PROCESSING SYSTEM

§102 §103

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 Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to claims 105, 107-132 and 134-144 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §35 U.S.C. 112(f) of claims 105, 107-132 and 134-144 has been withdrawn. Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 07/10/2026, with respect to Claim 123 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The §35 U.S.C. 112(b) of claim 123 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 07/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. The applicant argues: PNG media_image1.png 198 630 media_image1.png Greyscale PNG media_image2.png 94 582 media_image2.png Greyscale PNG media_image3.png 124 590 media_image3.png Greyscale The examiner respectfully disagrees, Kobe does teach the amended claim as per the updated rejection below, additionally figure 3 directly below shows where the surface measurement is taken. PNG media_image4.png 340 508 media_image4.png Greyscale If applicants intent is to have the measurement light measure a specific area or parameter the claim needs to reflect that limitations, as written the claim using the examiners BRI is taught by Kobe Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 105, 107-114, 116-121, 130, 132, and 134-144 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2014223672 A - Kubo. Regarding claim 105, Kubo is directed towards a laser processing device. Kubo does teach a holder that is configured to hold an object to be rotatable ([0020] workpiece holding means 3), an actuator that is configured to rotate the holder ([0020] a rotating mechanism 22 for rotating the chuck 21), a head that is configured to irradiate the object held by the holder with an energy beam ([0018] As shown in Figure 1, the laser processing apparatus 1 of this embodiment is a device that processes an object w to be processed by irradiating it with processing laser light L1.), a detector that is configured to measure the object ([0005] processing apparatus that can measure and correct the axial runout of a workpiece with high precision, thereby improving processing accuracy.), and processor that is configured to control at least one of the head ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2 … a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and actuator based on an information related to the object measured by the detector ([0018]workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) … a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and an information of a rotational axis of the actuator, the object is processed by irradiating the object held by the holder with the energy beam from the head ([0018] an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), which has been irradiated with measurement light by detecting the measurement light from the object and wherein the processor controls the actuator to rotate the object after the detector measures the object, and the detector measures a surface of the object that has been rotated by the actuator ([0018 - 0023], specifically [0018] correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value and [0023] The magnitude of the axial runout is calculated by irradiating the workpiece w with a measuring laser beam L2 at a fixed point, rotating the workpiece w using the rotation mechanism 22,). Regarding claim 107, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the processor is configured to control at least one of the head and actuator based on an angle relationship between the rotational axis and a central axis of the object ([0032] In response to this change in reflection position and incident angle, the diameter and reflection direction of the reflected light R1 change, and the size and projection position of the projected light S1 on the screen 33 also change.). Regarding claim 108, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the processor is configured to control at least one of the head and the actuator based on a positional relationship between the rotational axis and a central axis of the object ([0018] the change in the reflected light is measured to calculate the magnitude of the axial runout caused by the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece and the rotation center, and the irradiation position of the processing laser beam is adjusted based on the calculated value.). Regarding claim 109, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the processor is configured to control an irradiation position of the energy beam by the head based on a misalignment between the rotational axis and the object ([0018] the change in the reflected light is measured to calculate the magnitude of the axial runout caused by the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece and the rotation center, and the irradiation position of the processing laser beam is adjusted based on the calculated value.). Regarding claim 110, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the processor is configured to control the irradiation position of the energy beam by the head in a direction intersecting with the rotational axis based on the misalignment between the rotational axis and the object ([0018] the change in the reflected light is measured to calculate the magnitude of the axial runout caused by the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece and the rotation center, and the irradiation position of the processing laser beam is adjusted based on the calculated value.). Regarding claim 111, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 109. Kubo does teach wherein the head is configured to change an irradiation position of the energy beam relative to head. ([0019] a focusing lens 14 that focuses the laser light into a spot shape, and a plurality of mirrors m1, m2 that bend the optical path.). Regarding claim 112, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 109. Kubo does teach the head is configured to irradiate an irradiation position on a surface of the object with the energy beam from a direction intersecting with a normal line of the surface at the irradiation position (Figures 1 and 2, it can be seen in the figures that the processing beam (L1) is normal to the surface of the workpiece (w)). Regarding claim 113, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 112. Kubo does teach an angle between the normal line and an irradiation axis that is along a propagating direction of the energy beam with which the irradiation position is irradiated is equal to or larger than 60 degree (Figures 4-6, [0032] As the processing of the workpiece w progresses with the processing laser beam L1, its diameter decreases, and the position of its surface changes in accordance with this reduction in diameter. Therefore, as the processing progresses, the reflection position of the processing laser light L1 on the surface of the workpiece w changes in the z-axis direction, and as the radius of curvature of the surface decreases, the angle of incidence to the workpiece w (the angle it makes with the normal to the surface of the workpiece) also gradually increases. In response to this change in reflection position and incident angle, the diameter and reflection direction of the reflected light R1 change, and the size and projection position of the projected light S1 on the screen 33 also change.). Regarding claim 114, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 112. Kubo does teach the irradiation position of the energy beam is changeable in a direction intersecting with the rotational axis ([0019] a focusing lens 14 that focuses the laser light into a spot shape, and a plurality of mirrors m1, m2 that bend the optical path.). Regarding claim 116, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the detector is a first detector, the processing system further comprising second detector that is configured to measure the energy beam from the head. ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.). Regarding claim 117, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does teach the second detector is configured to measure an intensity distribution in an angular direction relative to an irradiation axis that is along a propagating direction of the energy beam ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.). Regarding claim 118, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 117. Kubo does teach the processor is configured to control an irradiation position of the energy beam based on a measured result by the second detector ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11,). Regarding claim 119, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 117. Kubo does teach the processor is configured to control a direction along which the energy beam propagates based on a measured result by the second detector ([0010] For example, changes in beam diameter and irradiation position on the surface of the workpiece, measured in microns, can be amplified to millimeters in reflected light, and the end point of the machining process can be determined with high precision from these amplified changes in reflected light. Furthermore, the direction and dimension of the misalignment between the irradiation direction of the processing laser beam and the rotation center may differ from those of the measurement laser beam.). Regarding claim 120, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 118. Kubo does teach the head is configured to change at least one of an irradiation position of the energy beam relative to the head and a propagating direction of the energy beam from the head. ([0018] a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.). Regarding claim 121, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 117. Kubo does teach the head is configured to change an open angle of the energy beam, and the processor is configured to control the open angle based on a measured result by the second detector. ([0032] In response to this change in reflection position and incident angle, the diameter and reflection direction of the reflected light R1 change, and the size and projection position of the projected light S1 on the screen 33 also change.). Regarding claim 130, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the head propagates is not coincident with a measurement axis of the detector (Figure 2, it shows that the laser (L1) and measurement reflection (R1) are in different area of the workpiece). Regarding claim 132, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the detector is configured to measure the surface of the object three-dimensionally ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2, a workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2)). Regarding claim 134, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a measurement range on the object that has been rotated by the actuator is partially overlapped with a measurement range on the object before the object has been rotated by the actuator ([0018] a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.). Regarding claim 135, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the detector measures the object that is being rotated by the actuator ([0023] The magnitude of the axial runout is calculated by irradiating the workpiece w with a measuring laser beam L2 at a fixed point, rotating the workpiece w using the rotation mechanism 22,). Regarding claim 136, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a second detector that is configured to measure the energy beam from the head ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.), and a second actuator that is configured to move at least one of the head and the second detector, the processor being configured to: move at least one of the head and the second detector so that the second detector measures the energy beam from the head and move at least one of the head and the second detector so that the first detector measures at least a part of the second detector ([0019] a galvanometer scanner 13 that scans the laser light to be irradiated, a focusing lens 14 that focuses the laser light into a spot shape, and a plurality of mirrors m1, m2 that bend the optical path...embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.). Regarding claim 137, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a second detector that is configured to measure the energy beam from the head ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.), a second actuator that is configured to move at least one of a position of the head and a position of the second detector ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2, a workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and a third detector that is configured to obtain an information related to at least one of the position of the head and the position of the second detector, the processor being configured to: ([0022] The determination unit 32 has the coordinates of the endpoint position on the screen 33 stored in advance, and determines that the processing has ended when the projected light S1 reaches that endpoint position on the screen 33, as will be described later.), and move at least one of the head and the second detector to an irradiation allowable position at which the head irradiates at least a part of the second detector with the energy beam, obtain, by using the third detector, an irradiation position information related to at least one of the position of the head and the position of the second detector that has moved to the irradiation allowable position and control at least one of the position of the head and the position of the second detector based on the irradiation position information ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2, a workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.). Regarding claim 138, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a second detector that is configured to measure the energy beam from the head ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.), a second actuator that is configured to move at least one of the head and the second detector ([0022] In this embodiment, the moving mechanism 36 is configured to move the imaging device 35 up and down on a rail 36a that is aligned vertically, since the projected light S1 and S2 move in the vertical direction.), and a third detector that is configured to obtain an information related to at least one of a position of the head and a position of the second detector, the processor being configured to: ([0022] The determination unit 32 has the coordinates of the endpoint position on the screen 33 stored in advance, and determines that the processing has ended when the projected light S1 reaches that endpoint position on the screen 33, as will be described later.), move at least one of the head and the second detector to a measurement allowable position at which the first detector measures at least a part of the second detector; obtain, by using third detector, a measurement position information related to at least one of the position of the head and the position of the second detector that has moved to the measurement allowable position; and control at least one of the position of the head and the position of the second detector based on the measurement position information ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2, a workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.). Regarding claim 139, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the head is configured to emit from a direction that intersects with a rotational axis of the actuator (Figure 3, shows the beam emitting from a direction that intersects with a rotational axis of the actuator.). Regarding claim 140, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the head is configured to emit from a direction that is skew relative to a rotational axis of the actuator ([0032]the angle of incidence to the workpiece w (the angle it makes with