6) on the surface (surface 20 of concrete, Toyosawa Fig.5).
PNG
media_image7.png
708
1009
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0085858 A1) in view of Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment), and further in view of Marczak (NPL, “Micromachining And Pattering In Micro/Nano Scale On Macroscopic Areas”, Published 09/2015, see attachment).
Regarding claim 2, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Toyosawa also discloses:
wherein the beam spot (beam spot, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) moves on the surface (surface 20 of concrete, Toyosawa Fig.5) along a predetermined path (scanning direction, Toyosawa Fig.6) having a width (width D, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) corresponding to a diameter of the beam spot (beam spot, Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below) (Toyosawa annotated Fig.6 below shows the width D corresponding to diameter of the beam spot)
PNG
media_image8.png
708
1009
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Toyosawa in view of Nguyen does not explicitly teach:
the overlap ratio is a ratio of an overlapping width of the beam spot irradiated in an immediately preceding path and a latest path to the diameter of the beam spot
Marczak teaches a laser processing method (Marczak Figs.3-4):
wherein the beam spot (beam spot, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) moves on the surface (surface of workpiece, Marczak Fig.3) having a width (width D, Marczak Fig.4) corresponding to a diameter of the beam spot (beam spot, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) (Marczak annotated Fig.4 below shows the width D corresponding to diameter of the beam spot), and the overlap ratio (Roverlap, Marczak Fig.4) is a ratio of an overlapping width (overlapping width is D - x, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) of the beam spot (beam spot, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) irradiated in an immediately preceding path and a latest path to the diameter (diameter D of the beam spot, Marczak Fig.4) of the beam spot (beam spot, Marczak annotated Fig.4 below) (Marczak Fig.4 below discloses the overlapping ratio Roverlap = ((D-x)/D) * 100%)
PNG
media_image5.png
718
820
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the overlap ratio is a ratio of an overlapping width of the beam spot irradiated in an immediately preceding path and a latest path to the diameter of the beam spot, as taught by Marczak, in order to precisely control surface processing because the overlap ratio helps optimize parameters such as diameter of beam spot, scanning speed, frequency, spacing between successive beam spots to achieve effective contamination removal and effective cut depth.
Regarding claim 3, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 1, Nguyen also teaches the optimum overlapping ratio is about 40%–50% (Nguyen on right column on page 041501-8).
Toyosawa in view of Nguyen does not explicitly teach:
wherein the overlap ratio is a ratio of a diameter of the beam spot to a feed length in one cycle of the scanning pattern according to the feed speed of the scanning pattern.
Marczak teaches a laser processing method (Marczak Figs.3-4):
wherein the overlap ratio is a ratio of an overlapping width to the diameter of the beam spot (Marczak Fig.4 below discloses the overlapping ratio Roverlap = ((D-x)/D) * 100%).
PNG
media_image5.png
718
820
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, in combination, by applying Marczak’s overlapping ratio equation to the Toyosawa in view of Nguyen, the combination of Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak teaches:
wherein the overlap ratio is a ratio of a diameter of the beam spot to a feed length in one cycle of the scanning pattern according to the feed speed of the scanning pattern (Nguyen on right column on page 041501-8 discloses: “the optimum overlapping ratio is about 40%–50%”; in the case where the overlapping is 50%, the total overlapping for the scan path as shown in Fig.16(b) below is ((D-x)/D) * 100%) + (((D-x)/D) * 100%) = ((1/2)*D)/D + ((1/2)*D)/D = D/D; it is further noted that one cycle is interpreted as one beam spot on the surface, thus, the feed length L = D; therefore, the overlapping ratio is D/L; it is further noted that the “x” as shown in Marczak Fig.4 is the non-overlapping width of the beam spot diameter, which is equal to a ratio of the scanning velocity to the laser pulse repetition frequency, as indicated by Marczak Fig.4. Therefore, in combination, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak teaches the overlap ratio is a ratio of a diameter of the beam spot to a feed length in one cycle of the scanning pattern according to the feed speed of the scanning pattern).
PNG
media_image6.png
645
930
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the overlap ratio is a ratio of an overlapping width of the beam spot irradiated in an immediately preceding path and a latest path to the diameter of the beam spot, as taught by Marczak, in order to precisely control surface processing because the overlap ratio helps optimize parameters such as diameter of beam spot, scanning speed, frequency, spacing between successive beam spots to achieve clean material removal and effective cut depth.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0085858 A1) in view of Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment), and further in view of Minehara (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0263221 A1).
Regarding claim 5, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the beam spot moves on the surface at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) moves on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster (Minehara teaches the laser oscillator 1 capable of a high velocity scanning of 10 m/s, specifically, Minehara Par.0057 teaches: “For instance, for the laser oscillator 1, not only the fiber laser, but also a semiconductor laser, a solid-state laser or a gas laser capable of a high velocity scanning of 10 m/s”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the beam spot moves on the surface at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster, as taught by Minehara, in order to achieve the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher; thus, effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Pars.0017 & 0057].
Regarding claim 6, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein a power density of the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2 (Minehara Par.0017 teaches: “the laser beam L1 is irradiated onto the surface of the contaminated article T with the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher”; it is noted that 1 GW/cm2 = 1000 MW/cm2; therefore, Minehara teaches the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2, as taught by Minehara, in order to effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Par.0017].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0085858 A1) in view of Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment), and further in view of Brown et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0151431 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein an output of a laser oscillator for generating the laser beam is 2 kW or higher.
