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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-17 and 22) in the reply filed on 12/22/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
Claims 18-21 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12/22/2025.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “saw-tooth irregularities” (claim 10) must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “placement unit” in claims 1 and 22 and “liquid level adjustment mechanism” in claim 7.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim limitations “placement unit” and “liquid level adjustment mechanism” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” and “mechanism,” respectively, coupled with functional language “supporting a lower surface of the workpiece” and “adjusts the liquid level…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Terms “placement” and “liquid level adjustment” convey only function and not any known structure for performing the claimed functions.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-17 and 22 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
Figure 2 and paragraph 0055 describe cutting pallet 2 supporting workpiece WO where the placement unit 2C corresponds to an upper end of support plates 2B
Paragraph 0075 describes the liquid level adjustment mechanism as including liquid tank 4, gas pipe 37, pressurizing valve 32 and pressure reducing valve 33. Paragraph 0087 describes a controller that controls opening/closing of the valve 32 or 33 such that liquid level stored in container 1 is adjusted.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 10, 12, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 10 recites, in relevant part, that the “lower surface of the plate member includes sawtooth-shaped irregularities in a section obtained by cutting the plate member in a radial direction,” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the intention is for the plate member to actually include a cut or if the “section obtained by cutting the plate member in a radial direction” refers to an imaginary cut (e.g., in the way that one produces a sectional view of an object by “cutting” in half). Paragraph 0117 is the only section that details the “saw-tooth irregularities,” which references Figure 14. However, Figure 14 does not show these irregularities and paragraph 0117 merely repeats the same claim language. As such, it is unclear as to what the intended scope of the claim language would be. If the Applicant intends for the saw-tooth irregularities to be present on the lower surface of the plate member, and not merely present as the result of an imaginary cut line, then the Examiner recommends removing the language of “obtained by cutting the plate member in a radial direction.” As an example, amending the claim limitation to recite “the lower surface of the plate member includes sawtooth shaped irregularities along a radial direction of the plate member” would clarify the above ambiguity.
Claim 12 depends directly from claim 10 and, accordingly, inherits the above deficiency.
Claim 13 recites, in relevant part, “the second hole is disposed on the second upper plate while avoiding a position ahead of a position where the laser beam reflected by the workpiece passes through the first hole and travels linearly in the gap,” which creates confusion as it is unclear what is meant by “a position ahead of a position where the laser beam reflected from the workpiece passes through the first hole….” The claims have not recited that the laser beam is reflected from the workpiece. As such, it is not clear what position(s) are being referenced. As such, it is not clear as to the structural cooperative relationship between the second hole, the laser beam, etc. necessary to achieve the claimed function. It is not clear, for instance, if the second hole must be coaxial with the first hole, linearly or radially offset from the first hole, or located at a specific position relative to the workpiece or laser beam in order to perform the function. Additionally, the claim language makes no mention of the workpiece such that it is not clear if the shape, material, or surface finish of the workpiece is necessary for the cooperative relationship to be clear. For instance, a perfectly smooth and flat workpiece would reflect a laser beam in a rather predictable manner depending on the angle of incidence while a workpiece having surface irregularities would not. Based on the above, the claim language is unclear as the structural cooperative relationship necessary to perform the entire function is not well defined, which leads to ambiguity making the metes and bounds of the claim language not reasonably ascertainable.
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.
Claim(s) 1-6, 17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Onodera (JPH08132270; cited by Applicant on IDS dated 11/30/2022), as evidenced by Shimizu (JP2012164974; previously cited)
Regarding claim 1, Onodera teaches a laser processing device processing a workpiece using a laser beam (Title; “Laser Beam Machining Method and Equipment Therefor”) (See Fig. 1), the laser processing device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
430
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 of Onodera
a support member (35) that includes a placement unit (support columns 37) supporting a lower surface of the workpiece (W); and
a container (tank 33) that is capable of storing a transmission inhibition liquid (water R) inhibiting transmission of the laser beam up to a height position of the placement unit (Paragraph 0018 details that the lower surface of the workpiece W is immersed in the water R filled in tank 33. As shown in Figure 1, the support columns 37 are similarly submerged in the water R.).
Those of ordinary skill in the art would understand that water, as a natural property, at least partially inhibits transmission and, as a result, would, at least partially, inhibit beam transmission. See MPEP 2112 and 2114. To provide evidence of this, the Examiner cites to Shimizu.
