Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1, 7, 9, 13, 15, 16, and 22 as amended and claims 10, 12, and 14 as cancelled. Claims 1-9, 11, 13, 15-17, and 22 remain pending examination (with claims 18-21 withdrawn).
The cancellation of claim 10 obviates the previously indicated drawing objection.
The amendments to claims 1, 7, and 22 obviates the interpretation of various claim limitations under 35 USC 112 (f).
The amendment to the claims obviates the rejections under 35 USC 112 (b) and the prior art rejections previously indicated.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1 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.
With respect to the non-statutory double patenting rejection in view of co-pending application 18/564744, the Applicant amended claim 1 to address such rejection.
However, the double patenting rejection, based on the amendment to claim 1, is modified herein to refer to co-pending application 15/564744 in view of the Shibazaki reference.
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) 1-5, 7, 15, 16, 17, and 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Shibazaki (US 2020/0101564), as evidenced by Shimizu (JP2012164974; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Shibazaki teaches a laser processing device processing a workpiece using a laser beam (Title; Abstract; Fig. 2), the laser processing device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
492
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Shibazaki
a support member that includes at least one support plate (12) supporting a lower surface of the workpiece (W) (Figure 2 shows table 12 having an upper surface in contact with the lower surface of the workpiece for supporting the workpiece thereon);
a container (tank 13) that stores a transmission inhibition liquid (water CW) inhibiting transmission of the laser beam up to a height position higher than an upper surface of the workpiece (para. 0097) (para. 0080; “the liquid surface (water surface) of cooling water CW is to be set to a position higher than that of object surface TAS of workpiece W.); and
PNG
media_image2.png
728
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Shibazaki
a laser head (500 including irradiation system 520) having a gas outlet that blows out a gas so as to remove the transmission inhibition liquid on the upper surface of the workpiece at a processing point of the workpiece by the laser beam (para. 0080; “Now, as it is obvious from the description on adjusting the cooling water amount within tank 13 described earlier, at the time of shaping, the liquid surface (water surface) of cooling water CW is to be set to a position higher than that of object surface TAS of workpiece W. However, when there is cooling water at target portion TA, cooling water CW may have an adverse effect and a desired shaping accuracy may not be secured. Therefore, with shaping system 100, as is shown in FIGS. 2 and 5, after swirling flow SF described above is generated, inert gas jetting out from outlet 30b at the tip of cover member 30 is to be supplied toward target portion TA. In this case, when the gas jets out from outlet 30b at the tip of cover member 30 and the flow speed of the inert gas supplied to target portion TA is increased to a high speed, the flow of the inert gas can blow away and remove cooling water CW that exists on a partial area on object surface TAS including target portion TA. By this operation, the partial area including target portion TA is set locally to a non-liquid-immersion state (dry state), and supply of shaping material PD and irradiation of the beam to the target portion is performed in the local non-liquid-immersion state, that is, in a state where both an area covered with cooling water EC which is supplied and an area which is not covered with cooling water EC which is supplied exist on object surface TAS, and shaping to target portion TA is performed. Accordingly, making of a three-dimensional shaped object with excellent shaping accuracy and high resolution secured becomes possible, without being affected by the cooling water.”).
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 Shibazaki. 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 stored within the claimed container. As the tank 33 of Shibazaki possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Shibazaki 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, Shibazaki 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 of Shibazaki possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Shibazaki 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,Shibazaki 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 of Shibazaki possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Shibazaki 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, Shibazaki 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 of Shibazaki possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Shibazaki 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, Shibazaki 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 of Shibazaki possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Shibazaki 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 7, Shibazaki teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including a liquid level detection 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 valve that opens and closes to adjust 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).
Regarding claim 15, Shibazai teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the laser head is constituted such that the gas blown out from the gas outlet forms a swirling flow (Fig. 5; swirling flow SF).
Regarding claim 16, Shibazaki teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including wherein the gas outlet includes a first blow-out port (42a) that blows out an assist gas (SF) and a second blow-out port (30d) disposed on an outer periphery of the first blow-out port (Figure 5 shows port opening 30d formed around the outer periphery of outlet port 42a).
Regarding claim 17, Shibazaki 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 Shibazaki 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) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibazaki (US 2020/0101564) in view of Onodera.
Regarding claim 6, Shibazaki teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, except for wherein the transmission inhibition liquid contains a corrosion inhibitor
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 of Shibazaki possesses all the structural requirements of storing a liquid therein, the tank of Shibazaki 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.
