DETAILED 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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-8) in the reply filed on 02/17/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 9-11 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/17/2026.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0457] of instant publication application recites “the irradiation area R1 in the conveyance direction At is set to be 120 mm or more”. It is unclear as to how the area can be 120 mm. As best understood, it should be 120 mm2 or more.
[0463] of instant publication application recites “the dimension of the irradiation area R1 is set to 120 mm or more”. It is unclear as to how the area can be 120 mm. As best understood, it should be 120 mm2 or more.
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“a laser light deflection section that deflects the laser light” in claim 1.
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.
“a laser light deflection section” (claim 1) is interpreted as “a first scanner 51 that drives a first mirror 51a such that the laser light generated by the solid-state laser crystal 41 is emitted toward a desired position in the irradiation area R1, and a first control board 53 that controls the first scanner 51.” [0118] of instant publication application.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 8 recites “a dimension of the irradiation area in the conveyance direction is 120 mm or more”. It is unclear as to how an area can be 120 mm or more. As best understood, the irradiation area is defined to be R1 referred to herein is an area set on the surface of the workpiece W according to para.0065 of instant publication application. For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted that “a dimension of the irradiation area in the conveyance direction is 120 mm2 or more”. (this is not proposed amendment, only for examining purpose).
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Nehashi et al. (US 20200209523).
Regarding claim 1, Nehashi et al. discloses “a laser processing apparatus” (1) “that is attached to an attachment target position” (intended use) and “irradiates an irradiation area with laser light” ([0142], i.e., it is possible to emit a laser with a short pulse width to suppress thermal damage to the workpiece W) to process “a workpiece” (item W), “the laser processing apparatus” (1) comprising:
“a laser light deflection section” (3) that deflects the laser light to be emitted toward “the irradiation area” (toward workpiece W) in accordance with “a predetermined processing setting” (3 has a predetermined processing setting such as positions of optical elements); and
“a housing” (10) that accommodates “the laser light deflection section” (3),
wherein “the housing” (10) includes:
“an exit window” (19) transmitting “the laser light” (Pd(P)) emitted toward “the irradiation area” (toward workpiece W) via “the laser light deflection section” (3); and
“an attachment surface” (figs.3-5, 10 pointed at a structure having a surface facing the exit window 19) arranged to face the exit window and “attached to the attachment target position” (functional language and the attachment target position is based on intended use in the preamble and is not part of the apparatus. In this case, the attachment surface is at the target position (i.e., user defined position)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehashi et al. (US 20200209523) in view of Takigawa et al. (US 2017/0270434) and Idaka et al. (US 2019/0184491).
Regarding claim 2, Nehashi et al. discloses the housing accommodates:
“a support plate” (12) extending along a direction from “the attachment surface” (figs.3-5, 10 pointed at a structure having a surface. Figs.5-6 shows 11 and 12 having the same height and 12 extending along a direction from the attachment surface (i.e., fig.5, 10 pointed at a structure having a surface)) toward “the exit window” (19) and supporting “laser oscillator
Nehashi et al. is silent regarding “a solid-state laser crystal generating the laser light based on excitation light” ([0053] The laser machining system 1 includes at least one laser apparatus 2, and the laser apparatus 2 includes at least one laser oscillator. There are no restrictions on types of laser oscillators. A carbon dioxide laser, a solid-state laser using a YAG crystal or the like as an excitation medium); laser oscillator comprising the solid state laser crystal; the support plate is attached to the housing in a state of not being integrated with the attachment surface.
Takigawa et al. teaches “a solid-state laser crystal generating the laser light based on excitation light; laser oscillator comprising the solid state laser crystal;” ([0053] The laser machining system 1 includes at least one laser apparatus 2, and the laser apparatus 2 includes at least one laser oscillator. There are no restrictions on types of laser oscillators. A carbon dioxide laser, a solid-state laser using a YAG crystal or the like as an excitation medium). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Takigawa et al., by replacing Nehashi et al.’s laser source with Takigawa et al.’s laser oscillator, to provide desired type of laser source. One skilled in the art would have found it obivous to substitute Nehashi et al.’s laser source with Takigawa et al.’s laser source are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of irradiate a laser beam. MPEP 2144.06.
