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 Election/Restrictions Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group I, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1 March 2026. Drawings The drawings are objected to because the numbers “20” and “21” in fig. 5c.h and “21” and “22” in fig. 5c.i are less than 0.32 cm and are of smaller proportion in comparison to the other numbers that are in the figures (PCT Rules 11.13.g and 11.13.h in MPEP 1825). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claim 8 is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending line 23 to recite: “plurality of second cutting path s ” and deleting “from the second point to the first point” (repeated phrase) in the last line of the claim. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, Claim 8 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions. Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a) Claim 8 recites at least one step or instruction for the processing program creation device configured to perform mental processes . Mental processes are concepts that can be performed in the human mind (including an observation, evaluation, judgment, opinion) (see MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III))]] . Accordingly, Claim 8 recites limitations that are directed to an abstract idea. Specifically, Claim 8 recites the following: A processing program creation device comprising: a cutting path pattern layout unit (additional element) configured to lay out a pattern including a plurality of cutting paths for forming a round hole in a sheet metal (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); a cutting path setting unit (additional element) configured to set directions for cutting the respective cutting paths of the pattern laid out by the cutting path pattern layout unit and a cutting order of the plurality of cutting paths (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and a NC data creation unit (additional element) configured to create NC data for controlling a laser processing machine (additional element) so that an NC device (additional element) cuts the sheet metal in the pattern laid out by the cutting path pattern layout unit in the directions for cutting and the cutting order set by the cutting path setting unit (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), wherein the cutting path setting unit sets, in the following order, a first cutting path for cutting a first circular arc, exceeding 180 degrees from a first point to a second point on a circle indicating the round hole, from the first point to the second point (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)), a plurality of second cutting paths for dividing an area in the circle into a plurality of scraps, the plurality of second cutting path including cutting paths with a plurality of angular positions on the first cutting path as start points for cutting (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) ; and a third cutting path for cutting a second circular arc that is uncut and extends from the second point to the first point, from the second point to the first point (observation, judgment or evaluation, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)) . Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a). Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d) The above-identified abstract idea in Claim 8 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements ( a cutting path pattern layout unit, a cutting path setting unit, a NC data creation unit, and an NC device ), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h). More specifically, the additional elements of: a cutting path pattern layout unit, a cutting path setting unit, a NC data creation unit, and an NC device , as recited in independent Claim 8 are generically recited computer elements , which do not improve the functioning of a computer, or any other technology or technical field according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.05(a). Nor do these above-identified additional elements serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 8 is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d). Moreover, the above-identified abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d) because the claimed method and system merely implements the above-identified abstract idea (e.g., mental process and certain method of organizing human activity) using rules (e.g., computer instructions) executed by a computer or a series of computers, as disclosed in the specification of the Instant Application . In other words, these claims are merely directed to an abstract idea with additional generic computer elements which do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer according to MPEP 2106.05(f). Additionally, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims according to MPEP 2106.05(a). That is, like Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC, the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. Thus, for these additional reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claim 8 is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d)(I). Accordingly, independent Claim 8 is directed to an abstract idea according to MPEP 2106.04(d). Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05 None of Claim 8 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons. These claims require the additional elements of: a cutting path pattern layout unit, a cutting path setting unit, a NC data creation unit, a laser processing machine, and an NC device as recited in independent Claim 8 . The above-identified additional elements are generically claimed computer components which enable the above-identified abstract idea(s) to be conducted by performing the basic functions of automating mental tasks. The courts have recognized such computer functions as well understood, routine, and conventional functions when claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See, MPEP 2106.05(d)(II) along with Versata Dev. Group, Inc. v. SAP Am., Inc ., 793 F.3d 1306, 1334, 115 USPQ2d 1681, 1701 (Fed. Cir. 2015); and OIP Techs ., 788 F.3d at 1363, 115 USPQ2d at 1092-93. Per Applicant’s specification, a cutting path pattern layout unit, a cutting path setting unit, a NC data creation unit, and an NC device are described as being “ formed of separate computer devices or may be formed of a single computer device ,” and such computer components are well understood, routine , and conventional . Accordingly, in light of Applicant’s specification, the claimed term s are reasonably construed as a generic computing device. Like SAP America vs Investpic , LLC (Federal Circuit 2018), it is clear, from the claims themselves and the specification, that these limitations require no improved computer resources, just already available computers, with their already available basic functions, to use as tools in executing the claimed process. See MPEP 2106.05(f). Furthermore, Applicant’s specification does not describe any special programming or algorithms required for the computer but instead acknowledges that there are “conventional processing programs” that are already known, which are used to “form a hol e in a sheet metal . ” This lack of disclosure is acceptable under 35 U.S.C. §112(a) since this hardware performs non-specialized functions known by those of ordinary skill in the computer arts. By omitting any specialized programming or algorithms, Applicant's specification essentially admits that this hardware is conventional and performs well understood, routine and conventional activities in the computer industry or arts. In other words, Applicant’s specification demonstrates the well-understood, routine, conventional nature of the above-identified additional elements because it describes these additional elements in a manner that indicates that the additional elements are sufficiently well-known that the specification does not need to describe the particulars of such additional elements to satisfy 35 U.S.C. § 112(a) (see MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)(2) and 2106.07(a)(III)). Adding hardware that performs “‘well understood, routine, conventional activit [ ies ]’ previously known to the industry” will not make claims patent-eligible ( TLI Communications along with MPEP 2106.05(d)(I)). Moreover, p er Applicant’s specification, a laser processing machine is described a device that is already known in the art, specifically in Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Publication No. 2015-100828 and Japanese Patent Application Laid-Open Publication No. 2016-78063 (see Background Section in the Specification). Thus, a laser processing machine is understood to be a machine that is well understood, routine, and conventional . The recitation of the above-identified additional limitations in Claim 8 amounts to mere instructions to implement the abstract idea on a computer. Simply using a computer or other machinery in its ordinary capacity for economic or other tasks (e.g., to receive, store, or transmit data) or simply adding a general-purpose computer or computer components after the fact to an abstract idea (e.g., a fundamental economic practice or mathematical equation) does not provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(f) along with Affinity Labs v. DirecTV , 838 F.3d 1253, 1262, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (cellular telephone); and TLI Communications LLC v. AV Auto, LLC , 823 F.3d 607, 613, 118 USPQ2d 1744, 1748 (Fed. Cir. 2016) (computer server and telephone unit). Moreover, implementing an abstract idea on a generic computer, does not add significantly more, similar to how the recitation of the computer in the claim in Alice amounted to mere instructions to apply the abstract idea of intermediated settlement on a generic computer. A claim that purports to improve computer capabilities or to improve an existing technology may provide significantly