DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/21/2025 has been entered and accepted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 11/21/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that “control of the driver and laser oscillator cannot be performed in the human man” (Page 13 applicant’s remarks filed 11/21/2025). However, said limitations do not amount to more than a simple recitation of the words “apply it”. MPEP 2106.05(g) teaches that mere instructions to apply an exception is not sufficient for making a judicial exception patent-eligible. Providing operation commands to a driver and a laser oscillator is a generic task of outputting a result or data which can be performed by a computer and which do not amount to significantly more.
Applicant’s other arguments with respect to claim(s) 12 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. A new rejection has been made over Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) in view of Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1) and Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1). A full rejection can be found below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
Claims 12-30 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
Each of Claims 12-30 recites at least one step or instruction for observation of a laser process, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III) or a certain method of organizing human activity in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(II) or mathematical concept in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I).
Claim 12 recites "a driver to change relative positions of a machining head that focuses a beam emitted from a laser oscillator in irradiating a workpiece and the workpiece” (additional element);
processing circuitry
to determine operation commands for the driver and the laser oscillator on a basis of a control signal and a machining condition specifying parameters and numerical values for laser beam machining, and to provide the operation commands to the driver and the laser oscillator;
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head or a varying state of the workpiece and output an observation result as a machining state signal;
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result, the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal;
to monitor the workpiece for presence or absence of the machining defect and output a monitoring result as a monitoring signal;
to decide whether or not there is the at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the monitoring signal and determine a quality of the laser beam machining as a decision result; and
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining, wherein the processing circuitry determines a monitoring command for instructing to determine the decision result when the inference result on the at least one type of machining defect indicates that the degree of quality is poor compared with a predetermined criterion" (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III);
Independent claim 14 recites similar limitations and the further limitation “wherein the processing circuitry determines a cyclic modulation command for instructing to change a decision cycle to a shorter cycle when the inference result on the at least one type of machining defect indicates that the degree of quality is poor compared with a predetermined criterion, the decision cycle being an interval of time for the decision result to be determined” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III);
Independent claim 19 recites similar limitations and the further limitation “to correct the machining condition on a basis of the inference result in determining a corrected machining condition; and
to set a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein
the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside a limit range set, and
the processing circuitry holds sets of data including the types of machining defects, correction parameters, and a degree of priority for each of the correction parameters as defect avoidance data, determines the corrected machining condition on a basis of the inference result and the defect avoidance data, and further corrects the corrected machining condition when the inference result on machining using the corrected machining condition indicates poorness compared with a predetermined criterion, each of the correction parameters being a parameter of the machining condition that is to be corrected in avoiding the machining defect when the machining defect occurs” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III);
Independent claim 26 recites similar limitations and the further limitation “to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining, wherein the processing circuitry obtains training data including the machining state signal and teacher labels indicating that the workpiece is good and poor, and uses the training data in generating a learned model that infers a degree of quality of the laser beam machining” (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III);
Further, dependent Claims 13, 15-18, 20-25, and 27-30 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 1: Judicial exception recited? Yes. Each limitation as recited in the claim, is a process that, under BRI covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a driver to change relative positions of a machining head that focuses a beam emitted from a laser oscillator in irradiating a workpiece and the workpiece " which involves a structure which is a generic technical system, and which is tangential to the rest of the claim and is not integrated into the control process. The mere nominal recitation of a generic technical system does not take the claim limitation out of mental process grouping.
The claim further recites the limitation of “to provide the operation commands to the driver and the laser oscillator”. However, said limitations do not amount to more than a simple recitation of the words “apply it”. MPEP 2106.05(g) teaches that mere instructions to apply an exception is not sufficient for making a judicial exception patent-eligible. Providing operation commands to a driver and a laser oscillator is a generic task of outputting a result or data which can be performed by a computer.
Thus, the claim recites a mental process.
Each limitation as recited in claim, is a process that, under its broadest limitation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind but for the recitation of "a driver to change relative positions of a machining head that focuses a beam emitted from a laser oscillator in irradiating a workpiece and the workpiece" which involves a structure which is a generic technical system, and which is tangential to the rest of the claim and is not integrated into the control process. Nothing in the claim elements precludes the steps from practically being performed in the mind. The mere nominal recitation of a generic technical system does not take the claim limitation out of the mental processes grouping. Further the various recitations of the limitations “output a … signal” is just a basic form of data analysis which does not exclude the claim limitations from being a mental process. This being found to be similar in nature to “a claim to "collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis," where the data analysis steps are recited at a high level of generality such that they could practically be performed in the human mind, Electric Power Group v. Alstom, S.A., 830 F.3d 1350, 1353-54, 119 USPQ2d 1739, 1741-42 (Fed. Cir. 2016);” MPEP 2106(III)(A).