Shimizu teaches a laser processing device using a transmission inhibition liquid, stored in a container, for inhibiting transmission of the laser beam (Fig. 1-2; container 12 storing liquid 11 therein) (“Due to such a phenomenon, the difference in refractive index between the substrate and the liquid surface becomes small, and the roughness shape on the surface of the substrate embeds the shape by the liquid all around the shape. For this reason, it becomes difficult to receive the influence of the scattering by the roughness shape of the substrate surface. That is, laser light partially transmitted from the substrate is likely to enter the liquid, and laser light scattering is also reduced. Furthermore, by reducing the transmission and reflection of laser light in the liquid tank, it is possible to suppress laser burn on the substrate surface due to scattered or reflected laser light. In order to reduce the transmission and reflection of laser light in the liquid tank, for example, in a simple method, it is possible to prevent the reflection of laser light from the inner surface of the liquid tank by coloring the inner surface of the liquid tank black. Become. Further, an antireflection film (for example, a film thickness of λ / 4) corresponding to the wavelength λ of the laser beam used on the inner surface of the liquid tank may be coated.” “Further, the laser light entering the liquid can be absorbed and attenuated by selecting an appropriate liquid containing molecules having an absorption band with respect to the wavelength of the laser light to be used. In addition, since what kind of liquid is used depends on the wavelength of the laser light to be used, it is desirable to use a liquid having good absorbency as appropriate according to the laser light to be used.”) [See bottom of page 9 to top of page 10 of the attached machine translation]. Accordingly, Shimizu teaches a similar laser processing device as Onodera. Shimizu details that the liquid (11) is water, which has a property of absorbing infrared light in the band of 3300 cm-1 to 1520 cm-1 (cm-1 is an established unit for spectroscopic wavenumber, where 3300 cm-1 converts to 3030.303 nm, or 3.03 µm. Shimizu continues in that the water absorbs the laser beam, and depending on the wavelength range of the beam, excess reflection on the workpiece is eliminated (second to last paragraph on page 7 of the machine translation filed 10/31/2025).
In this case, Shimizu provides explicit teaching that water has the inherent property of absorbing energy from a laser beam and, as a result, inhibiting transmission of the beam.
Additionally, the “transmission inhibition liquid” is not claimed structurally; i.e., a structural limitation of the claimed processing device. Rather, such liquid is claimed functionally as component that is capable of being stored within the claimed container. As the tank 33 of Onodera possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Onodera is equally capable of storing the claimed transmission inhibition liquid. Further, the “transmission inhibition liquid,” not being positively recited in the claim, refers to the material or article worked upon by the claimed container, which does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 2, Onodera teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the transmission inhibition liquid has light transmittance less than or equal to 10%/cm in a wavelength range greater than or equal to 0.7 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm.
However, as detailed above in claim 1, the “transmission inhibition liquid” is not claimed structurally; i.e., a structural limitation of the claimed processing device. Rather, such liquid is claimed functionally as component that is capable of being stored within the claimed container. As the tank 33 of Onodera possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Onodera is equally capable of storing the claimed transmission inhibition liquid. Further, the “transmission inhibition liquid,” not being positively recited in the claim, refers to the material or article worked upon by the claimed container, which does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 3, Onodera teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the transmission inhibition liquid has light transmittance less than or equal to 5%/cm in a wavelength range greater than or equal to 0.7 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm.
However, as detailed above in claim 1, the “transmission inhibition liquid” is not claimed structurally; i.e., a structural limitation of the claimed processing device. Rather, such liquid is claimed functionally as component that is capable of being stored within the claimed container. As the tank 33 of Onodera possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Onodera is equally capable of storing the claimed transmission inhibition liquid. Further, the “transmission inhibition liquid,” not being positively recited in the claim, refers to the material or article worked upon by the claimed container, which does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 4, Onodera teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the transmission inhibition liquid has light transmittance less than or equal to 3%/cm in a wavelength range greater than or equal to 0.7 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm.
However, as detailed above in claim 1, the “transmission inhibition liquid” is not claimed structurally; i.e., a structural limitation of the claimed processing device. Rather, such liquid is claimed functionally as component that is capable of being stored within the claimed container. As the tank 33 of Onodera possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Onodera is equally capable of storing the claimed transmission inhibition liquid. Further, the “transmission inhibition liquid,” not being positively recited in the claim, refers to the material or article worked upon by the claimed container, which does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 5, Onodera teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, but does not explicitly state wherein the transmission inhibition liquid contains carbon as an additive in order to inhibit transmission of light in the wavelength range greater than or equal to 0.7 µm and less than or equal to 10 µm.
However, as detailed above in claim 1, the “transmission inhibition liquid” is not claimed structurally; i.e., a structural limitation of the claimed processing device. Rather, such liquid is claimed functionally as component that is capable of being stored within the claimed container. As the tank 33 of Onodera possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Onodera is equally capable of storing the claimed transmission inhibition liquid. Further, the “transmission inhibition liquid,” not being positively recited in the claim, refers to the material or article worked upon by the claimed container, which does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 6, Onodera teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the transmission inhibition liquid contains a corrosion inhibitor (para. 0020, rust preventive agent).