more. See MPEP 2106.05(a) along with McRO , Inc. v. Bandai Namco Games Am. Inc ., 837 F.3d 1299, 1314-15, 120 USPQ2d 1091, 1101-02 (Fed. Cir. 2016); and Enfish , LLC v. Microsoft Corp ., 822 F.3d 1327, 1335-36, 118 USPQ2d 1684, 1688-89 (Fed. Cir. 2016). However, a technical explanation as to how to implement the invention should be present in the specification for any assertion that the invention improves upon conventional functioning of a computer, or upon conventional technology or technological processes. That is, per MPEP 2106.05(a), the disclosure must provide sufficient details such that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the claimed invention as providing an improvement. Here, Applicant’s specification does not include any discussion of how the claimed invention provides a technical improvement realized by these claims over the prior art or any explanation of a technical problem having an unconventional technical solution that is expressed in these claims. Instead, as in Affinity Labs of Tex. v. DirecTV, LLC 838 F.3d 1253, 1263-64, 120 USPQ2d 1201, 1207-08 (Fed. Cir. 2016), the specification fails to provide sufficient details regarding the manner in which the claimed invention accomplishes any technical improvement or solution. For at least the above reasons, the cutting path pattern layout unit, cutting path setting unit, NC data creation unit, laser processing machine, and NC device of Claim 8 are directed to applying an abstract idea as identified above on a general purpose computer without (i) improving the performance of the computer itself or providing a technical solution to a problem in a technical field according to MPEP 2106.05(a), or (ii) providing meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that these claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent Claim 8 do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05. Therefore, for at least the above reasons, Claim 8 does not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, Claim 8 is not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. The Applicant can overcome this rejection by claiming structure that is configured to perform a post-solution activity that is integrated into the claim as a whole ( referencing MPEP 2106.05.g ) . For example, adding “… wherein the laser processing machine is configured to perform irradiation with a laser beam to cut the pattern of the cutting unit sets ” to the end of claim 8 would overcome this rejection. 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 the following: In claim 6, a “processing machine body” is interpreted under 35 USC 112f The generic placeholder is “body” and the functional limitations are “processing machine” and “ configured to irradiate a sheet metal mounted on the skids with a laser beam and cut the sheet metal .” Structure that is used from the Specification includes a processing head. In claim 6, a “control device” is interpreted under 35 USC 112f The generic placeholder is “device” and the functional limitations are “control,” “ configured to control the processing machine body so that the processing machine body cuts the sheet metal to produce a part ,” and “c ontrols the processing machine body so as to form a first cutting line having a circular- arc shape on the sheet metal .” Structure that is used from the Specification includes “computer devices” or a “single computer device” as well as a program or algorithm (described in the Specification with respect to fig. 21 of the Drawings). In claim 8, a “cutting path pattern layout unit,” a “cutting path setting unit,” and an “NC data creation unit” are interpreted under 35 USC 112f The generic placeholders are “units” and the functional limitations are “ configured to lay out a pattern ,” “ configured to set directions ,” and “ configured to create NC data for controlling a laser processing machine so that an NC device cuts the sheet metal in the pattern .” Structure that is used from the Specification includes “computer devices” or a “single computer device” as well as a program or algorithm (described in the Specification with respect to fig. 21 of the Drawings). 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. 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 . