eeDETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Status of the Claims
Claims 13 are amended. Claims 1-12 and 14-15 are as previously presented. Therefore, claims 1-15 are currently pending and have been considered below.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on January 19, 2026 has been entered. Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set forth restriction between claims 1-12 and 13-15 as claim 13 now depends upon claim 1. Claims 13-15 are now rejoined for examination.
Applicant’s argument regarding the measuring device under 112f is not persuasive as the “device” does not include any structure regarding how it is measuring the surface form information. Since there is no detail provided to how the device works, the device is a generic placeholder term and applicant’s specification must be relied upon to determine what the structure of the measuring device is. Therefore, the 112f interpretation limiting the measuring device to the structure to an optical interferometer or a contact profilometer that determines height information of the surface via contact or non-contact methods is held.
Applicant’s argument regarding the energy beam supply device under 112f is persuasive and the 112f interpretation has been retracted.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 01/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the primary reference Rumsby does not disclose a gas source adapted to provide a processing gas and that the energy beam supply device is connected to that gas source. Applicant also argues that Rumsby does not disclose energy beams formed or delivered by processing gas.
It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is not persuasive as Rumsby discloses where the laser beams can be excimer gas lasers, Page 11, lines 2-3, “An example of such a low coherence laser is the excimer gas laser”, where this implies that there is a gas source to supply the laser with gas in order to be excited. The gas used within an excimer gas laser is also a processing gas that forms an energy beam as the gas is stimulated in order to produce an excimer that gives rise to UV laser light.
Applicant argues that Rumsby’s mask is fixed and does not rotate and that a multi-axis platform is not disclosed.
The Examiner has agreed to this argument through the U.S.C. 103 rejection and those features are disclosed in secondary references of Himmer and Li.
Applicant argues that Himmer uses cutting gas in conjunction with a laser beam and that the cutting gas does not form the energy beam itself. Applicant also argues that Himmer does not disclose an energy beam supply device adapted to receive the processing gas to form an energy beam nor providing the energy beam from one of the plurality of openings to the workpiece for processing. Applicant further argues that there is no teaching or suggestion that a continuous annular surface processing trace is provided.
It is the Examiner’s position that applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. While it is true that Himmer’s cutting gases do not generate a laser beam, the gases are used to create a structure on a workpiece and modify the workpiece through cutting. Rumsby discloses similar microstructure creation on a workpiece through laser ablation from excimer gas lasers which use gas to generate laser beams. As a result, the Examiner construes the combined invention to use Rumsby’s excimer gas lasers in Himmer’s gas cutting channels, where those channels would rotate for the purposes of creating different geometries for the microstructures on the workpiece.
Applicant’s arguments about the energy beam supply and energy beam from one of the plurality of openings to the workpiece are features disclosed within Rumsby. In a U.S.C. 103 rejection, a singular reference does not need to provide all the claim limitation features.
Applicant’s argument about the continuous annular surface processing trace are persuasive. However, this limitation is not present within applicant’s claim 1 as there is no limitation regarding the surface processing trace created by the energy beams. Applicant’s claim 1 instead requires that the energy beam is formed into one of a beam shape or a plurality of rings having different radii via rotation. In the combined Rumsby and Himmer system, the outlets from Himmer would be an excimer gas laser and the outlets are arranged at different radii, where the beam shape would have different radii via rotation.
Additionally, it has been held that making continuous is an obvious modification to make. In re Dilnot, 319 F.2d 188, 138 USPQ 248 (CCPA 1963). It is the Examiner’s position that the different radii structures from Himmer are created through rotation and selective control over the rotation angles in which the cutting gas should be supplied. As a result, supplying the cutting gas continuously would still result in the cutting gas creating a structure on the workpiece and would be a mere matter of user design choice in choosing what geometry is desired for their workpiece processed structure.
Applicant argues that Rumsby uses optical projection for energy distribution and that requiring a rotating sleeve would require a complete redesign.
It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is not persuasive as Rumsby uses gas excimer lasers, which use excite gas to produce laser light. Further, the mask of Rumsby already includes apertures for allowing gas excimer lasers through, and the redesign would only be to add rotation to the mask which does not completely redesign the entire mask.
Applicant argues that Li does not disclose the measuring device used in combination with a processing device that controls the gas source, energy beam supply device, and multi-axis platform according to the measuring device surface information.
It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is true, however the rejection uses Li in combination with the other references Himmer and Rumsby. Li discloses a measuring device that is used in combination with a processing device that controls a grinding system. The Examiner has equated the distance between the grinding face of the grinding device and workpiece to be the distance between the processing device from the combination of Himmer and Rumsby. As a result, the overall combined invention of modified Rumsby would use the measuring device to determine the proper height of the gas excimer lasers before the gas source can be supplied to operate the lasers, and where the height can be changed using the multi-axis platform.