2A-Prong 2: Integrated into a practical application? No.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. The term “processing circuitry” does not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application as the MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)III.C.1 teaches that performing a mental process on a generic computer is insufficient for integrating into a practical application. The claim when viewed alone or in combination recites data gathering.
Step 2B: No. The recited limitations are merely data gathering. The recited “output a … signal” is merely an insignificant extra-solution activity and are merely data. Such data has unlimited use which cannot provide an inventive concept.
Therefore, claims 12, 14, 19, and 26 are ineligible.
Similarly, claims 13, 15-18, 20-25, and 27-30 do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Claims 27-30 recite the limitation "at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor, an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor, and at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor, a camera, a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor" which involves a structure which is a generic technical system, and which is tangential to the rest of the claim and is not integrated into the control process.
Claims 13, 15-18, 20-25, and 27-30 depend from one of claims 12, 14, 19, and 26 and are rejected for the same reasons as claim 1 as the claims recite a judicial exception which is not integrated into a practical application nor provide an inventive concept.
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.
Claim(s) 12-14, 26-28, and 30 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) in view of Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1) and Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1).
Regarding claim 12, Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) teaches a laser machining system comprising:
to change relative positions of a machining head (Paragraph 29, distance between the machining head and the workpiece is changed) that focuses a beam emitted from a laser oscillator in irradiating a workpiece (Paragraph 3, laser light source outputs a laser beam which is focused onto the workpiece to be machined) and the workpiece (Figure 1, workpiece 1);
processing circuitry (computing unit 320; Paragraph 69, computing unit 320 is configured to determine an input tensor based on current data and determine an output tensor)
to determine operation commands for the driver and the laser oscillator1 (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power) on a basis of a control signal and a machining condition specifying parameters and numerical values for laser beam machining (Paragraph 91, input tensor contain various types of sensor data, control data, and image data of the laser machining system), and to provide the operation commands to the driver and the laser oscillator (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power);
to observe, during laser beam machining, using an optical coherence tomograph (Paragraph 75, measuring device may comprise an optical coherence tomograph for measuring the distance between the machining head and the workpiece)
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result (Paragraph 88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool), the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal (Paragraph 26, output tensor includes the position and depth of a keyhole within the melt pool; Paragraph 70 output tensor includes information on the type, position, and size of the error on the workpiece surface; Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as “good” or “bad” based on using said predefined classification algorithm)2;
to monitor the workpiece for presence or absence of the machining defect and output a monitoring result as a monitoring signal (Paragraphs 87-88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool determined from images taken of the melt pool);
to decide whether or not there is the at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the monitoring signal and determine a quality of the laser beam machining as a decision result (Paragraph 84, output tensor includes information on the type of machining error as well as size or extent of the machining error; Paragraph 83, output tensor is determined from one or more input tensors); and
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power), wherein
the processing circuitry determines a monitoring command for instructing to determine the decision result when the inference result on the at least one type of machining defect indicates that the degree of quality is poor compared with a predetermined criterion (Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as good or bad using predefined classification algorithm; Paragraph 88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool).
Schwarz fails to explicitly teach:
a driver to change relative positions of a machining head
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal;
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining, wherein
Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1) teaches a wed defect detection system, comprising:
a driver to change relative positions of a machining head (Paragraph 20, welding operation is performed by a robot; Paragraph 27, laser beam 82 is directed toward the location of the weld)
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result, the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal (Paragraphs 36-37, the quality of the defect based on whether the size of the defect exceeds a certain threshold is detected such that it is determined by what means the defect should be fixed)
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining, wherein (Figure 8 Paragraph 38, the controller may stop and restart the welding process to fix the defect if the length of the effect exceeds a preset length)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Albrecht and output a control signal that gives an instruction whether to stop or continue laser beam machining based on whether specific defects exceed certain thresholds. This would have been done to fix the defects present in the workpiece (Albrecht Paragraph 38).
Schwarz modified with Albrecht fails to teach:
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal
Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1) teaches a laser machining system, comprising:
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal (Figure 2 Paragraphs 41-42, using the optical coherence tomograph to detect the distance between the laser head and the workpiece includes observing an internal state of the machining head in the form of a reflective reference 214 and using said reflective reference to determine the distance to the workpiece surface);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Schürmann and have the optical coherence tomograph observe an internal state of the machining head of a robot and output an observation result as a machining state signal. This would have been done to accurate determine the distance between the workpiece surface and the laser machining head to minimize any offset between said two (Schürmann Paragraphs 42-43).
Regarding claim 13, Schwarz as modified teaches laser machining system according to claim 12.
