Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 5/6/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On page 8 of the reply, applicant argues, Shin does not disclose facetting the workpiece before turning the workpiece…which differs from the subject matter of amended independent claim 1, because the chamfer is cut with a mechanical tool during continuous rotation rather than facetting the workpiece before turning.
However, Shin is not relied upon for using the fluid-jet guided laser beam. Shin is only used to show why it would have been obvious to facet the workpiece before turn. Shin discloses creating a chamfer or a facet on the workpiece before it is turned. The work piece is a similar design as the one in the present application.
Applicant argues on page 9 of the reply, Shin explicitly uses laser only as heating elements to soften the metal. This is correct, however, the tool used for making the facet or chamfer is not being relied upon in Shin. Shin is only relied upon to show why one would facet or chamfer a workpiece to be turned.
In response to applicant's argument, on page 9-10, that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Hindsight reasoning is not used. The Examiner did not use applicant’s own reasoning for faceting the workpiece. Applicant’s only reasoning appears to be “to reduce the diameter”, which is an inherent characteristic of removing material on a lathe or turning device. If material is removed, in the manner, the diameter of the workpiece will always be reduced, at the point of removal.
Applicant goes on to state, “By utilizing the fluid-jet guided laser beam to first cut off a set of pieces prior to continuous rotation, the claimed method avoids the highly inefficient process of ablating empty air between irregular corners during rotation. This specific dual-mode kinematic sequence provides a drastic reduction in cycle time and enables the recovery of usable solid material. This highly efficient technical advantage would not be expected from simply substituting a dry laser with a fluid-jet laser in a standard turning apparatus.”
However, this reasoning is not provided in the specification as originally filed.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., By utilizing the fluid-jet guided laser beam to first cut off a set of pieces prior to continuous rotation, the claimed method avoids the highly inefficient process of ablating empty air between irregular corners during rotation. This specific dual-mode kinematic sequence provides a drastic reduction in cycle time and enables the recovery of usable solid material. This highly efficient technical advantage would not be expected from simply substituting a dry laser with a fluid-jet laser in a standard turning apparatus.”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
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.
Fukushima also discloses the reasons why a person having ordinary skill in the art would use FJGLB for machining a surface. The reasoning can also logically be applied to a chamfering step… It would have been obvious 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 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) 1-8, 16, 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).
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 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.
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), Shin et al (US 2007/0062920) 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) 17-20 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), Shin et al (US 2007/0062920) and DiGiovanni et al (US 2017/0072511).
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.
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.
The teachings of Wang have been discussed above. Wang fails to disclose, regarding claim 17-18, 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 are allowed.
Claims 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
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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 7/21/2026
Prosecution Insights