Applicant argues that there has been impermissible hindsight used. It is the Examiner’s position that this argument is not persuasive as Himmer and Li both provide advantages to a workpiece processing system, where Himmer allows for different geometric patterns to be created and where Li allows for a specific height to be maintained without additional labor. Therefore, impermissible hindsight has not been used in the prior art rejections.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. TW110147534, filed on 12/17/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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.
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:
“measuring device” in Claim 1
The generic placeholder is “measuring device” and the functional language attributed the “measuring device” includes: “adapted to measure a workpiece”.
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.
Reference is made to the Specification filed on 09/27/2022.
Regarding the measuring device, on Para. 0023, “In an embodiment, the measurement device 110 is, for example, an optical interferometer or a contact profilometer. That is, for example, contact or non-contact measurement is performed on the workpiece 10”, where the measurement device 110 is assumed to be either a contact or non-contact measurement system that can obtain height information
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 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.
Claims 1, 3-4, 7, and 13-14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumsby (WO 2009115785 A1) in view of Himmer et al. (DE 102008025044 B3, hereinafter Himmer) and Li et al. (CN 11496679 A, hereinafter Li).
Regarding claim 1, Rumsby discloses a surface processing equipment using an energy beam (Abstract, “exposing the surface of a drum to patterned illumination from a pulsed laser source at a suitable energy density in order to cause ablation of the surface to form a dense, regular array of 3-D microstructures”), comprising:
a gas source adapted to provide a processing gas (Page 11, lines 2-5, “An example of such a low coherence laser is the excimer gas laser that usually emits pulses with 10s of nanosecond duration at repetition rates up to lkHz and operates in the UV region.”, where the laser is a gas laser which implies that there must be a gas source in order to supply gas for the laser);
an energy beam supply device connected to the gas source and adapted to receive the processing gas to form an energy beam (Page 11, lines 2-5, “An example of such a low coherence laser is the excimer gas laser that usually emits pulses with 10s of nanosecond duration at repetition rates up to lkHz and operates in the UV region.”, where the laser is a gas laser which implies that there must be a gas source in order to supply gas for the laser), the energy beam supply device comprising:
a mask comprising a plurality of openings and the plurality of openings are located on a bottom surface of the mask, and provide the energy beam from one of the plurality of openings to the workpiece for processing (Page 23, lines 24-30, “LPSSM in a simple diagrammatic way showing only the mask and substrate of an optical projection system of the type shown in figure 1. The mask 21 has features 22, 22', 22" that are simple circular apertures of different diameter located on a fixed pitch 23. When a laser pulse illuminates all three of the apertures in the mask 21 the projection system creates an image of the three apertures on the surface of a substrate 24.”, where the apertures 22, 22’, and 22’’ are located at the bottom surface of the mask and allow energy beams to exit);
a platform adapted to carry the workpiece and move the workpiece to a detection shaft of the measuring device, or move the workpiece to a transmission path of the energy beam (Page 24, lines 5-8, “The substrate 24 is moving from left to right in the figure in the Y direction and hence the first contour of the structure is ablated into the substrate as it moves into a position 25 corresponding· to the image of the first aperture 22.”); and
the energy beam is formed into one of a beam shape (Page 23, lines 28-30, “When a laser pulse illuminates all three of the apertures in the mask 21 the projection system creates an image of the three apertures on the surface of a substrate 24.”)
Rumsby does not disclose:
a measuring device adapted to measure a workpiece to obtain surface form information;
explicitly stating that a gas source can be included;
a rotating sleeve that has a plurality of openings and channels, a plurality of first gas flow channels respectively communicated with the plurality of openings and a cylindrical symmetry center of the rotating sleeve has a rotation axis adapted to rotate along the rotation axis; and
the platform is multi-axis;
wherein distances from each of the plurality of openings to the rotation axis are all different, and the energy beam is formed into a plurality of rings having different radii via a rotation of the energy beam supply device;
a processing device electrically connected to the measuring device, the gas source, the energy beam supply device, and the multi-axis platform, and the processing device controls the gas source, the energy beam supply device, and the multi-axis platform according to the surface form information.
