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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 15 June 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings filed 15 June 2026 have overcome the Drawing objection. The Drawing objection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed 15 June 2026 have overcome the Claim objections. Accordingly, the previous Claim objections have been withdrawn. However, Applicant’s amendments have provided grounds for a new Claim objection
The Applicant’s amendments to Claim 8 and argument (see pages 12-13 in the arguments filed 15 June 2026) have overcome the 35 USC 101 rejection. Specifically, the examiner agrees that the following limitation causes claim 8 to be integrated into a practical application: “an NC device cuts the sheet metal in the pattern laid out by the computer.” As a result, the 35 USC 101 rejection has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments to claim 8 have also voided claim interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) for this claim. In the present Office action, interpretation under 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for claim 8.
The Applicant’s amendments have provided new grounds for a 35 USC 112 rejection.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 June 2026, with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portions of the Claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 15 June 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 4, 6, and 8 have been amended. Claims 9-12 are new.
Claims 1-13 are pending. Claims 1-3, 5, and 7 have been withdrawn from consideration.
Claim Objections
Claim 11 is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending line 4 to recite: “…the plurality of cutting paths...” 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 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 “performing irradiation with a laser beam along a plurality of cutting paths.”
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 “controls 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).
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4, 6, and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
The limitation in claims 4 and 6: “an area surrounded by the first cutting line” is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Instead of surrounding an area, the Specification discloses a cutting line CAr1 in fig. 13A.b that begins at a point P1 and ends at a point P2 with an arc having “an angle greater than 288 degrees.” As a result, by adding this limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application. The Applicant can overcome this rejection by amending the claim to recite: “an area surrounded by the circle.”
This is a new rejection based on the amended portion of the claims. Claims 9-12 are rejected based on their dependency to claims 4 and 6.
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 8-13 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 Gaudiosi (US-20170057017-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:
setting a circle (circle in fig. 15B) indicating a round hole (“circular hole,” para 0101) to be formed in a sheet metal (metal plate W, fig. 1; “sheet material,” para 0026)
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 the circle 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);
performing irradiation with a laser beam along a plurality of cutting paths in the virtual circle (sequences 2 and 3, fig. 15B; annotated in fig. 15B below; construed such that sequences 2 and 3 overlap in the claimed “virtual circle” taught by the modifying reference) to form dividing lines (the sequences 2 and 3 become lines in fig. 15A, which divide the periphery into sections 431-434; para 0101) on the sheet metal;
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)
PNG
media_image1.png
494
704
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose setting a virtual circle concentric with a circle having a smaller diameter than the circle; performing irradiation with a laser beam along a plurality of cutting paths arranged at predetermined angular intervals in an area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle to form dividing lines on the sheet metal; performing irradiation with a laser beam along a cutting path on the virtual circle to form a circular dividing line on the sheet metal, thereby forming a plurality of scraps in an area surrounded by the first cutting line and the virtual circle and in an area inside the virtual circle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting holes, Gaudiosi teaches setting (step 1004, fig. 10) a virtual circle (circle inside path 704A, fig. 7; the circle is construed as being a virtual circle before the “first laser beam” is applied, para 0075) concentric with a circle (path 702, fig. 7; the path 702 is construed as being the circle taught by Nakamura in fig. 15B; area inside path 702 has the same center as the area inside path 704A, fig. 7) having a smaller diameter than the circle (;the diameter of path 704A is smaller than the diameter of path 702, fig. 7); performing irradiation (step 1006, fig. 10) with a laser beam along a plurality of cutting paths (paths 704 annotated in fig. 7 below; “the first laser beam that first follows the outline tool path 702, then follows the stress relief tool path 704,” para 0075) arranged at predetermined angular intervals (the two construed cutting paths are approximately 180 degrees apart, annotated fig. 7) in an area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle (area between paths 702 and 704A, fig. 7) to form dividing lines on the sheet metal (lines along paths 704, fig. 7; para 0075); performing irradiation with a laser beam along a cutting path on the virtual circle (“The brittle material 701 is first exposed to the first laser beam that first follows … 704A.,” para 0075) to form a circular dividing line (line along path 704A, fig. 7) on the sheet metal, thereby forming a plurality of scraps (“sacrificial portions,” para 0075) in an area surrounded by the first cutting line (path 702 surrounds an area, fig. 7) and the virtual circle (path 704A surrounds a circular area, fig. 7) and in an area inside the virtual circle (area inside path 704A, fig. 7; the “sacrificial portion” 704A, as taught by Gaudiosi, is construed as being four scraps due to sequences 2 and 3, as taught by Nakamura, annotated in fig. 7 below).
