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 .
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 5 is 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 5 recites “provided at an angle”. However, claim 3 recites the axis of rotation is perpendicular to the laser beam. While “an angle” would include 90 degrees, meaning perpendicular, if the angle is not 90 degrees, claim 5 would not include all the limitations of claim 3.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 1-8, 16, 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 111375901 A), see applicant provided machine translation, in view of Fukushima et al (US 2011/0163078).
Regarding claim 1, Wang discloses, a method for machining a workpiece (See Abstract), wherein the method is performed by an apparatus (See Figs 1-4 for apparatus) wherein the method comprises turning the workpiece and wherein turning the workpiece comprises: rotating the workpiece around an axis of rotation during the machining (workpiece is rotated along its axis. See Paragraphs [0058] [0061]), and providing the fluid-jet guided laser beam to a machined surface of the workpiece. (The machining is performed by a laser 1.) However, Wang fails to discloses the fluid-jet guided laser beam.
Fukushima discloses, a laser machining device (See Fig 2), and rotating the workpiece (See Paragraph [0063]). The laser machining device is a fluid-jet guided beam 21 provided to the machined surface. (See Paragraph [0008], [0015], [0041], [0044])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Wang in view of Fukushima to provide the fluid-jet guided laser beam to a machined surface of the workpiece for reducing the heat affected zone on the machining surface and increasing the machining quality.
Wang discloses, regarding claims 2 and 3, Figs 1-4 show the beam being provided tangential to the machined surface and perpendicular to the axis. Fig 4 also shows the beam being perpendicular to the surface and perpendicular to the axis. Regarding claim 4, Fig 3 shows the beam not intersecting the axis of rotation. Regarding claim 5, the beam is provided at an angle of 90 degrees. Regarding claims 6 -7, the beam is moved along, or parallel to, the central shaft direction for removing material. (See Paragraph [0059])
Regarding claim 8, Wang fail to disclose the axis of rotation is parallel to the laser beam. However, Fukushima discloses, rotating the holding member 30, which rotates the workpiece, with Fig 2 showing the beam is parallel to the axis of rotation of the workpiece. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Wang in view of Fukushima, to provide the axis of rotation is parallel to the laser beam as this would be a design choice based on which surface of the workpiece is desired to be machined. Wang discloses, regarding claim 16, the type of chuck and laser used indicate the process is performed automatically and in a single process. Regardless, it has been held that broadly providing a mechanical or automatic means to replace manual activity which has accomplished the same result involves only routine skill in the art.
Regarding claim 17, Wang discloses, a machining unit with a laser guided beam 2, a holder for rotating the workpiece (See Fig 2), a controller would be used for turning the workpiece for machining and providing the beam.
Wang fails to discloses the fluid-jet guided laser beam.
Fukushima discloses, a laser machining device (See Fig 2), and rotating the workpiece (See Paragraph [0063]). The laser machining device is a fluid-jet guided beam 21 provided to the machined surface. (See Paragraph [0008], [0015], [0041], [0044])
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to adapt Wang in view of Fukushima to provide the fluid-jet guided laser beam to a machined surface of the workpiece for reducing the heat affected zone on the machining surface and increasing the machining quality.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 111375901 A), in view of Fukushima et al (US 2011/0163078) and Rudiger et al (US 2016/0008921).
The teachings of Wang have been discussed above. Wang discloses pulsing the laser beam. However, Wang fails to disclose, a rotational speed of rotating the workpiece around the axis of rotation is set such that consecutive pulses of the pulsed laser beam overlap each other by at least 50% on the machined surface of the workpiece.
Rudiger discloses, setting a pulse overlap based on the rotational speed of the workpiece during machining. (See Paragraph [0052] and Fig 2). It would have been obvious to adapt Wang in view of Rudiger to provide a rotational speed of rotating the workpiece around the axis of rotation is set such that consecutive pulses of the pulsed laser beam overlap each other on the machined surface of the workpiece to allow for easier material removal. It would have been obvious to overlap the pulse by at least 50% since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 111375901 A), in view of Fukushima et al (US 2011/0163078) and Shin et al (US 2007/0062920).
The teachings of Wang have been discussed above. Wang fails to disclose faceting the workpiece before turning, where faceting comprises cutting off a set of pieces from the workpiece to reduce the diameter.
Shin discloses chamfering the workpiece before turning. (See Paragraph [0005]) It would have been obvious to facet the workpiece before machining as this is a common and universal technique used to remove sharp edges for reducing breakage during machining, ensuring the part is square to the axis of rotation, remove surface irregularities, and/or removing surface stress to reduce bowing or warping.
Claim(s) 18, 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wang et al (CN 111375901 A), in view of Fukushima et al (US 2011/0163078) and DiGiovanni et al (US 2017/0072511).
The teachings of Wang have been discussed above. Wang fails to disclose, regarding claim 18, a computer program comprising a computer code for controlling the apparatus, when being performed by a processor of the control unit; regarding claim 19, a computer program comprising code for performing the method.
It should be noted, claims 18 and 19 effectively claim a CNC machining process which is well established for metal blank turning.
DiGiovanni discloses a laser machining device for machining a rotating workpiece. The device comprises a controller 31 including a processor on a PC. (See Paragraph [0026], [0034]) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to provide the computer code on a processor for automatically controlling the machining device.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 10-11, 13-15 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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
2/7/2026