However, Himmer discloses, in the similar field of energy beam assemblies (Abstract, “A laser beam cutting assembly”), where there is a gas source explicitly stated (Claim 1, “a cutting gas supply in cutting gas channels”), where a rotating sleeve that has a plurality of openings and channels has gas flow channels that communicate with the openings (Abstract, “A rotating screen (1) with a gas outlet is located within and at the centre of the jet passage (3) and interrupts the gas flow at intervals. The rotating screen drive is coupled to an electronic control unit.”, and Fig. 1 and Fig. 2, where the gas flow channels are 3 and include openings at the bottom, where the screen can rotate to create the images on the right side, Page 3, Para. 2, “When the aperture is rotated, it can then be positioned in this way be that an opening at least one cutting gas channel for the Supply of cutting gas in the direction of the kerf, but at the same time other cutting gas channels are closed”), where a cylindrical symmetry center has a rotation axis that rotates along that axis (Page 7, Para. 1, “The cutting gas channels 3 are each the same design and rotationally symmetrical about the longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 arranged”), where the distances of the plurality of openings to the rotation axis are all different (Page 4, Para. 1, “there is also the possibility of cutting gas channels with nozzle outlet openings so form and arrange that the nozzle outlet openings different distances to the respective middle or area center of gravity have the nozzle-shaped passage opening and accordingly arranged in different radii on circular paths could be.”), and where a plurality of rings could be formed (Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “The rotation angle sensor should then also to the electronic Control be connected, so that the respective rotation angle measurement signal also taken into account in the control of the cutting gas supply via the respective cutting gas channels can be.”, where control over the rotation of the opening is disclosed, where different radii on circular paths can be done for the openings, where a ring of gas outflow from the channels can be controlled). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the mask in Rumsby to include the features as taught by Himmer, where the gas laser from Rumsby would then be sent into all the apertures of Himmer similar to the mask from Rumsby.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to create ablation with different geometric arrangements of the mask, where a rotating mask allows for more possibilities of geometric arrangements to be made, as stated by Himmer, Page 6, Para. 5 from end, “several different arrangements and geometries of nozzle outlet openings 3.1 exemplified. Indian left illustration of 3 Different cross-sectional geometries are shown, which are each summarized in circle segments. In addition to rotationally symmetrical formations, here also at different distances from the central longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 are shown with different radii, other geometries and different free cross sections are shown.”.
Further, Li discloses, in the similar field of processing workpieces (Page 5, Para. 1, “workpiece processing”), where there is a multi-axis platform (Page 6, Para. 2, “the working table 3 is a positioner, the multi-axis robot 1 is set between the two of the positioner, the positioner can control the workpiece 6 to move up and down and rotate, ensure the workpiece 6 and the welding surface aligned with the probe 2”), where a measuring device for measuring the workpiece to obtain surface form information is present (Page 2, last Para., “firstly measuring the height of the workpiece surface, measuring the height of a plurality of measuring points on the welding seam”), where a processing device is connected to the measuring device, the platform, and the grinding system to control the system according to the surface form information (Page 2, Para. 5, “automatically detecting grinding allowance, obtaining the height difference between a plurality of measuring points on the welding line and the surface of the work piece, determining the maximum value in the height difference, moving the grinding device so that the distance between the grinding device and the work piece surface is equal to the maximum value; the controller records the difference value of the maximum value and the travel of the grinding device moving downwards, the distance between the grinding device and the surface of the work piece is the distance between the grinding face of the grinding device and the work piece.”, where the processing device is the controller that moves the workpiece and grinding device according to the height difference or surface form information). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser processing system that includes the gas supply and rotating mask in modified Rumsby to be controlled by a processing device depending on the surface information of the workpiece as taught by Li.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to ensure that a specific height difference between the workpiece and the processing system is maintained without the need of additional human labor, where a multi-axis platform can assist with maintaining that height, as stated by Li, Page 3, Para. 2, “hat the height of the margin of the welding seam can be detected at any time, It does not need manual detection of welding seam allowance, improves the production efficiency and reduces the labour intensity of the worker.”, and Page 6, Para. 2, “the working table 3 is a positioner, the multi-axis robot 1 is set between the two of the positioner, the positioner can control the workpiece 6 to move up and down and rotate, ensure the workpiece 6 and the welding surface aligned with the probe 2”.
Regarding claim 3, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein a number of the plurality of first gas flow channels is the same as a number of the plurality of openings (Teaching from Himmer, Page 4, Para. 1, “there is also the possibility of cutting gas channels with nozzle outlet openings so form and arrange that the nozzle outlet openings different distances to the respective middle or area center of gravity have the nozzle-shaped passage opening and accordingly arranged in different radii on circular paths could be.”, where the gas flow channels are the same as number of openings).
Regarding claim 4, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
wherein lengths of the plurality of first gas flow channels are all different.