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 4 , 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura et al. (JP-2016078063-A, cited in paragraph 0004 of the Specification from the Instant Application and in the 892 form filed 2 Feb 2026; referencing provided foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Bohme ( US-20160280580-A1 ) . Regarding claim 4, Nakamura teaches a laser processing method ( “laser processing method for drilling holes in plate material using a laser ,” para 0001 ) comprising: performing irradiation with a laser beam ( “ a laser head that irradiates a plate material with a laser for cutting the plate material, ” para 0008; irradiation with a laser is construed as “irradiation with a laser beam” ) along a first cutting path ( cutting sequence 1, fig. 15B; annotated in fig. 15B below; para 0102 ) set on a first circular arc exceeding 180 degrees from a first point ( point A3, fig. 15B ) to a second point ( point D3, fig. 15B; from point A3 to D3 is approximately 225 degrees, fig. 15B ) on a circle indicating a round hole ( “circular hole,” para 0101 ) to be formed in a sheet metal ( metal plate W, fig. 1; “sheet material,” para 0026 ) and continuously cutting the first cutting path to form a first cutting line having a circular-arc shape on the sheet metal ( sequence 1 in fig. 15B is construed as being a continuous line that is in a circular-arc shape ) ; forming, in the circle, a plurality of dividing lines ( sequences 2 and 3, fig. 15B; annotated in fig. 15B below ) that include dividing lines for cutting to divide an area in the circle into a plurality of scraps ( area of the circle is divided into scraps 431, 432, 433, and 434 ) ; and performing irradiation with a laser beam along a second cutting path ( annotated in fig. 15B below ) set on a second circular arc that is uncut and extends from the second point ( point D3, fig. 15B ) to the first point ( point A3, fig. 15B ) and cutting the second cutting path to form a second cutting line having a circular-arc shape on the sheet metal ( “ cutting a circular outer periphery 43 to form a circular hole ,” para 0101; “ final cutting line is set as a section from the division point on the outer periphery line to the cutting start point ,” para 0009; construed such that the entire hole is cut, i.e., the annotated “second cutting path” below is cut as the final cutting line in order to cut the outer periphery of the hole ) so as to form a final scrap for forming the round hole ( scrap 434 is construed as the “final scrap,” fig. 15A ) . Nakamura, fig. 15B (annotated) Nakamura does not explicitly disclose forming, in the circle, a plurality of dividing lines that include dividing lines with a plurality of angular positions on the first cutting line as start points ( sequence 2 does not start on the arc of sequence 1 and it is not clear where sequence 3 starts in fig. 15 of Nakamura ) . However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting holes, Bohme teaches forming, in the circle ( contour line 5, fig. 5D ), a plurality of dividing lines ( crack line portions 6a to 6f, fig. 5D ) that include dividing lines with a plurality of angular positions ( annotated in fig. 5D below ) on the first cutting line ( circular line on contour 5 caused by the zones 5-1 ,5-2, …, fig. 5D; “ a fracture line corresponding to the internal contour 1 to be separated has in fact been produced in the substrate, however the material of the internal contour 1, as described already, is not yet completely separated from the material of the remaining substrate portion 2 ,” para 0128 ) as start points ( “ begin at one and the same place on the contour line 5 ,” para 0133 ). Bohme, fig. 5D (annotated) Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before th e effective filing date to modify the invention of Nakamura, in view of the teachings of Bohme, by using a plurality of V-shaped crack lines, as taught by Bohme, instead of the sequences 2 and 3 such that at least two of the V-shaped crack lines intersected sequence 1, as taught by Nakamura, in order to use V-shape crack lines that interlock with each other at specific points, facilitating removal of the scraps inside the hole without causing stress to the outer substrate in which the hole is located , for the advantage of preventing possible damage to the outer substrate while ensuring that an ideal cut edge is made for the circular contour ( Bohme, para s 0007 and 0142 ). Regarding claim 6, Nakamura teaches a laser processing machine ( laser processing machine 100, fig. 1 ) comprising: a processing machine body ( frame 70, fig. 1; includes a laser head 81, fig. 1 ) including a table ( table 60, fig. 1 ) on which a plurality of skids ( skid 61, fig. 1; “ plurality of rod-shaped skids ,” para 0017 ) are arranged, the processing machine body being configured to irradiate a sheet metal mounted on the skids with a laser beam and cut the sheet metal ( “a laser head that irradiates a plate material with a laser for cutting the plate material,” para 0008; irradiation with a laser is construed as “irradiation with a laser beam ; ” a hole Wop is cut from the plate material W, fig. 1 and para 0026 ) ; and a control device ( NC device 30, fig. 1; a computer is not explicitly disclosed ) configured to control the processing machine body ( paras 0022 and 0114 ) so that the processing machine body cuts the sheet metal to produce a part ( plate material W with the whole Wop is construed as being a part, fig. 1 ), wherein when the control device controls the processing machine body ( “ the CAM 20 can divide the hole formation area into a plurality of sections and generate a machining sequence and machining trajectory for cutting the sections ,” para 