Idaka et al. teaches “the support plate” (figs.4-5, the Q-switch housing section 2 includes 2A and 20b) is attached to “the housing” (10) in a state of not being integrated with “the attachment surface” (fig.4, 10 pointed at the attachment surface). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Idaka et al., by adding Idaka et al.’s support plate 20A to Nehashi et al.’s laser head, to properly seal the edge of the housing section 2A [0120] as taught by Idaka et al.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehashi et al. (US 20200209523) in view of Takigawa et al. (US 2017/0270434) and Mitsuo (JP 2015122416).
Regarding claim 3, Nehashi et al. discloses the attachment surface.
Nehashi et al. is silent regarding the attachment surface is provided with an attachment capable of attaching the attachment surface to the attachment target position.
Mitsuo teaches “the attachment surface” (12) is provided with “an attachment” (13) capable of attaching “the attachment surface” (12) to “the attachment target position” (both 12 and 13 is at the target position or user defined position). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Mitsuo, by modifying Nehashi et al.’s attachment surface according to Mitsuo’s attachment surface having the lid with screw, to provide a cover to allow user to access the interior of the laser head.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehashi et al. (US 20200209523) in view of Okabe (US 20140312009), Zhang (US 2016/0250714), Tanaka (US 20040155019).
Regarding claim 6, Nehashi et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the workpiece is conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction, the irradiation area has a constant dimension in the conveyance direction, and a spot diameter of the laser light on the workpiece is set such that a depth of focus of the laser light corresponds to a portion of the irradiation area where an optical path length of the laser light is longest and a portion of the irradiation area where the optical path length is shortest.
Okabe teaches “the workpiece is conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction” (MPEP 2115, the workpiece and movement of workpiece is not part of the laser processing apparatus. fig.2A, workpiece S in feed direction), “the irradiation area has a constant dimension in the conveyance direction” (fig.2B shows the irradiation area of workpiece S has a constant dimension in the conveyance direction), and “a spot diameter of the laser light on the workpiece is set” ([0049], i.e., the irradiated beam spot diameter of 0.1 mm to 0.6 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Okabe, by modifying Nehashi et al.’s spot diameter of the laser light according to Okabe’s spot diameter of the laser light, to optimize power density, precision and processing speed for specific applications.
Zhang teaches “a depth of focus of the laser light corresponds to a portion of the irradiation area” ([0014] adjusting the depth of focus of the laser beam with respect the surface of the workpiece). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Zhang, by modifying Okabe’s depth of focus of laser light according to Zhang’s depth of focus of laser light, for optimizing the beam’s focal spot size and power density relative to the material being processed.
Tanaka teaches “an optical path length of the laser light is longest” (Abstract, i.e., it is necessary for the optical path length of the optical system to be on the order of 10 m). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Tanaka, by modifying Nehashi et al.’s optical path length of laser light of laser system according to Tanaka’s optical path length of laser light of laser system, to minimize aberrations by ensuring all light rays travel the same optical distance.
Okabe teaches “a portion of the irradiation area where the optical path length is shortest” ([0045] In either mechanism, the optical path length between the scanning mirror and the steel sheet at the beam spot is preferably defined to be 300 mm or more with a view to ensuring equal energy density across the entire scanning region of the laser beam. Therefore, the optical path length is preferably defined to be 300 mm or more. [0046] On the other hand, the optical path length is preferably defined to be 1200 mm or shorter for the purpose of preventing the irradiation portion from being displaced due to vibration or the like, and of implementing the installation of a cover that contributes to ensuring safety and cleanliness). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Okabe, by modifying Tanaka’s optical path length between optical element and workpiece according to Okabe’s optical path length between optical element and workpiece, to minimize aberrations by ensuring all light rays travel the same optical distance.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehashi et al. (US 20200209523) in view of Okabe (US 20140312009), Zhang (US 2016/0250714), Tanaka (US 20040155019) as applied in claims 6 above, and further in view of Miyazaki (WO 2012140797).