the normal to the surface of the workpiece) also gradually increases.). Regarding claim 141, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a second actuator that is configured to move at least one of the head and the first actuator ([0020] a rotating mechanism 22 for rotating the chuck 21). Regarding claim 142, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the head is configured to change an irradiation position of the energy beam relative to the head ([0041] Beam adjustment unit 13). Regarding claim 143, Kubo does teach a holder that is configured to hold an object to be rotatable ([0020] workpiece holding means 3), an actuator that is configured to rotate the holding apparatus ([0020] a rotating mechanism 22 for rotating the chuck 21), a head that is configured to irradiate the object held by the holding apparatus with an energy beam ([0018] As shown in Figure 1, the laser processing apparatus 1 of this embodiment is a device that processes an object w to be processed by irradiating it with processing laser light L1.), a detector that is configured to measure the object ([0005] processing apparatus that can measure and correct the axial runout of a workpiece with high precision, thereby improving processing accuracy.), and a processor that is configured to control at least one of the head ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2 … a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and the actuator based on a misalignment between the object measured by the detector and a rotational axis of the actuator ([0018]workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) … a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), the object being processed by irradiating the object held by the holding apparatus with the energy beam from the head ([0018] an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.). Regarding claim 144, Kubo does teach holding an object to be rotatable by using a holder ([0020] workpiece holding means 3), rotating the holder by using a rotating apparatus ([0020] a rotating mechanism 22 for rotating the chuck 21), irradiating the object held by the holder with an energy beam by using a head([0018] As shown in Figure 1, the laser processing apparatus 1 of this embodiment is a device that processes an object w to be processed by irradiating it with processing laser light L1.), measuring the object ([0005] processing apparatus that can measure and correct the axial runout of a workpiece with high precision, thereby improving processing accuracy.), and controlling at least one of the head and the actuator based on an information related to the object measured by measuring the object ([0018] (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and an information of a rotational axis of the actuator, the object is processed by irradiating the held object with the energy beam ([0018] an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), which has been irradiated with measurement light by detecting the measurement light from the object and wherein the processor controls the actuator to rotate the object after the detector measures the object, and the detector measures a surface of the object that has been rotated by the actuator ([0018] correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value and [0023] The magnitude of the axial runout is calculated by irradiating the workpiece w with a measuring laser beam L2 at a fixed point, rotating the workpiece w using the rotation mechanism 22,). 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 115 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014223672 A – Kubo as applied to claim 105 above, and further in view of US 20150192434 A1 - Fukuhara. Regarding claim 115, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does not expressly teach an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the head irradiates the object with the energy beam is. Fukuhara is directed towards a measuring apparatus. Fukuhara does teach an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the head irradiates the object with the energy beam ([0037] Next, a case of forming, in the second region, a mark row in the second period P2 that converges to the first period P1 at its boundary with the first region will be described. The convergence means that the second period P2 is closer to the first period P1 at a position closer to the boundary between the first region and the second region.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the head irradiates the object with the energy beam is by Fukuhara in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the head irradiates the object with the energy beam is of Fukuhara could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably allow the unit to mark different sections of the workpiece at different periods. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the head irradiates the object with the energy beam is of Fukuhara with the well-known system of Kubo. Claims 122-123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014223672 A – Kubo as applied to claims 121 and 116, respectfully above, and further in view of US 20080037596 A1 - Kobayashi. Regarding claim 122, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 121. Kubo does not expressly teach when the head is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, and the processor is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the second detector. Kobayashi is directed towards a laser beam irradiation device. Kobayashi does teach the head is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, and the processor is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the second detector (Figure 2 and [0043] - [0046] the first deflection angle adjustment means 814 and the first output adjustment means 815 of the first acousto-optic deflection means 81 and the second deflection angle adjustment means 824 and the second output adjustment means 825 of the second acousto-optic deflection means 82). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the head is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, and the processor is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the second detector by Kobayashi in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the when the open angle change apparatus is a first open angle change apparatus, the head includes a second open angle change apparatus that is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, the processor is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the second detector of Kobayashi could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably adjust the angles of the processing beam to achieve the results wanted by the user. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the head is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, and the processor is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the second detector of Kobayashi with the well-known system of Kubo. Regarding claim 123, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does not expressly teach an optical condenser that is configured to condense the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the optical condenser, a direction of a long axis of an oval beam cross section at an entrance pupil of the optical condenser, a direction of a long axis of a beam at an entrance pupil of the optical condenser. Kobayashi does teach an optical condenser that is configured to condense the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the optical condenser, a direction of a long axis of a beam at an entrance pupil of the optical condenser. ([0050] Description of the embodiment is continued referring back to FIG. 2. The condenser 10 is mounted at the tip end of the casing 521 and includes a direction changing mirror 101 for changing the direction of the pulse laser beam deflected by the first and second acousto-optic deflection means 81 and 82 toward a downward direction and a condensing lens 102 for condensing the laser beam whose direction is changed by the direction changing mirror 101.