0128; the CAM provides these sequences to the NC device 30, fig. 3 ) so as to form a round hole ( “circular hole,” para 0101 ) in the part, the control device controls the processing machine body so as to form a first cutting line having a circular- arc shape on the sheet metal by performing irradiation with a laser beam along a first cutting path ( cutting sequence 1, fig. 15B; annotated in fig. 15B above ; para 0102 ) set on a first circular arc exceeding 180 degrees from a first point ( point A3, fig. 15B ) to a second point ( point D3, fig. 15B; from point A3 to D3 is approximately 225 degrees, fig. 15B ) on a circle indicating the round hole and continuously cutting the first cutting path ( sequence 1 in fig. 15B is construed as being a continuous line that is in a circular-arc shape ) , the control device controls the processing machine body so as to divide an area in the circle into a plurality of scraps ( area of the circle is divided into scraps 431, 432, 433, and 434 ) by forming, in the circle, a plurality of dividing lines ( sequences 2 and 3, fig. 15B; annotated in fig. 15B above ) , and the control device controls the processing machine body so as to form a second cutting line having a circular- arc shape on the sheet metal so that a final scrap ( scrap 434 is construed as the “final scrap,” fig. 15A ) for forming the round hole is formed by performing irradiation with a laser beam along a second cutting path ( annotated in fig. 15B above ) set on a second circular arc that is uncut and extends from the second point ( point D3, fig. 15B ) to the first point ( point A3, fig. 15B ) and cutting the second cutting path ( “cutting a circular outer periphery 43 to form a circular hole,” para 0101; “final cutting line is set as a section from the division point on the outer periphery line to the cutting start point,” para 0009; construed such that the entire hole is cut, i.e., the annotated “second cutting path” above is cut as the final cutting line in order to cut the outer periphery of the hole ) . Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a control device ( Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a computer ) ; dividing lines with a plurality of angular positions on the first cutting line as start points for cutting . However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting holes, Bohme teaches a control device ( personal computer 22, fig. 10; para 0155 ) ; dividing lines ( crack line portions 6a to 6f, fig. 5D ) with a plurality of angular positions ( annotated in fig. 5D above ) on the first cutting line ( circular line on contour 5 caused by the zones 5-1,5-2, …, fig. 5D; “a fracture line corresponding to the internal contour 1 to be separated has in fact been produced in the substrate, however the material of the internal contour 1, as described already, is not yet completely separated from the material of the remaining substrate portion 2,” para 0128 ) as start points for cutting ( “begin at one and the same place on the contour line 5,” para 0133 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nakamura, in view of the teachings of Bohme, by using a personal computer, as taught by Bohme, as the NC control device 30, as taught by Nakamura, and by using a plurality of V-shaped crack lines, as taught by Bohme, instead of the sequences 2 and 3 such that at least two of the V-shaped crack lines intersected sequence 1, as taught by Nakamura, in order to use V-shape crack lines that interlock with each other at specific points, facilitating removal of the scraps inside the hole without causing stress to the outer substrate in which the hole is located, for the advantage of preventing possible damage to the outer substrate while ensuring that an ideal cut edge is made for the circular contour and because a personal computer has suitable memory and programs to control the laser beam as the beam is produced, focused, and deflected onto the workpiece ( Bohme, paras 0007 , 0142 , and 0155 ). Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches a processing program creation device ( fig. 3; creates machining sequences to cut sections, para 0128 ) comprising: a cutting path pattern layout unit ( operation unit 21, fig. 3 ) configured to lay out a pattern ( “ division number and outer periphery cutting direction ,” para 0037 ) including a plurality of cutting paths ( periphery 43, fig. 15A; sequences 2 and 3, fig. 15B ) for forming a round hole ( “circular hole,” para 0101 ) in a sheet metal ( “a laser head that irradiates a plate material with a laser for cutting the plate material,” para 0008; irradiation with a laser is construed as “irradiation with a laser beam;” a hole Wop is cut from the plate material W, fig. 1 and para 0026 ) ; a cutting path setting unit ( CAM 20, fig. 3 ) configured to set directions for cutting the respective cutting paths of the pattern laid out by the cutting path pattern layout unit ( para 0030 ) and a cutting order ( “machining sequence,” para 0128 ) of the