Regarding claim 7, Nehashi et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for a path corresponding to the irradiation area out of a movement path of the workpiece includes a site having a different distance from the exit window.
Miyazaki teaches “a path” (workpiece W along a path on the conveyor) corresponding to “the irradiation area out of a movement path of the workpiece includes a site” (can be an area (i.e., fig.1 shows the workpiece label ABCD at the area or 9 pointed at the area) outside a region Amax (see fig.1, Amax)) having “a different distance from the exit window” (the distance from the area (9 pointed at the area or a site) having a different distance from the exit window) having a different distance from the exit window with respect to the irradiation area Amax). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Miyazaki, by modifying Nehashi et al.’s laser processing area according to Miyazaki’s irradiation area, to ensure safety, prevent equipment damage and maintains product quality.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehashi et al. (US 20200209523) in view of Miyazaki (WO 2012140797), Yajima (US 10,213,974), Kogel-Hollache (US 20160059347) and Asami et al. (US 2015/0145241).
Regarding claim 8, Nehashi et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the workpiece is conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction, a dimension of the irradiation area in the conveyance direction is 120 mm or more, the laser light deflection section includes a first mirror which deflects the laser light to irradiate the irradiation area, the first mirror is arranged to face the workpiece across the exit window, a relative position of the workpiece with respect to the housing is set such that a distance from the first mirror to the workpiece is 150 mm or less, and a spot diameter of the laser light on the workpiece at the relative position is 60 um or more.
Miyazaki teaches “the workpiece” (W) “is conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction” (processing object W conveyed by the conveying belt 9), “a dimension of the irradiation area in the conveyance direction is an area” (fig.1, Amax) the laser light deflection section 25 includes a first mirror 43a which deflects the laser light to irradiate the irradiation area Amax), “the first mirror is arranged to face the workpiece across the exit window” (the first mirror 43a face the workpiece W across the exit window 22a), “a relative position of the workpiece with respect to the housing is set such that a distance from the first mirror to the workpiece is at a distance” (workpiece W with respect to the housing 22 is set such that a distance from the first mirror 43a to the workpiece W) has a diameter” (On page 4, i.e., The laser beam L that has passed through the condenser lens 37 is condensed and irradiated onto the processing surface Wa of the workpiece W with a small spot diameter)
Yajima teaches “the irradiation area is 120 mm2 or more” (As stated in 35 USC 112 b, the area 120 mm is treated as 120 mm2 for examination purpose. Yajima, col.8 at lines 30-35, i.e., a 70 mm x 14 mm irradiation area = 980 mm2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Yajima, by modifying Nehashi et al.’s irradiation area according to Yajima’s irradiation area, to enable handling of oversized materials for high production efficiency.
Kogel-Hollache teaches “a distance from the first mirror to the workpiece is 150 mm or less” ([0057] The laser processing device 10 is provided for a remote laser processing of workpieces. The distance between the focal spot 22 and the processing head 14 is therefore about 30 cm to 100 cm … the processing head 14 includes a scanning device, [0060] In the beam path downstream of the focusing optics 34, the scanning device, already mentioned and designated by 44, is arranged. This device includes one or more galvanically suspended mirrors. Examiner noted that the processing head includes the scanning device comprises mirror). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Kogel-Hollache, by adjust the Nehashi et al.’s laser head position according to Kogel-Hollache’s laser head position, to positioning the focal point precisely on or within the material surface and ensuring maximum power density for high precision laser processing.
Asami et al. teaches “a spot diameter of 60 um or more” ([0101], i.e., the spot diameter of the laser beam L2 on the surface of the melted solidification section 4a is Ø0.2 mm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Nehashi et al. with Asami et al., by modifying Nehashi et al.’s laser spot diameter according to Asami et al.’s laser beam spot diameter, for adjust power density and controlling precision.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-5 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761