However, Himmer discloses where the lengths of the gas flow channels are different (Fig. 2, where multiple gas flow channels are shown by 3, where the length of the outer channel is less than that of the inner channel). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas flow channels in modified Rumsby to have different lengths as taught by Himmer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to create ablation with different geometric arrangements of the mask, where a rotating mask allows for more possibilities of geometric arrangements to be made, as stated by Himmer, Page 6, Para. 5 from end, “several different arrangements and geometries of nozzle outlet openings 3.1 exemplified. Indian left illustration of 3 Different cross-sectional geometries are shown, which are each summarized in circle segments. In addition to rotationally symmetrical formations, here also at different distances from the central longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 are shown with different radii, other geometries and different free cross sections are shown.”.
Regarding claim 7, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
wherein sums of distances from each of the plurality of openings to the rotation axis and lengths of each of the plurality of corresponding first gas flow channels are all the same.
However, Himmer discloses where the sum of the length of the channels and the distance from the opening to the rotation axis can be the similar (Modified Fig. 2, where the inner and outer channel length and distance relationship is shown, where there is the ability to choose different radii for the openings, which would change the relationship and there would be one radii selection that has the sum of the length and distance being the same; Page 6, Para. 5 from end, “In addition to rotationally symmetrical formations, here also at different distances from the central longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 are shown with different radii, other geometries and different free cross sections are shown.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the openings and channels in modified the openings in modified Rumsby to be of different radii in order to have the sum of the length and distance be the same as taught by Himmer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing a user to choose between different geometrical configurations for the openings, as stated by Himmer, Page 6, Para. 5 from end, “Different cross-sectional geometries are shown, which are each summarized in circle segments. In addition to rotationally symmetrical formations, here also at different distances from the central longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 are shown with different radii, other geometries and different free cross sections are shown.”.
Regarding the claimed sum of the length and distance being the same, it is the Examiner’s position that one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it obvious, through routine experimentation, to selectively choose a specific radii to position a second outer channel. See MPEP 2144.05, Section II A and B. Routine optimization would have been desired to one of ordinary skill in the art, as the initial application of Himmer states that different radii openings are contemplated in order to provide for different gas outlet geometries; thus, controlling the specific radii of the opening would inevitably result in a situation where the outer channel has a shorter length but a longer distance, where that sum equals the sum of the longer length and shorter distance from the inner channel.
PNG
media_image1.png
337
568
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 2, Himmer
Regarding claim 13, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses a surface processing method using an energy beam with the surface processing equipment of claim 1 (Rumsby, Abstract, “exposing the surface of a drum to patterned illumination from a pulsed laser source at a suitable energy density in order to cause ablation of the surface to form a dense, regular array of 3-D microstructures”, and Page 23, line 1, “a method for triggering the laser pulses”), comprising:
establishing a plurality of machining sequence plans, the plurality of machining sequence plans comprising providing the energy beam having the beam shape and the plurality of rings having different radii (Teaching from Himmer, Page 6, Para. 5 from end, “several different arrangements and geometries of nozzle outlet openings 3.1 exemplified. Indian left illustration of 3 Different cross-sectional geometries are shown, which are each summarized in circle segments. In addition to rotationally symmetrical formations, here also at different distances from the central longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 are shown with different radii, other geometries and different free cross sections are shown.”, where different machining sequences can be done to create different geometries, and Page 4, Para. 2 from end, “The rotation angle sensor should then also to the electronic Control be connected, so that the respective rotation angle measurement signal also taken into account in the control of the cutting gas supply via the respective cutting gas channels can be.”, where control over the rotation of the opening is disclosed, where different radii on circular paths can be done for the openings, where a ring of gas outflow from the channels can be controlled);
measuring the workpiece to obtain the surface form information (Teaching from Li, Page 2, last Para., “firstly measuring the height of the workpiece surface, measuring the height of a plurality of measuring points on the welding seam”),
wherein the energy beam supply device is adapted to rotate along the rotation axis and provide the energy beam from one of the plurality of openings to the workpiece for processing, and minimum distances from each of the plurality of openings to the rotation axis are all different (Teaching from Himmer, Page 6, Para. 5 from end, “several different arrangements and geometries of nozzle outlet openings 3.1 exemplified. Indian left illustration of 3 Different cross-sectional geometries are shown, which are each summarized in circle segments. In addition to rotationally symmetrical formations, here also at different distances from the central longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 are shown with different radii, other geometries and different free cross sections are shown.”, where the energy beam would be gas excimer laser being sent into each gas nozzle from Rumsby).