plurality of cutting paths ( para 0128 ) ; and a NC data creation unit ( CAD 10, fig. 3 ) configured to create NC data ( “ creates CAD data including information ,” para 0029 ) for controlling a laser processing machine ( laser processing machine 100, fig. 1 ) so that an NC device ( NC device 30, fig. 1 ) cuts the sheet metal in the pattern laid out by the cutting path pattern layout unit in the directions for cutting and the cutting order set by the cutting path setting unit ( NC device 30 receives data from operation unit 21 and CAM 20, fig. 3; para 0029 ) , wherein the cutting path setting unit ( CAM 20, fig. 30; uses processing order determination unit 204 to determine the “cutting order,” para 0077 ) sets, in the following order, a first cutting path ( cutting sequence 1, fig. 15B; annotated in fig. 15B above; para 0102 ) for cutting a first circular arc, exceeding 180 degrees from a first point ( point A3, fig. 15B ) to a second point ( point D3, fig. 15B; from point A3 to D3 is approximately 225 degrees, fig. 15B ) on a circle indicating the round hole, from the first point to the second point ( fig. 15B ) , a plurality of second cutting paths ( sequences 2 and 3, fig. 15B ) for dividing an area in the circle into a plurality of scraps ( area of the circle is divided into scraps 431, 432, 433, and 434 ) ,; and a third cutting path ( annotated in fig. 15B above as the “second cutting path;” “cutting a circular outer periphery 43 to form a circular hole,” para 0101; “final cutting line is set as a section from the division point on the outer periphery line to the cutting start point,” para 0009; construed such that the entire hole is cut, i.e., the annotated “second cutting path” above is cut as the final cutting line in order to cut the outer periphery of the hole ) for cutting a second circular arc that is uncut and extends from the second point ( point D3, fig. 15B ) to the first point ( point A3, fig. 15B ) , from the second point to the first point. Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a cutting path pattern layout unit; a cutting path setting unit; a NC data creation unit ( a computer is not explicitly disclosed ) ; the plurality of second cutting path including cutting paths with a plurality of angular positions on the first cutting path as start points for cutting. However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting holes, Bohme teaches a cutting path pattern layout unit; a cutting path setting unit; a NC data creation unit ( personal computer 22, fig. 10; para 0155 ); the plurality of second cutting path including cutting paths ( crack line portions 6a to 6f, fig. 5D ) with a plurality of angular positions ( annotated in fig. 5D above ) on the first cutting path ( circular line on contour 5 caused by the zones 5-1,5-2, …, fig. 5D; “a fracture line corresponding to the internal contour 1 to be separated has in fact been produced in the substrate, however the material of the internal contour 1, as described already, is not yet completely separated from the material of the remaining substrate portion 2,” para 0128 ) as start points for cutting ( “begin at one and the same place on the contour line 5,” para 0133 ) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Nakamura, in view of the teachings of Bohme, by using a personal computer, as taught by Bohme, as the operation unit 21, CAM 20, CAD 10, and NC device 30 , as taught by Nakamura, and by using a plurality of V-shaped crack lines, as taught by Bohme, instead of the sequences 2 and 3 such that at least two of the V-shaped crack lines intersected sequence 1, as taught by Nakamura, in order to use V-shape crack lines that interlock with each other at specific points, facilitating removal of the scraps inside the hole without causing stress to the outer substrate in which the hole is located, for the advantage of preventing possible damage to the outer substrate while ensuring that an ideal cut edge is made for the circular contour and because a personal computer has suitable memory and programs to control the laser beam as the beam is produced, focused, and deflected onto the workpiece ( Bohme, paras 0007, 0142, and 0155 ). Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mori et al. ( US-5910261-A ) teach a method for forming a circular hole. Matsumoto et al. ( US-20160045984-A1 ) teach a method for forming a circular hole. Yoshikawa et al. ( JP-2015100828-A ) teach forming dividing lines for a circular hole. Schmauder et al. ( DE-102019203946-A1 ) teach forming division cuts in a hole that is laser cut from a workpiece. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6995 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30 . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Edward Landrum can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-5567 . 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. /ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/2/2026 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761