Albrecht further teaches:
the processing circuitry determines a stop command for stopping machining when determining a machining defect from the decision result on the at least one type of machining defect (Paragraph 37, controller terminates the welding operation and waits for operating input if a defect is still detected after repair attempt of the detected defect)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 12.
Regarding claim 14, Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) teaches a laser machining system comprising:
to change relative positions of a machining head (Paragraph 29, distance between the machining head and the workpiece is changed) that focuses a beam emitted from a laser oscillator in irradiating a workpiece (Paragraph 3, laser light source outputs a laser beam which is focused onto the workpiece to be machined) and the workpiece (Figure 1, workpiece 1);
processing circuitry (computing unit 320; Paragraph 69, computing unit 320 is configured to determine an input tensor based on current data and determine an output tensor)
to determine operation commands for the driver and the laser oscillator3 (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power) on a basis of a control signal and a machining condition specifying parameters and numerical values for laser beam machining (Paragraph 91, input tensor contain various types of sensor data, control data, and image data of the laser machining system), and to provide the operation commands to the driver and the laser oscillator (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power);
to observe, during laser beam machining, using an optical coherence tomograph (Paragraph 75, measuring device may comprise an optical coherence tomograph for measuring the distance between the machining head and the workpiece)
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result (Paragraph 88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool), the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal (Paragraph 26, output tensor includes the position and depth of a keyhole within the melt pool; Paragraph 70 output tensor includes information on the type, position, and size of the error on the workpiece surface; Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as “good” or “bad” based on using said predefined classification algorithm)4;
to monitor the workpiece for presence or absence of the machining defect and output a monitoring result as a monitoring signal (Paragraphs 87-88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool determined from images taken of the melt pool):
to decide whether or not there is the at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the monitoring signal and determine a quality of the laser beam machining as a decision result (Paragraph 84, output tensor includes information on the type of machining error as well as size or extent of the machining error; Paragraph 83, output tensor is determined from one or more input tensors);
Schwarz fails to explicitly teach:
a driver to change relative positions of a machining head
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal:
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining, wherein
the processing circuitry determines a cyclic modulation command for instructing to change a decision cycle to a shorter cycle when the inference result on the at least one type of machining defect indicates that the degree of quality is poor compared with a predetermined criterion, the decision cycle being an interval of time for the decision result to be determined.
Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1) teaches a wed defect detection system, comprising:
a driver to change relative positions of a machining head (Paragraph 20, welding operation is performed by a robot; Paragraph 27, laser beam 82 is directed toward the location of the weld)
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result, the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal (Paragraphs 36-37, the quality of the defect based on whether the size of the defect exceeds a certain threshold is detected such that it is determined by what means the defect should be fixed)
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining (Figure 8 Paragraph 38, the controller may stop and restart the welding process to fix the defect if the length of the effect exceeds a preset length), wherein
wherein the processing circuitry determines a cyclic modulation command for instructing to
change a decision cycle to a shorter cycle when the inference result on the at least one type of
machining defect indicates that the degree of quality is poor compared with a predetermined criterion
(Paragraph 34, camera feedback is compared with known appearances of good welds such as to
determine defects), the decision cycle being an interval of time for the decision result to be
determined (Figure 8 Paragraphs 36-38, when the size of the defect exceeds a threshold in step 146 the
controller immediately fixes the defect in step 148 such as to immediately continue welding and then
sensing the feedback parameters in steps 134 and 130 which is a much faster decision cycle than the
steps of 150/152/154/156/158/132 and then step 160 which repeats the blocks when the size of the
defect is smaller than the threshold wherein both cycles end at the same steps of blocks 134, 130, and
132 wherein the decision result of whether there is a defect or not is detected).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Albrecht and output a control signal that gives an instruction whether to stop or continue laser beam machining based on whether specific defects exceed certain thresholds using the decision tree provided in Albrecht. This would have been done to fix the defects present in the workpiece (Albrecht Paragraph 38).
Schwarz modified with Albrecht fails to teach:
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal
Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1) teaches a laser machining system, comprising:
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal (Figure 2 Paragraphs 41-42, using the optical coherence tomograph to detect the distance between the laser head and the workpiece includes observing an internal state of the machining head in the form of a reflective reference 214 and using said reflective reference to determine the distance to the workpiece surface);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Schürmann and have the optical coherence tomograph observe an internal state of the machining head of a robot and output an observation result as a machining state signal. This would have been done to accurate determine the distance between the workpiece surface and the laser machining head to minimize any offset between said two (Schürmann Paragraphs 42-43).