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
calculating and obtaining a machining process according to the surface form information, wherein the machining process is at least one of the plurality of machining sequence plans; and
controlling the energy beam supply device according to the machining process to supply the energy beam to the workpiece for processing to generate a processing result, and controlling the multi-axis platform to move a processing position of the workpiece.
However, Li discloses where a machining process can require that the surface form information be obtained and calculated in order to being a machining sequence and where the processing device of the machine is controlled to produce a processing result (Page 5, Para. 2, “firstly, measuring the height of the workpiece 6 surface, as shown in FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 on the workpiece 6 on the measuring point 8, determining the workpiece 6 surface height, probe 2 measuring the height of a plurality of measuring points 8 on the welding line 7, thereby calculating the height difference of the welding seam 7 and the workpiece 6 surface, determining the polishing track of the welding seam 7 according to the obtained maximum height difference; the polishing device begins to polish from the maximum height difference of the welding seam 7; avoids the large contact area of the polishing device and the welding seam 7 when initially polishing”), and where the multi-axis platform is moved to a processing position (Page 6, Para. 2, “the working table 3 is a positioner, the multi-axis robot 1 is set between the two of the positioner, the positioner can control the workpiece 6 to move up and down and rotate, ensure the workpiece 6 and the welding surface aligned with the probe 2”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the machining process in modified Rumsby to include a surface form information obtaining step for all machining processes before the processing can begin as taught by Li.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to avoid damaging the processing device due to being too close to the workpiece, as stated by Li, Page 5, Para. 2, “avoids the large contact area of the polishing device and the welding seam 7 when initially polishing; the contact area refers to the area of the polishing device contacting the height direction of the welding seam, causing damage of the polishing device or damage of the workpiece 6.”.
Regarding claim 14, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 13, as set forth above, discloses wherein the step of calculating and obtaining the machining process according to the surface form information further comprises:
providing ideal surface form information (Teaching from Li, Page 5, Para. 2, “determining the polishing track of the welding seam 7 according to the obtained maximum height difference”, where the ideal surface form information is the maximum height difference value);
calculating the surface form information and the ideal surface form information to obtain surface form error information (Teaching from Li, Page 5, Para. 2, “avoids the large contact area of the polishing device and the welding seam 7 when initially polishing; the contact area refers to the area of the polishing device contacting the height direction of the welding seam, causing damage of the polishing device or damage of the workpiece 6.”, where any surface height below the maximum height different is taken as an error due to the damage that can be caused to the processing device); and
obtaining at least one of the plurality of machining sequence plans according to the surface form error information (Teaching from Li, Page 5, Para. 2, “firstly, measuring the height of the workpiece 6 surface, as shown in FIG. 4 and FIG. 5 on the workpiece 6 on the measuring point 8, determining the workpiece 6 surface height, probe 2 measuring the height of a plurality of measuring points 8 on the welding line 7, thereby calculating the height difference of the welding seam 7 and the workpiece 6 surface, determining the polishing track of the welding seam 7 according to the obtained maximum height difference; the polishing device begins to polish from the maximum height difference of the welding seam 7”, where the machining sequence plan after determining that the surface height is not the maximum would be to continue measuring the surface height difference).
Claims 2 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumsby (WO 2009115785 A1) in view of Himmer et al. (DE 102008025044 B3, hereinafter Himmer) and Li et al. (CN 11496679 A, hereinafter Li) in further view of Maeshima (EP 2645175 A2) and Gas Laser Power Supplies NPL (“Course 4, Module 2, Gas Laser Power Supplies”, Wayback Machine, hereinafter Gas Laser NPL).
Regarding claim 2, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
wherein the energy beam supply device further comprises: a first electrode disposed in a space of the rotating sleeve, the first electrode comprising a gas inlet and a second gas flow channel communicated with the gas inlet;
a second electrode disposed on the bottom surface of the rotating sleeve, and the rotating sleeve is located between the first electrode and the second electrode; and
a gas channel selector rotatably disposed on a top of the rotating sleeve, the gas channel selector comprising a third gas flow channel and a blocking portion, and the gas channel selector is rotated so that the third gas flow channel is communicated between the second gas flow channel and one of the plurality of first gas flow channels, so that the blocking portion covers the rest of the plurality of first gas flow channels.
However, Himmer discloses where each gas flow channel has a gas channel selector being a shutter or blocking portion (Page 6, Para. 7 from end, “Individual cutting gas channels 3 can, as explained in the general part of the description, be opened or closed with a shutter.”), where the gas supply is connected to the blocking section (Claim 1, “at the at least one opening for releasing or blocking a cutting gas supply in cutting gas channels”, where the blocker is connected to the gas supply). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas flow channels in modified Rumsby to include a shutter as taught by Himmer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to individually close off each opening, as stated by Himmer, Page 6, Para. 7 from end, “Individual cutting gas channels 3 can, as explained in the general part of the description, be opened or closed with a shutter.”.