However, Onodera relates to a similar laser processing system (Figure 1, Abstract, and paragraph 0001) and teaches wherein the transmission inhibition liquid contains a corrosion inhibitor (para. 0020, rust preventive agent).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Shibazaki with Onodera, by adding to the water of Shibazaki, with the corrosion inhibitor of Onodera, for in doing so would provide a means for preventing rust.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibazaki in view of Smeeton (US 20160054281)
Regarding claim 8, Shibazaki 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 Shibazaki (Fig. 1; controller 600) in order to control the laser processing of the workpiece, Shibazaki is silent on a transmittance detection sensor and the 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 Shibazaki with Smeeton, by adding to the container and controller of Shibazaki, 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, 11, and 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibazaki in view of Markushov (US2020/0070283).
Regarding claim 9, Shibazaki teaches substantially the claimed invention, as applied in claim 1, including the laser head including an emission unit (respective optical elements for collimating, focusing, and/or directing the laser beam onto the workpiece).
Shibazaki 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 Shibazaki with Markushov, by adding to the laser head of Shibazaki, 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).
Regarding claim 11, the primary combination 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 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 at (first and second holes taken as the respective holes in plates 621 and 623 that receive the end portion 613 of the neck 610) a position in which the laser beam reflected from the workpiece does not pass through and the first hole disposed at a position in which the laser beam reflected from the workpiece passes and travels linearly in the gap (laser beam travels in gap 612 from the head 410 to the workpiece during processing).
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).
Claim 1 provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 3 of copending Application No. 18564744 in view of Shibazaki
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 at least one support plate supporting a lower surface of the workpiece;
Support member…supporting a lower surface of the workpiece (claim 3)
and a container that stores 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 (claim 1)…up to a height position of the placement unit (claim 3)
A laser head
A laser head that emits 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 mirrors substantially the limitations of claim 1 of the ‘675 application.
However, the co-pending application fails to claim the laser head having a gas outlet that blows out a gas so as to remove the transmission inhibition liquid on the upper surface of the workpiece at a processing point of the workpiece by the laser beam, as required by amended claim 1 of the instant application.
However, Shibazaki teaches a laser processing device processing a workpiece using a laser beam (Title; Abstract; Fig. 2), the laser processing device comprising:
PNG
media_image1.png
492
616
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 2 of Shibazaki
a support member that includes at least one support plate (12) supporting a lower surface of the workpiece (W) (Figure 2 shows table 12 having an upper surface in contact with the lower surface of the workpiece for supporting the workpiece thereon);
a container (tank 13) that stores a transmission inhibition liquid (water CW) inhibiting transmission of the laser beam up to a height position higher than an upper surface of the workpiece (para. 0097) (para. 0080; “the liquid surface (water surface) of cooling water CW is to be set to a position higher than that of object surface TAS of workpiece W.); and
PNG
media_image2.png
728
626
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 5 of Shibazaki
a laser head (500 including irradiation system 520) having a gas outlet that blows out a gas so as to remove the transmission inhibition liquid on the upper surface of the workpiece at a processing point of the workpiece by the laser beam (para. 0080; “Now, as it is obvious from the description on adjusting the cooling water amount within tank 13 described earlier, at the time of shaping, the liquid surface (water surface) of cooling water CW is to be set to a position higher than that of object surface TAS of workpiece W. However, when there is cooling water at target portion TA, cooling water CW may have an adverse effect and a desired shaping accuracy may not be secured. Therefore, with shaping system 100, as is shown in FIGS. 2 and 5, after swirling flow SF described above is generated, inert gas jetting out from outlet 30b at the tip of cover member 30 is to be supplied toward target portion TA. In this case, when the gas jets out from outlet 30b at the tip of cover member 30 and the flow speed of the inert gas supplied to target portion TA is increased to a high speed, the flow of the inert gas can blow away and remove cooling water CW that exists on a partial area on object surface TAS including target portion TA. By this operation, the partial area including target portion TA is set locally to a non-liquid-immersion state (dry state), and supply of shaping material PD and irradiation of the beam to the target portion is performed in the local non-liquid-immersion state, that is, in a state where both an area covered with cooling water EC which is supplied and an area which is not covered with cooling water EC which is supplied exist on object surface TAS, and shaping to target portion TA is performed. Accordingly, making of a three-dimensional shaped object with excellent shaping accuracy and high resolution secured becomes possible, without being affected by the cooling water.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the co-pending application with Shibazaki, by adding to the laser head of the processing device to include a gas outlet that blows out a gas so as to remove the transmission inhibition liquid on the upper surface of the workpiece at a processing point of the workpiece by the laser beam taught by Shibazaki in order to make a three-dimensional shaped object with excellent shaping accuracy and high resolution secured becomes possible, without being affected by the cooling water.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 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
Prosecution Insights