Regarding claim 26, Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) teaches a laser machining system comprising:
to change relative positions of a machining head (Paragraph 29, distance between the machining head and the workpiece is changed) that focuses a beam emitted from a laser oscillator in irradiating a workpiece (Paragraph 3, laser light source outputs a laser beam which is focused onto the workpiece to be machined) and the workpiece (Figure 1, workpiece 1):
processing circuitry (computing unit 320; Paragraph 69, computing unit 320 is configured to determine an input tensor based on current data and determine an output tensor)
to determine operation commands for the driver and the laser oscillator5 (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power) on a basis of a control signal and a machining condition specifying parameters and numerical values for laser beam machining (Paragraph 91, input tensor contain various types of sensor data, control data, and image data of the laser machining system) and to provide the operation commands to the driver and the laser oscillator Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power)
to observe, during laser beam machining, using an optical coherence tomograph (Paragraph 75, measuring device may comprise an optical coherence tomograph for measuring the distance between the machining head and the workpiece)
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result (Paragraph 88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool), the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal (Paragraph 26, output tensor includes the position and depth of a keyhole within the melt pool; Paragraph 70 output tensor includes information on the type, position, and size of the error on the workpiece surface; Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as “good” or “bad” based on using said predefined classification algorithm)6;
to monitor the workpiece for presence or absence of the machining defect and output a monitoring result as a monitoring signal (Paragraphs 87-88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool determined from images taken of the melt pool);
to decide whether or not there is the at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the monitoring signal and determine a quality of the laser beam machining as a decision result (Paragraph 84, output tensor includes information on the type of machining error as well as size or extent of the machining error; Paragraph 83, output tensor is determined from one or more input tensors); and
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction (Figure 8 Paragraph 38, the controller may stop and restart the welding process to fix the defect if the length of the effect exceeds a preset length), wherein
the processing circuitry
obtains training data including the machining state signal and teacher labels indicating that the workpiece is good and poor (Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as good or bad using a predetermined classification algorithm), and
uses the training data in generating a learned model that infers a degree of quality of the laser beam machining (Paragraph 127, deep folding neural network is adapted to a changed laser machining process such as to be adapted to changing situations and the resulting change in machining errors; Paragraph 121, CNN learns to classify a machined workpiece surface as good or bad)7.
Schwarz fails to teach:
a driver to change relative positions of a machining head
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal;
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining
Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1) teaches a wed defect detection system, comprising:
a driver to change relative positions of a machining head (Paragraph 20, welding operation is performed by a robot; Paragraph 27, laser beam 82 is directed toward the location of the weld)
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result, the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal (Paragraphs 36-37, the quality of the defect based on whether the size of the defect exceeds a certain threshold is detected such that it is determined by what means the defect should be fixed)
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining, wherein (Figure 8 Paragraph 38, the controller may stop and restart the welding process to fix the defect if the length of the effect exceeds a preset length)
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Albrecht and output a control signal that gives an instruction whether to stop or continue laser beam machining based on whether specific defects exceed certain thresholds. This would have been done to fix the defects present in the workpiece (Albrecht Paragraph 38).
Schwarz modified with Albrecht fails to teach:
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal;
Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1) teaches a laser machining system, comprising:
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal (Figure 2 Paragraphs 41-42, using the optical coherence tomograph to detect the distance between the laser head and the workpiece includes observing an internal state of the machining head in the form of a reflective reference 214 and using said reflective reference to determine the distance to the workpiece surface);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Schürmann and have the optical coherence tomograph observe an internal state of the machining head of a robot and output an observation result as a machining state signal. This would have been done to accurate determine the distance between the workpiece surface and the laser machining head to minimize any offset between said two (Schürmann Paragraphs 42-43).
Regarding claim 27, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 12, further comprising
at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system), an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor (Paragraph 42, temperature sensor), and
at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system), a camera (Paragraph 85, camera system), a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system).
Albrecht further teaches:
at least one of an acoustic sensor (Paragraph 18, audio sensors), an optical sensor, an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor, and
at least one of an acoustic sensor (Paragraph 18, audio sensors), an optical sensor, a camera (Paragraph 18, cameras), a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor.
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 12.
Regarding claim 28, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 14, further comprising
at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system), an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor (Paragraph 42, temperature sensor), and
at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system), a camera (Paragraph 85, camera system), a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system).
Albrecht further teaches:
at least one of an acoustic sensor (Paragraph 18, audio sensors), an optical sensor, an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor, and
at least one of an acoustic sensor (Paragraph 18, audio sensors), an optical sensor, a camera (Paragraph 18, cameras), a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor.
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 12.
Regarding claim 30, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 26, further comprising
at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system), an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor (Paragraph 42, temperature sensor), and
at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system), a camera (Paragraph 85, camera system), a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system).