Brown teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (Brown Abstract teaches: “A method of treating a surface for the removal of a surface portion comprising irradiating the surface with laser light”, and Brown Par.0001 discloses: “The present invention concerns surface removal from inorganic non-metallic structures, in particular concrete structures, primarily though not exclusively for the purpose of removing radioactive contamination contained in surface layers.”):
wherein an output of a laser oscillator for generating the laser beam is 2 kW or higher (Brown Par.0037 teaches a 3 kW YAG laser is used for generating the laser beam).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen, by adding the teaching of output of a laser oscillator for generating the laser beam is 3 kW, as taught by Brown, in order to effect removal of a very thin surface layer. Because high power effectively ablates (vaporizes/removes) thick, stubborn contaminants like heavy paint, oil, or rust, providing fast cleaning over large areas by achieving high power density; furthermore, the high power can quickly remove the unwanted surface layer (scabbling) without excessive heat damage to the underlying concrete.
Claims 15-16, 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0085858 A1) in view of Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment), Marczak (NPL, “Micromachining And Pattering In Micro/Nano Scale On Macroscopic Areas”, Published 09/2015, see attachment), and further in view of Minehara (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0263221 A1).
Regarding claim 15, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak teaches the method set forth in claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the beam spot moves on the surface at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) moves on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster (Minehara teaches the laser oscillator 1 capable of a high velocity scanning of 10 m/s, specifically, Minehara Par.0057 teaches: “For instance, for the laser oscillator 1, not only the fiber laser, but also a semiconductor laser, a solid-state laser or a gas laser capable of a high velocity scanning of 10 m/s”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak, by adding the teaching of the beam spot moves on the surface at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster, as taught by Minehara, in order to achieve the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher; thus, effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Pars.0017 & 0057].
Regarding claim 16, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak teaches the method set forth in claim 3, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the beam spot moves on the surface at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) moves on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster (Minehara teaches the laser oscillator 1 capable of a high velocity scanning of 10 m/s, specifically, Minehara Par.0057 teaches: “For instance, for the laser oscillator 1, not only the fiber laser, but also a semiconductor laser, a solid-state laser or a gas laser capable of a high velocity scanning of 10 m/s”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak, by adding the teaching of the beam spot moves on the surface at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster, as taught by Minehara, in order to achieve the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher; thus, effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Pars.0017 & 0057].
Regarding claim 18, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak teaches the method set forth in claim 2, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein a power density of the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2 (Minehara Par.0017 teaches: “the laser beam L1 is irradiated onto the surface of the contaminated article T with the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher”; it is noted that 1 GW/cm2 = 1000 MW/cm2; therefore, Minehara teaches the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak, by adding the teaching of the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2, as taught by Minehara, in order to effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Par.0017].
Regarding claim 19, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak teaches the method set forth in claim 3, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein a power density of the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2 (Minehara Par.0017 teaches: “the laser beam L1 is irradiated onto the surface of the contaminated article T with the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher”; it is noted that 1 GW/cm2 = 1000 MW/cm2; therefore, Minehara teaches the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen and Marczak, by adding the teaching of the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2, as taught by Minehara, in order to effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Par.0017].
Claims 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2018/0085858 A1) in view of Nguyen et al. (NPL, “Experimental characterization of concrete removal by high-power quasicontinuous wave fiber laser irradiation”, Published 10/17/2017, see attachment), and further in view of Minehara (U.S. Pub. No. 2014/0263221 A1)
Regarding claim 17, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 4, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein the beam spot moves on the surface at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) moves on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster (Minehara teaches the laser oscillator 1 capable of a high velocity scanning of 10 m/s, specifically, Minehara Par.0057 teaches: “For instance, for the laser oscillator 1, not only the fiber laser, but also a semiconductor laser, a solid-state laser or a gas laser capable of a high velocity scanning of 10 m/s”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the beam spot moves on the surface at a speed of 6 meters per second or faster, as taught by Minehara, in order to achieve the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher; thus, effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Pars.0017 & 0057].
Regarding claim 20, Toyosawa in view of Nguyen teaches the method set forth in claim 4, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein a power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2.
Minehara teaches a surface processing method of concrete using laser (see Minehara Figs.1-2, and Minehara Par.0062 teaches: “the laser decontamination device according to the invention is excellent in the basic function of removing the RIs from the contaminated articles on almost all of the materials such as carbon steel, stainless steel, titanium, aluminum, zirconium, tiles, concrete, zinc, glass, synthetic resins, coated films in comparison with the conventional counterparts”):
wherein a power density of the beam spot (beam spot generated by laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator 1, Minehara Figs.1-2) on the surface (surface of the contaminated article T, Minehara Figs.1-2) is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2 (Minehara Par.0017 teaches: “the laser beam L1 is irradiated onto the surface of the contaminated article T with the power density of 1 GW/cm2 or higher”; it is noted that 1 GW/cm2 = 1000 MW/cm2; therefore, Minehara teaches the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Toyosawa in view of Nguyen, by adding the teaching of the power density of the beam spot on the surface is no less than 0.53 MW/cm2, as taught by Minehara, in order to effectively remove contamination on surface of the concrete because the modification would enhance the thermal spallation, evaporation and sublimation of the contaminated article without melting in proportion to the power density up to the second power thereof; this enhances the velocity and efficiency with which the decontamination proceeds, as recognized by Minehara [Minehara, Par.0017].
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Mori (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0255660 A1) discloses a laser machine comprises: a head including optical parts allowing reflection of a laser beam or allowing the laser beam to pass through, while being rotatable about rotary axes, and a focusing optical system that focuses the laser beam; a moving mechanism that allows the head and a target to move relative to each other; and a control unit that controls rotations of the optical parts in such a manner that an irradiation intended position to be reached by an emission optical axis when the laser beam is emitted to the target moves in a curvilinear pattern or a linear pattern.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/27/2025