Maeshima discloses, in the similar field of apertures (Abstract, “discharge port (57)”), where a selector includes a blocking portion, where channels can be opened while others are blocked through rotating the selector (Abstract, “a shutter (58) fitted to be rotatable to open and close the developer discharge port (57).”, and Fig. 12, where the shutter 58 is shown with two apertures that coincide with the apertures within the discharge port, where rotating the shutter can cause the shutter to block access to those apertures). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas fluid flow that leads into a shutter in modified Rumsby to include the two apertures in the shutter and the rotation ability of the shutter as taught by Maeshima; where in the combined apparatus, the shutter from Maeshima would allow two apertures to be open while the rest of the apertures are blocked.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a shutter that performs the same function from the teaching of Himmer, but where it is able to cover more apertures, as stated by Maeshima, Para. 0052, “With this construction, when the toner container 5 is connected to the intermediary hopper 6, and also when the toner container 5 is removed from the intermediary hopper 6, the shutter 58 reliably keeps the toner discharge ports 57 closed.”.
Further, Gas Laser NPL discloses, in the similar field of gas lasers (Page 1, “The power supplies for continuous-wave gas lasers”), where electrodes are located within a gas flow channel for a gas laser (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “Most gas lasers are pumped by an electrical discharge that flows through the gas mixture between electrodes in the gas.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas laser from modified Rumsby to include two electrodes that create electrical discharge between each other as taught by Gas Laser NPL, where the electrodes would be located on opposite ends of the gas flow channel from modified Rumsby in order to create the discharge flow.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage being able to create an electrical discharge that flows through the gas mixture as known in the art for use by most gas lasers, as stated by Gas Laser NPL, Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “Most gas lasers are pumped by an electrical discharge that flows through the gas mixture between electrodes in the gas.”.
Regarding claim 12, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
wherein the energy beam supply device further comprises: a conductive structure connected to the second electrode.
However, Gas Laser NPL discloses where the electrodes are capable of producing an electrical discharge that is characterized by current and voltage (Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “Most gas lasers are pumped by electrical discharge that flows through the gas mixture between electrodes in the gas. Collisions between electrons in the electric discharge and the molecules in the gas transfer energy from the electrons to the energy levels of the molecule.”, and Page 2, last Para., “Electrical discharges in gases are characterized by current/voltage characteristics shown in Figure 1.”, where voltage given to the electrodes must come from a conductive structure as the electrode needs to be powered by something). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the second electrode in modified Rumsby to be conductively powered as taught by Gas Laser NPL.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use the second electrode and first electrode to create an electrical discharge, where this would produce a gas laser, as stated by Gas Laser NPL, Page 2, Para. 2 from end, “Most gas lasers are pumped by electrical discharge that flows through the gas mixture between electrodes in the gas. Collisions between electrons in the electric discharge and the molecules in the gas transfer energy from the electrons to the energy levels of the molecule.”, and Page 2, last Para., “Electrical discharges in gases are characterized by current/voltage characteristics shown in Figure 1.”.
Claims 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumsby (WO 2009115785 A1) in view of Himmer et al. (DE 102008025044 B3, hereinafter Himmer) and Li et al. (CN 11496679 A, hereinafter Li) in further view of Opitz et al. (WO 2021123124 A1, hereinafter Opitz).
Regarding claim 5, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
wherein each of the plurality of first gas flow channels comprises a first portion and a second portion, each of the first portions has a same length and is parallel to an extending direction of the rotating sleeve, and each of the second portions has different lengths and is perpendicular to the extending direction of the rotating sleeve.
However, Opitz discloses, in the similar field of nozzles with gas flow channels (Abstract, “forms an annular channel (24) for forming an annular flow (30) of the process gas, said annular channel having an annular channel outlet opening (28) for the outlet of the annular flow (30)”), where there is a first section for the gas flow channel that has the same length parallel to the extending direction which is downwards (Modified Fig. 3, where the rectangular first portion of the gas flow channel is shown to have the same height). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas flow channels in modified Rumsby to all include a first portion that has same height as taught by Opitz.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a widening shape of the gas flow channel that can create a supersonic flow, as stated by Opitz, Page 9, Para. 4 from end, “That is, the cross-sectional area of the annular channel 24 is widened towards the annular flow outlet opening 28 and a supersonic flow can develop in the annular channel 24.”.