Albrecht further teaches:
at least one of an acoustic sensor (Paragraph 18, audio sensors), an optical sensor, an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor, and
at least one of an acoustic sensor (Paragraph 18, audio sensors), an optical sensor, a camera (Paragraph 18, cameras), a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor.
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 19.
Claim(s) 15-16, 20-21, and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) in view of Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1) and Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1) as applied to claims 12 and 14 above, and further in view of Kaplan (US 7915564 B2).
Regarding claim 15, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 12, wherein
the processing circuitry further corrects the machining condition on a basis of the inference result in determining a corrected machining condition (Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by adapting process parameters based on the output tensor and sensed information); and
Schwarz as modified fails to teach:
sets a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside the limit range set.
Kaplan (US 7915564 B2) teaches a laser marking system, wherein:
the processing circuitry sets a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside the limit range set (Column 20 Lines 16-19, system controller provides over/under power protection wherein in the case the laser power exceeds set limits the system will stop working and issue a warning).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Kaplan and have the system controller suspend the laser beam machining when the corrected machining condition is outside the limit range set. This would have bene done to protect the workpiece from unnecessary damage (Kaplan Column 20 Lines 16-19).
While Kaplan is not explicitly directed toward laser machining, it is well known in the art that controlling the power in laser welding is important such that weld machining doesn’t suffer as evidenced by Paragraph 4 of Dunahoo (US 20210299777 A1) and that burn-through of the workpiece can easily happen in regions of the workpiece supplied with excessive energy as evidenced by Matsuoka (US 10471540 B2) which Albrecht explicitly attempts to avoid (Albrecht Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 16, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 14, wherein
the processing circuitry further corrects the machining condition on a basis of the inference result in determining a corrected machining condition (Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by adapting process parameters based on the output tensor and sensed information); and
Schwarz as modified fails to teach:
sets a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside the limit range set.
Kaplan (US 7915564 B2) teaches a laser marking system, wherein:
the processing circuitry sets a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside the limit range set (Column 20 Lines 16-19, system controller provides over/under power protection wherein in the case the laser power exceeds set limits the system will stop working and issue a warning).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Kaplan and have the system controller suspend the laser beam machining when the corrected machining condition is outside the limit range set. This would have bene done to protect the workpiece from unnecessary damage (Kaplan Column 20 Lines 16-19).
While Kaplan is not explicitly directed toward laser machining, it is well known in the art that controlling the power in laser welding is important such that weld machining doesn’t suffer as evidenced by Paragraph 4 of Dunahoo (US 20210299777 A1) and that burn-through of the workpiece can easily happen in regions of the workpiece supplied with excessive energy as evidenced by Matsuoka (US 10471540 B2) which Albrecht explicitly attempts to avoid (Albrecht Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 20, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 15, wherein
the processing circuitry selects machining parameters that are set in the machining condition and are to be output as the corrected machining condition (Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by adapting process parameters based on the output tensor and sensed information).
Albrecht as modified teaches:
the processing circuitry selects machining parameters that are set in the machining condition and are to be output as the corrected machining condition (Paragraph 31, controller alters the correct parameter for the laser that will fix the detected defect).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 12.
Regarding claim 21, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 16, wherein
the processing circuitry selects machining parameters that are set in the machining condition and are to be output as the corrected machining condition (Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by adapting process parameters based on the output tensor and sensed information).
Albrecht as modified teaches:
the processing circuitry selects machining parameters that are set in the machining condition and are to be output as the corrected machining condition (Paragraph 31, controller alters the correct parameter for the laser that will fix the detected defect).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 14.
Regarding claim 23, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 20.
Kaplan further teaches:
the processing circuitry sets the limit range for the machining parameters selected (Column 20 Lines 16-19, system controller provides over/under power protection wherein in the case the laser power exceeds set limits the system will stop working and issue a warning).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 15.
Regarding claim 24, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 21.
Kaplan further teaches:
the processing circuitry sets the limit range for the machining parameters selected (Column 20 Lines 16-19, system controller provides over/under power protection wherein in the case the laser power exceeds set limits the system will stop working and issue a warning).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 15.
Claim(s) 17-18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) in view of Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1), Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1), and Kaplan (US 7915564 B2) as applied to claims 15 and 16 above, and further in view of Chang (US 5681490 A).
Regarding claim 17, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 15, further comprising
a machining condition storage to store the machining condition that causes the decision result and the inference result to indicate goodness compared with predetermined criteria as a good machining condition (Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as “good” or “bad” based on using said predefined classification algorithm), and store the machining condition that causes the decision result and the inference result to indicate poorness compared with the predetermined criteria as a poor machining condition (Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as “good” or “bad” based on using said predefined classification algorithm)
Albrecht further teaches:
a machining condition storage (Paragraph 6, controller also includes a memory coupled to the processer such as to receive and store data) to store the machining condition that causes the decision result and the inference result to indicate goodness compared with predetermined criteria as a good machining condition (Paragraph 34, controller contains information on “good weld” characteristics such as to compare the feedback data to such as to determine defects)8 and to store the machining condition that causes the decision result and the inference result to indicate poorness compared with the predetermined criteria as a poor machining condition (Paragraph 35, feedback parameter assigns the error and computes the defect location such as to store the data)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 12.