However, as detailed above in claim 1, the “transmission inhibition liquid” is not claimed structurally; i.e., a structural limitation of the claimed processing device. Rather, such liquid is claimed functionally as component that is capable of being stored within the claimed container. As the tank 33 of Onodera possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Onodera is equally capable of storing the claimed transmission inhibition liquid. Further, the “transmission inhibition liquid,” not being positively recited in the claim, refers to the material or article worked upon by the claimed container, which does not impart patentability to the claims. See MPEP 2115.
Regarding claim 17, Onodera teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the transmission inhibition liquid absorbs light to inhibit transmission of the laser beam (see claim 1, above).
Claim 22 recites substantially the same limitations are recited in claims 1-5. Accordingly, claim 22 is considered anticipated by the Onodera reference for the same reasons enumerated above.
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.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera in view of Shibazaki (US2020/0101564).
Regarding claim 7, Onodera teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for a liquid level detection sensor that detects a liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container; and a liquid level adjustment mechanism that adjusts the liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container based on a detection result of the liquid level detection sensor.
However, Onodera does teach that the liquid within the container can be forcibly circulated (para. 0021).
Shibazaki relates to a system and method for processing a workpiece via laser beam (para. 0002; Fig. 2) in which water (CW) is stored within a container (tank 13) below the workpiece (W). Shibazaki teaches a liquid level detection sensor (Water level sensor 26) that detects a liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container (para. 0038; any type of sensor that can detect the water level of the water in tank 13); and a liquid level adjustment mechanism that adjusts the liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container based on a detection result of the liquid level detection sensor (para. 0065; controller 600 is operatively coupled to water level sensor 26 and, based on the detected liquid level, controls the amount of water from outlet 20 into tank 13 and the drainage amount of water via the drain pipe by controlling control valves 18A and 18b so that the water level is maintained at the desired position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Onodera with Shibazaki, by adding to the container and processing device of Onodera, with the liquid level sensor and adjustment mechanism taught by Shibazaki, for in doing so would provide a means for regulating the liquid level in the container such that the desired level is maintained during processing of the workpiece.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera in view of Smeeton (US 20160054281)
Regarding claim 8, Onodera teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for a transmittance detection sensor that detects transmittance of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container; and a controller that issues a control instruction for at least one of a notification and a laser processing operation based on a detection result of the transmittance detection sensor.
While a controller of some kind is implied in Onodera in order to control the laser processing of the workpiece, Onodera is silent on a transmittance detection sensor and a controller issuing a control instruction based on the sensor detection.
Smeeton relates to fluid analysis systems using optical sensors (para. 0001 and Fig. 2) and is concerned with determining transmittance of a beam passing through water (para. 0103-0104) (Figure 2; water 2, beam source 3, beam 6 incident on water 2, beam 8 transmitted through water 2).
Smeeton teaches (Fig. 2) a transmittance detection sensor that detects transmittance of the transmission inhibition liquid (para. 0103; photodetection means 9 is used to measure power of the transmitted light beam 8. Here, transmitted light beam 8 is defined as the beam after propagating through the water. Beam 6 incident on the water has power P1 while beam 8 has power P2. The power values are used to determine the transmittance of the light and can be used to determine the absorbance of the incident light by the water.) and a controller that issues a control instruction for at least one of a notification based on a detection result of the transmittance detection sensor (para. 0108; controller 23 receives inputs from sensor 9 to determine the transmittance/absorbance. This calculation is understood to refer to a notification that is based on the detection result from the sensor 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Onodera with Smeeton, by adding to the container and processing device of Onodera, with the transmittance detection sensor and control calculation taught by Smeeton, for in doing so would provide a means for determining the transmittance of the beam through the water, as well as, the absorbance, thereby providing a means for the user/operator of the processing device to ascertain the operational state of the device.
Claim(s) 9-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Onodera in view of Markushov (US2020/0070283).
Regarding claim 9, Onodera teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including a laser head (processing head 5, including nozzle 3) that includes an emission unit (respective optical elements for collimating, focusing, and/or directing the laser beam onto the workpiece).
Onodera is silent on a laser beam shielding member that surrounds a periphery of the laser head.
Markushov relates to the field of laser processing (para. 003) and teaches using a shielding device with the processing head (para. 0002) (Figs. 4-5 illustrate the processing head 410 while Figs. 6-11 illustrate the shielding device, which is coupled to the processing head).
Markushov teaches the shielding member (600) surrounding a periphery of the laser head (the laser beam 418 is generated and directed via head 410, while neck portion 610 receives and passes the laser beam therethrough-para. 0048. As such, shielding member 600 is optically downstream of the head 410 such that the shielding member, at least partially, surrounds the periphery of the laser head. More specifically, since the shielding member is optically downstream and receives the laser beam 418 from the head 410, the shielding member surrounds the periphery defining the optical output region of the head 410).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Onodera with Markushov, by adding to the processing head of Onodera, with the shielding member/plate taught by Markushov, for in doing so would protect the processing area from atmospheric gases (para. 0004) while processing materials that are reactive with the gases (para. 0025).