PNG
media_image2.png
541
745
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 3, Opitz
Further, Himmer discloses where the openings can have different sizes (Page 4, Para. 5, “It but it is also possible on cutting gas channels Nozzle outlet openings to provide, the free cross-section is not the same size. Accordingly can With nozzle outlet openings larger or smaller free cross-section or different from each other Cross-sectional geometry may be present”, where the cross-section would be perpendicular to the extending direction, as the extending direction is vertical and the cross-section would be horizontal). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the openings in modified Rumsby to have different cross-sectional sizes as taught by Himmer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing a user to customize their desired laser emission, where different cross-sectional geometry can influence the amount of gas being emitted, as stated by Himmer, Page 4, Para. 5, “other Cross-sectional geometry may be present, so that also possibilities exist by deliberate opening or closing of cutting gas channels Influence on the respective supplied cutting gas volume flow and the corresponding flow rate as well to be able to take the back pressure.”.
Regarding claim 6, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 5, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
wherein central angles of any two adjacent second portions are the same.
However, Himmer discloses where the central angles of adjacent section portions or cross-sectional areas can be the same (Page 6, Para. 5 from end, “In addition to rotationally symmetrical formations, here also at different distances from the central longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 are shown with different radii, other geometries and different free cross sections are shown.”, where the formations are symmetrical meaning that the central angle between all openings are the same). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the central angles of adjacent sections in modified Rumsby to be the same through symmetry as taught by Himmer.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of allowing a user to choose between different configurations of openings for the gas laser in the combined apparatus of modified Rumsby, where symmetric or non-symmetric configurations are both possible and allow a user to have more options for configuring the lasers, as stated by Himmer, Page 6, Para. 5 from end, “In addition to rotationally symmetrical formations, here also at different distances from the central longitudinal axis of the passage channel 2 are shown with different radii”, and Page 3, last Para., “In other alternatives, there is the possibility of the nozzle outlet openings of cutting gas channels form with non-rotationally symmetric cross sections”.
Claims 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumsby (WO 2009115785 A1) in view of Himmer et al. (DE 102008025044 B3, hereinafter Himmer) and Li et al. (CN 11496679 A, hereinafter Li) in further view of Maeshima (EP 2645175 A2) and Gas Laser Power Supplies NPL (“Course 4, Module 2, Gas Laser Power Supplies”, Wayback Machine, hereinafter Gas Laser NPL) and Yamazaki et al. (WO 2018083572 A1, hereinafter Yamazaki).
Regarding claim 8, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
wherein the energy beam supply device further comprises: at least one rotating bearing disposed between the gas channel selector and the rotating sleeve.
However, Yamazaki discloses, in the similar field of laser processing devices (Page 2, Para. 1, “a laser processing apparatus”), where a bearing can be used between a rotating shaft and gantry (Page 14, Para. 2 from end, “ Alternatively, both ends of the rotation shaft 543 are connected to the mount 541. A bearing 546 is provided between the gantry 541 and the rotating shaft 543.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the shutter and rotation shaft that the shutter is on from modified Rumsby to include a rotating bearing as taught by Yamazaki, where the gantry in Yamazaki would be equivalent to the shutter from the teaching of Maeshima.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of a bearing reducing rotation resistance, as stated by Yamazaki, Page 15, Para. 6, “a bearing 546 may be provided between the roller 542 and the rotation shaft 543 in order to reduce rotation resistance.”.
Claims 9-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumsby (WO 2009115785 A1) in view of Himmer et al. (DE 102008025044 B3, hereinafter Himmer) and Li et al. (CN 11496679 A, hereinafter Li) in further view of Maeshima (EP 2645175 A2) and Gas Laser Power Supplies NPL (“Course 4, Module 2, Gas Laser Power Supplies”, Wayback Machine, hereinafter Gas Laser NPL) and King et al. (CN 201579686 U, hereinafter King).
Regarding claim 9, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 2, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
wherein an outer wall of the gas channel selector comprises a groove, an outer wall of the rotating sleeve comprises a plurality of positioning grooves, and the energy beam supply device further comprises:
a fixing ring slidably disposed on the gas channel selector and the rotating sleeve, and an inner wall of the fixing ring comprises a positioning protruding member adapted to be combined with the groove or one of the plurality of positioning grooves.