Schwarz as modified fails to teach:
the processing circuitry redetermines the limit range on a basis of the good machining condition and the poor machining condition that are stored in the machining condition storage.
Chang (US 5681490 A) teaches a process and apparatus for spot welding with a laser beam, wherein:
the processing circuitry redetermines the limit range on a basis of the good machining condition and the poor machining condition that are stored in the machining condition storage (Column 2 Lines 55-64 and Column 3 Lines 24-37, computer send out corrective signals based on the weld quality data which is compared with the weld signatures captured and stored with corresponding weld information such as to adjust the parameters of the laser power supply).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Chang and have the processing circuitry compare the incoming data with that of previously captured data such as to adjust the power parameters of the laser. This would have been done to improve the product quality (Chang Column 1 Lines 32-36).
Regarding claim 18, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 16, further comprising
a machining condition storage to store the machining condition that causes the decision result and the inference result to indicate goodness compared with predetermined criteria as a good machining condition (Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as “good” or “bad” based on using said predefined classification algorithm), and store the machining condition that causes the decision result and the inference result to indicate poorness compared with the predetermined criteria as a poor machining condition (Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as “good” or “bad” based on using said predefined classification algorithm)
Albrecht further teaches:
a machining condition storage (Paragraph 6, controller also includes a memory coupled to the processer such as to receive and store data) to store the machining condition that causes the decision result and the inference result to indicate goodness compared with predetermined criteria as a good machining condition (Paragraph 34, controller contains information on “good weld” characteristics such as to compare the feedback data to such as to determine defects)9 and to store the machining condition that causes the decision result and the inference result to indicate poorness compared with the predetermined criteria as a poor machining condition (Paragraph 35, feedback parameter assigns the error and computes the defect location such as to store the data)
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 12.
Schwarz as modified fails to teach:
the processing circuitry redetermines the limit range on a basis of the good machining condition and the poor machining condition that are stored in the machining condition storage.
Chang (US 5681490 A) teaches a process and apparatus for spot welding with a laser beam, wherein:
the processing circuitry redetermines the limit range on a basis of the good machining condition and the poor machining condition that are stored in the machining condition storage (Column 2 Lines 55-64 and Column 3 Lines 24-37, computer send out corrective signals based on the weld quality data which is compared with the weld signatures captured and stored with corresponding weld information such as to adjust the parameters of the laser power supply).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Chang and have the processing circuitry compare the incoming data with that of previously captured data such as to adjust the power parameters of the laser. This would have been done to improve the product quality (Chang Column 1 Lines 32-36).
Claim(s) 19, 22, 25, and 29 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) in view of Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1), Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1), and Kaplan (US 7915564 B2).
Regarding claim 19, Schwarz (US 20220011726 A1) teaches a laser machining system comprising:
to change relative positions of a machining head (Paragraph 29, distance between the machining head and the workpiece is changed) that focuses a beam emitted from a laser oscillator in irradiating a workpiece (Paragraph 3, laser light source outputs a laser beam which is focused onto the workpiece to be machined) and the workpiece (Figure 1, workpiece 1);
processing circuitry (computing unit 320; Paragraph 69, computing unit 320 is configured to determine an input tensor based on current data and determine an output tensor)
to determine operation commands for the driver and the laser oscillator10 (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power) on a basis of a control signal and a machining condition specifying parameters and numerical values for laser beam machining (Paragraph 91, input tensor contain various types of sensor data, control data, and image data of the laser machining system), and to provide the operation commands to the driver and the laser oscillator (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power);
to observe, during laser beam machining, using an optical coherence tomograph (Paragraph 75, measuring device may comprise an optical coherence tomograph for measuring the distance between the machining head and the workpiece)
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result (Paragraph 88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool), the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal (Paragraph 26, output tensor includes the position and depth of a keyhole within the melt pool; Paragraph 70 output tensor includes information on the type, position, and size of the error on the workpiece surface; Paragraph 105, machined workpiece may be classified as “good” or “bad” based on using said predefined classification algorithm)11;
to monitor the workpiece for presence or absence of the machining defect and output a monitoring result as a monitoring signal (Paragraphs 87-88, weld classified as bad may be contained in the output tensor based on deviations from the predetermined geometries or sizes of the melt pool determined from images taken of the melt pool)12;
to decide whether or not there is the at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the monitoring signal and determine a quality of the laser beam machining as a decision result (Paragraph 84, output tensor includes information on the type of machining error as well as size or extent of the machining error; Paragraph 83, output tensor is determined from one or more input tensors);