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to an optical condense that is configured to condense the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the optical condenser, a direction of a long axis of a beam at an entrance pupil of the optical condenser. by Kobayashi in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that an optical condense that is configured to condense the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the optical condenser of Kobayashi could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably allow the unit to change the angle of the beam being deflected off the changing mirror. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using an optical condense that is configured to condense the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the optical condenser, a direction of a long axis of a beam at an entrance pupil of the optical condenser. of Kobayashi with the well-known system of Kubo. Regarding the shape of oval beam cross section, the courts have held that a change in shape alone, without demonstration of the criticality of a specific limitation, may be considered obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art. “In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966), [t]he court held that the configuration of the claimed disposable plastic nursing container was a matter of choice which a person of ordinary skill in the art would have found obvious absent persuasive evidence that the particular configuration of the claimed container was significant.” MPEP § 2144.04-IV-B. Claims 124-125 and 127-129 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014223672 A – Kubo as applied to claims 125, 116, and 105, respectfully above, and further in view of US 20070284785 A1 - Hoekstra. Regarding claim 124, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does not expressly teach the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction. Hoekstra is directed towards a laser cutting device. Hoekstra does teach the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably correct the processing beam to make sure it is in the correct position. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo. Regarding claim 125, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does not expressly teach the second detector is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates. Hoekstra does teach the second detector is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates. (Figure 9B, it can be seen that the measurement device (630) goes in the direction with the laser). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the second detector is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the second detector is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably allow the unit to measure the surface of the workpiece to maintain proper processing. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the second detector is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo. Regarding claim 127, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 125. Kubo does teach the processor controls an irradiation position of the energy beam based on the direction along which the energy beam propagates measured by the second detector ([0018] a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.). Regarding claim 128, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 125. Kubo does teach the processor controls the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the direction along which the energy beam propagates measured by the second detector ([0018] a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.). Regarding claim 129, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does not expressly teach the second detector is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates. Hoekstra does teach the second detector is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates ([0106] If the desired position and the measured position are the same, then the energy level is maintained at its current setting. However, if the measured position of the crack propagation is ahead of the desired position then the energy to the laser is decreased. Alternatively, if the measured position of the crack propagation is a behind the desired position then energy to the laser is increased.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the second detector is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the second detector is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably detect if the power is correct for the processing of the workpiece. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the second detector is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo. Regarding claim 131, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does not expressly teach an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the head propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the detector. Hoekstra does teach an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the head propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the detector (Figure 9B, it can be seen in the figure that the laser and measurement device are on the same axis.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the head propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the detector by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the head propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the detector of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably measure the work piece to keep the processing beam on course and at the correct energy. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the head propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the detector of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo. Claim 126 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014223672 A – Kubo and US 20070284785 A1 - Hoekstra as applied to claims 125 and further in view of US 20160356595 A1 - Lessmueller. Regarding claim 126, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does not expressly teach the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction and measure the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates. Hoekstra does teach the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction ([0106] If the desired position and the measured position are the same, then the energy level is maintained at its current setting. However, if the measured position of the crack propagation is ahead of the desired position then the energy to the laser is decreased. Alternatively, if the measured position of the crack propagation is a behind the desired position then energy to the laser is increased.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably measure the energy beam to make sure the position and amount of energy is correct. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the second detector is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo. Lessmueller is directed towards a measurement device for a laser. Lessmueller does teach measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates (Figure 2 shows the measurement beam (16) and the processing beam (18) intersecting. And figure 3 shows at least three measurement points.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates by Lessmueller in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable. Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates of Lessmueller could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably measure and ensure the processing beam is in the proper position. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates of Lessmueller with the well-known system of Kubo. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm 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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761