PNG
media_image2.png
371
418
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Markushov (annotated)
Regarding claim 10, Onodera teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, including [Markushov] wherein the laser beam shielding member is a plate member (plate 620) including a lower surface (623) opposite to the workpiece (para. 0049), and the lower surface (623) of the plate member includes sawtooth-shaped irregularities (outlets 624) in a section obtained by cutting the plate member in a radial direction (As shown in the above annotated Figure, taking an imaginary cutting line extending through a radial line of the outlets 624 presents semi-circular irregularities that, at least partially, define a sawtooth shape).
Regarding claim 11, Onodera teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, including [Markushov] wherein the laser beam shielding member is a plate member (shielding plate 620) including a lower surface (623) opposite to the workpiece (para. 0049).
Regarding claim 12, Onodera teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 10, including [Markushov] wherein “the shielding plate 620 may have a diameter in a range of about 100 mm to 150 mm and more specifically about 100 mm, about 125 mm, or about 150 mm” (para. 0051).
While Markushov does not explicitly disclose that the plate has a diameter greater than or equal to 200 mm, Markushov does teach diameter values closes to the claimed 200 mm (i.e., 150 mm) and that the size of the shielding plate allows for shielding gas to be distributed at the processing area.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Onodera and Markushov, as detailed above, by replacing the diameter of the shielding pate, being “about 150 mm”, to be greater than or equal to 200 mm, since the diameter of the shielding plate is interpreted to be a result effective variable that would be optimized in order to achieve a recognized result. In this case the recognized result would the distribution of shielding gas over a scanning region of the laser beam or the processing area. A person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that a shielding plate having a larger diameter (i.e., larger than 150 mm) would allow for the distribution of shielding gas over a larger area such that larger workpieces could be processed. "[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." See MPEP 2144.05-ll-A and MPEP 2144.05-ll-B.
Regarding claim 13, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, including [Markushov] wherein the laser beam shielding member (600) includes: a peripheral wall (610) surrounding a periphery of the emission unit of the laser head (neck 610 surrounds a periphery, defining the optical output region, of the laser head, which includes collimator 420, wobbler 430, etc. for emitting the laser beam), the peripheral wall having a cylindrical shape (cylindrical shape shown in Fig. 9); a first upper plate (upper plate defined by 621) attached to the peripheral wall (610) and provided with a first hole; and a second upper plate (plate defined by 623) attached to the peripheral wall (610) so as to sandwich a gap (gap 621) on the first upper plate and provided with a second hole, and the second hole is disposed on the second upper plate while avoiding a position (first and second holes taken as the respective holes in plates 621 and 623 that receive the end portion 613 of the neck 610) ahead of a position where the laser beam reflected from the workpiece passes through the first hole and travels linearly in the gap (laser beam travels in gap 612 from the head 410 to the workpiece during processing).
Regarding claim 14, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, including [Markushov] wherein the laser head (when coupled with the shielding member) includes a gas outlet (624) through which gas is blown out.
Regarding claim 15, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 14, including [Markushov] wherein the laser head (when coupled with the shielding member) is constituted such that the gas blown out from the gas outlet (624; Fig. 8) forms a swirling flow (outlets 624, as shown in Fig. 8, extend radially at an inclined, or spiral, pattern with respect to the center of the shielding plate 620. As such, the gas blown out is capable of swirling, at least, partially. See MPEP 2112 and 2114).
Regarding claim 16, the primary combination teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 14, including [Markushov] wherein the gas outlet includes a first blow-out port (outlets 624) that blows out an assist gas (shielding gas), and a second blow-out port (622) disposed on an outer periphery of the first blow-out port (624; Figs. 9-11).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18/564744 (reference application).
Application 17/928675
Application 18/564744
1. A laser processing device processing a workpiece using a laser beam, the laser processing device comprising:
1: A laser processing device processing a workpiece using a laser beam, the laser processing device comprising:
a support member that includes a placement unit supporting a lower surface of the workpiece;
and a container that is capable of storing a transmission inhibition liquid inhibiting transmission of the laser beam up to a height position of the placement unit.
a container that can store a transmission inhibition liquid inhibiting transmission of the laser beam
While claim 1 of the ‘744 application does not recite the support member of claim 1 of the ‘675 application, claim 3, dependent on claim 1, of the ‘744 application does recite “a support member that includes a placement unit supporting a lower surface of the workpiece, wherein the container can store the transmission inhibition liquid at least up to a height position of the placement unit.” As such, claim 3 of the ‘744 application anticipates claim 1 of the ‘675 application.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
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 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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761