However, King discloses, in the similar field of processing devices (Para. 0058, “iron fine processing grinding machine plate”), where a structure includes a groove and another structure includes a plurality of positioning grooves (Modified Fig. 34, where the structure one with a groove is shown and the structure two with a plurality of positioning grooves is shown, where each of the positioning grooves on structure two are spaced equally and correspond to the images, where in modified Rumsby would correspond to the different openings for the gas laser), where a fixing ring is slidably disposed into both structures and includes a positioning protruding member to be combined with the positioning grooves (Modified Fig. 34, where the positioning protruding member of the fixing ring is shown). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the gas channel selector and rotating sleeve in modified Rumsby to include the features and fixing ring as taught by King.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of using a fixing ring to locate which opening is currently being used, where the protrusion from the ring allows a user to see as stated by King, Para. 0076, “The movable member 630 may have formed on the indicating member 640. control panel 632 may include a graphical representation of the map legend 642 for first region of the legend part 644a, second region644b, third region 644c and fourth region 644d include graphics.”.
Regarding the location of the grooves to be on an outer wall and the protruding member to be on an inner wall, it has been held that mere rearrangement of parts is an obvious modification to make. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950). It is the Examiner’s position that rearranging the grooves and protruding member would still allow the protruding member to indicate what groove is being used. Since there are a limited amount of positions where the groove and protruding members could be, it would be a mere matter of user design choice to choose a specific rearrangement.
PNG
media_image3.png
735
712
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 34, King
Regarding claim 10, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above, discloses wherein spacings of the plurality of positioning grooves are the same (Teaching from King, Modified Fig. 34, where the structure one with a groove is shown and the structure two with a plurality of positioning grooves is shown, where each of the positioning grooves on structure two are spaced equally and correspond to the images, where in modified Rumsby would correspond to the different openings for the gas laser; where modified Rumsby could have symmetrical openings located at different radii, where the positioning grooves that correspond to the openings would then have equal spaces between each other).
Regarding claim 11, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 9, as set forth above, discloses wherein a number of the plurality of positioning grooves is the same as a number of the plurality of openings (Teaching from King, Modified Fig. 34, where the structure one with a groove is shown and the structure two with a plurality of positioning grooves is shown, where each of the positioning grooves on structure two are spaced equally and correspond to the images, where in modified Rumsby would correspond to the different openings for the gas laser; where modified Rumsby could have symmetrical openings located at different radii, where the positioning grooves that correspond to the openings).
Claims 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rumsby (WO 2009115785 A1) in view of Himmer et al. (DE 102008025044 B3, hereinafter Himmer) and Li et al. (CN 11496679 A, hereinafter Li) in further view of Lanfermann et al. (DE 102019207421 A1, hereinafter Lanfermann).
Regarding claim 15, modified Rumsby teaches the apparatus according to claim 13, as set forth above.
Modified Rumsby does not disclose:
further comprising: establishing a machining target, wherein the machining target is a preset target value of a surface roughness of the workpiece; and
measuring the workpiece repeatedly to obtain the surface form information in a case that the processing result is greater than the machining target, and stopping processing in a case that the processing result is less than or equal to the machining target.
However, Lanfermann discloses, in the similar field of surface processing methods (Page 1, last Para., “method and a device for smoothing a surface of a component”), where a laser is used to machine a target (Abstract, “smoothing a surface of a component by machining with energetic radiation”), where a machining target is established that is a preset target value of surface roughness of the workpiece (Page 3, Para. 1, “From the comparison of the measured roughness with the target roughness, a course of the melt bath temperature along the machining path is determined, through which the roughness of the surface comes as close as possible to the target roughness after the next passage with the energetic beam.”), where the workpiece is repeatedly measured to obtain the surface roughness and when the processing result is equal or less than the machining target the processing is stopped (Abstract, “Furthermore, during each pass, the roughness of the respectively melted or remelted surface is measured spatially resolved and compared with a target roughness. Machining is ended when the target roughness is reached within specifiable tolerances.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the surface roughness and laser ablation in modified Rumsby to have a target surface roughness be set as taught by Lanfermann.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to modify high surface roughness material created by injection molding, where this allows a user to use laser ablation on different workpiece materials for an expanded use case for the apparatus, as stated by Lanfermann, Page 2, Para. 1, “In the past, plastic components were mainly manufactured using injection molding. This process is increasingly being supplemented by additive manufacturing processes, also known as 3D printing. Processes frequently used for plastics are the SLS process (SLS: Selective Laser Sintering) and the FDM process (FDM: Fused Deposition Modeling). The surface of additively manufactured plastic components, however, has a surface roughness that is too high for many applications. As a rule, the surface of the additively manufactured plastic components must therefore be reworked to reduce the surface roughness.”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Tanaka et al. (WO 9425259 A1, hereinafter Tanaka) discloses a similar mask or aperture pattern 2 which has apertures of different sizes.
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 KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
03/23/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761