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction (Paragraph 29, computing unit 320 is configured to form the output tensor and control data to the laser machining system for carrying out the laser machining process in real time; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by changing the distance between the machining head and the workpiece as well as changing the laser power); and
to correct the machining condition on a basis of the inference result in determining a corrected machining condition (Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by adapting process parameters based on the output tensor and sensed information); and
the processing circuitry holds sets of data including the types of machining defects and correction parameters for each of the correction parameters as defect avoidance data (Paragraphs 122-124, predetermined output tensor or result tensor is associated with each predefined input data set wherein said predetermined output tensor contains information about the classification of the machining errors present on the section of the machined workpiece surface; Paragraph 125, transfer function formed by the CNN is stored in the system), determines the corrected machining condition on a basis of the inference result and the defect avoidance data (Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by adapting process parameters based on the output tensor and sensed information), and further corrects the corrected machining condition when the inference result on machining using the corrected machining condition indicates poorness compared with a predetermined criterion (Paragraph 88, deviations from predetermined geometries or sizes of the various features of the workpiece are used to determine whether a laser processing is good or bad; Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by adapting process parameters based on the output tensor and sensed information), each of the correction parameters being a parameter of the machining condition that is to be corrected in avoiding the machining defect when the machining defect occurs (Paragraph 25, parameters of the laser machining process are set to avoid future errors).
Schwarz fails to explicitly teach:
a driver
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal:
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining; and
to set a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside a limit range set, and
the processing circuitry holds sets of data including a degree of priority for each of the correction parameters as defect avoidance data
Albrecht (US 20100314362 A1) teaches a wed defect detection system, comprising:
a driver to change relative positions of a machining head (Paragraph 20, welding operation is performed by a robot; Paragraph 27, laser beam 82 is directed toward the location of the weld)
to determine a degree of quality of the laser beam machining as an inference result, the degree of quality being inferred for each of machining defects concerning at least one type of machining defect on a basis of the machining state signal (Paragraphs 36-37, the quality of the defect based on whether the size of the defect exceeds a certain threshold is detected such that it is determined by what means the defect should be fixed)
to output, on a basis of the inference result and the decision result, the control signal that gives an instruction on whether to stop or continue the laser beam machining (Figure 8 Paragraph 38, the controller may stop and restart the welding process to fix the defect if the length of the effect exceeds a preset length); and
the processing circuitry holds sets of data including the types of machining defects, correction parameters, and a degree of priority for each of the correction parameters as defect avoidance data (Paragraph 31, presence of a defect triggers generation of an error signal corresponding to an item in a lookup table or a neural network such that that the correct parameter Is altered to fix the detected defect; this indicates that each parameter has a different priority based on the type of defect detected)13, determines the corrected machining condition on a basis of the inference result and the defect avoidance data (Paragraph 25, processor 62 store a portion of the data to the memory for later retrieval), and further corrects the corrected machining condition when the inference result on machining using the corrected machining condition indicates poorness compared with a predetermined criterion (Paragraph 31, controller is configured to utilize acquired measurements to identify a defect and alter one or more parameters of the welding process of the laser to ensure that future defects do not occur), each of the correction parameters being a parameter of the machining condition that is to be corrected in avoiding the machining defect when the machining defect occurs (Paragraph 31, controller is configured to utilize acquired measurements to identify a defect and alter one or more parameters of the welding process of the laser to ensure that future defects do not occur).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Albrecht and output a control signal that gives an instruction whether to stop or continue laser beam machining based on whether specific defects exceed certain thresholds. This would have been done to fix the defects present in the workpiece (Albrecht Paragraph 38).
Schwarz modified with Albrecht fails to teach:
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal:
to set a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside a limit range set, and
Schürmann (US 20200055141 A1) teaches a laser machining system, comprising:
to observe, during laser beam machining, an internal state of the machining head and output an observation result as a machining state signal (Figure 2 Paragraphs 41-42, using the optical coherence tomograph to detect the distance between the laser head and the workpiece includes observing an internal state of the machining head in the form of a reflective reference 214 and using said reflective reference to determine the distance to the workpiece surface);
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Schürmann and have the optical coherence tomograph observe an internal state of the machining head of a robot and output an observation result as a machining state signal. This would have been done to accurate determine the distance between the workpiece surface and the laser machining head to minimize any offset between said two (Schürmann Paragraphs 42-43).
Schwarz modified with Schürmann fails to teach:
to set a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside a limit range set, and
Kaplan (US 7915564 B2) teaches a laser marking system, wherein:
to set a limit range for modifying the machining condition within a limited extent, wherein the processing circuitry determines that the laser beam machining be suspended when the corrected machining condition determined is a condition outside the limit range set (Column 20 Lines 16-19, system controller provides over/under power protection wherein in the case the laser power exceeds set limits the system will stop working and issue a warning).
It would have thus been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Schwarz with Kaplan and have the system controller suspend the laser beam machining when the corrected machining condition is outside the limit range set. This would have bene done to protect the workpiece from unnecessary damage (Kaplan Column 20 Lines 16-19).
While Kaplan is not explicitly directed toward laser machining, it is well known in the art that controlling the power in laser welding is important such that weld machining doesn’t suffer as evidenced by Paragraph 4 of Dunahoo (US 20210299777 A1) and that burn-through of the workpiece can easily happen in regions of the workpiece supplied with excessive energy as evidenced by Matsuoka (US 10471540 B2) which Albrecht explicitly attempts to avoid (Albrecht Paragraph 18).
Regarding claim 22, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 19, wherein
the processing circuitry selects machining parameters that are set in the machining condition and are to be output as the corrected machining condition (Paragraph 29, laser machining process is controlled by adapting process parameters based on the output tensor and sensed information).
Albrecht further teaches:
the processing circuitry selects machining parameters that are set in the machining condition and are to be output as the corrected machining condition (Paragraph 31, controller alters the correct parameter for the laser that will fix the detected defect).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 19.
Regarding claim 25, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 22.
Kaplan further teaches:
the processing circuitry sets the limit range for the machining parameters selected (Column 20 Lines 16-19, system controller provides over/under power protection wherein in the case the laser power exceeds set limits the system will stop working and issue a warning).
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 19.
Regarding claim 29, Schwarz as modified teaches the laser machining system according to claim 19, further comprising
at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system), an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor (Paragraph 42, temperature sensor), and at least one of an acoustic sensor, an optical sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system), a camera (Paragraph 85, camera system), a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor (Paragraph 42, OCT system).
Albrecht further teaches:
at least one of an acoustic sensor (Paragraph 18, audio sensors), an optical sensor, an acceleration sensor, or a temperature sensor, and at least one of an acoustic sensor (Paragraph 18, audio sensors), an optical sensor, a camera (Paragraph 18, cameras), a vibration sensor, or a distance sensor.
It would have been obvious for the same motivation as claim 19.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FRANKLIN JEFFERSON WANG whose telephone number is (571)272-7782. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10AM-6PM (E.S.T).
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/F.J.W./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 The Office notes that the use of a laser oscillator as a laser source is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 90 of MOCHIZUKI (US 20200130107 A1).
2 The Office further notes that using the results of a coherence tomograph to determine processing errors during laser processing is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 15 of LESSMÜLLER (US 20150338210 A1).
3 The Office notes that the use of a laser oscillator as a laser source is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 90 of MOCHIZUKI (US 20200130107 A1).
4 The Office further notes that using the results of a coherence tomograph to determine processing errors during laser processing is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 15 of LESSMÜLLER (US 20150338210 A1).
5 The Office notes that the use of a laser oscillator as a laser source is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 90 of MOCHIZUKI (US 20200130107 A1).
6 The Office further notes that using the results of a coherence tomograph to determine processing errors during laser processing is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 15 of LESSMÜLLER (US 20150338210 A1).
7 The Office further notes that the use of training data to generate a learned model indicating a degree of quality is well known in the art as evidenced by KAH (WO 2016124818 A1).
8 The Office further notes that recording sensor data recorded by the sensors for an ideal, defect-free object is performed such as to serve as a reference for the detecting defects is known in the art as evidenced by MEHR (US 20180341248 A1).
9 The Office further notes that recording sensor data recorded by the sensors for an ideal, defect-free object is performed such as to serve as a reference for the detecting defects is known in the art as evidenced by MEHR (US 20180341248 A1).
10 The Office notes that the use of a laser oscillator as a laser source is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 90 of MOCHIZUKI (US 20200130107 A1).
11 The Office further notes that using the results of a coherence tomograph to determine processing errors during laser processing is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 15 of LESSMÜLLER (US 20150338210 A1).
12 The Office further notes that using the results of a coherence tomograph to determine processing errors during laser processing is well known in the art as evidenced by Paragraph 15 of LESSMÜLLER (US 20150338210 A1).
13 The Office further notes that correcting specific parameters based on the type of defect detected in known in the art as evidenced by Paragraphs 35-40 of MIYAGI (US 20180099356 A1)