Gaudiosi, fig. 7 (annotated)
PNG
media_image2.png
802
1687
media_image2.png
Greyscale
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 Gaudiosi, by using the tool path pattern with paths 704 and 704A, as taught by Gaudiosi in fig. 7, in combination with the cutting sequences, as taught in fig. 15B of Nakamura, in order to form stress lines within the interior of the outer perimeter of a hole to facilitate the propagation of the separation of the hole, for the advantage of preventing uncontrolled pathways of material separation or unexpected cracks when the hole is cut (Gaudiosi, paras 0043-0044 and 0074; Gaudiosi teaches a process similar to the Nakamura of applying a “first laser beam” and then a “second laser beam” along the perimeter of the outline tool path 702, para 0075).
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 sets a circle (circle in fig. 15B; para 0101) indicating the round hole (“circular hole,” para 0101) to be formed in a sheet metal (metal plate W, fig. 1; “sheet material,” para 0026);
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 the circle 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 form dividing lines on the sheet metal in the virtual circle (the sequences 2 and 3 become lines in fig. 15A, which divide the periphery into sections 431-434; para 0101; construed such that sequences 2 and 3 overlap in the claimed “virtual circle” taught by the modifying reference) by performing irradiation with a laser beam along a plurality of cutting paths in the virtual circle (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); the control device sets a virtual circle concentric with a circle and having a smaller diameter than the circle; the control device controls the processing machine body so as to form dividing lines on the sheet metal in an area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle by performing irradiation with a laser beam along a plurality of cutting paths arranged at predetermined angular intervals in the area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle; the control device controls the processing machine body so as to form a circular dividing line on the virtual circle by performing irradiation with a laser beam along a cutting path on the virtual circle, and to form a plurality of scraps in an area surrounded by the first cutting line and the virtual circle and in an area inside the virtual circle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting holes, Gaudiosi teaches a control device (“control system,” para 0098; “computers,” para 0053); the control device sets (step 1004, fig. 10) a virtual circle (circle inside path 704A, fig. 7; the circle is construed as being a virtual circle before the “first laser beam” is applied, para 0075) concentric with a circle (path 702, fig. 7; the path 702 is construed as being the circle taught by Nakamura in fig. 15B; area inside path 702 has the same center as the area inside path 704A, fig. 7) and having a smaller diameter than the circle (the diameter of path 704A is smaller than the diameter of path 702, fig. 7); the control device controls (step 1006, fig. 10) the processing machine body so as to form dividing lines (lines along paths 704 in annotated fig. 7 above) on the sheet metal in an area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle by performing irradiation with a laser beam along a plurality of cutting paths (paths 704 annotated in fig. 7 above; “the first laser beam that first follows the outline tool path 702, then follows the stress relief tool path 704,” para 0075) arranged at predetermined angular intervals (the two construed cutting paths are approximately 180 degrees apart, annotated fig. 7) in the area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle (area between paths 702 and 704A, fig. 7); the control device controls the processing machine body so as to form a circular dividing line on the virtual circle (line along path 704A, fig. 7) by performing irradiation with a laser beam along a cutting path on the virtual circle (“The brittle material 701 is first exposed to the first laser beam that first follows … 704A.,” para 0075), and to form a plurality of scraps (“sacrificial portions,” para 0075) in an area surrounded by the first cutting line (path 702 surrounds an area, fig. 7) and the virtual circle (path 704A surrounds a circular area, fig. 7) and the virtual circle and in an area inside the virtual circle (area inside path 704A, fig. 7; the “sacrificial portion” 704A, as taught by Gaudiosi, is construed as being four scraps due to sequences 2 and 3, as taught by Nakamura, annotated in fig. 7 above).
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 Gaudiosi, by using a computer, as taught by Gaudiosi, as the NC control device 30, as taught by Nakamura, and by using the tool path pattern with paths 704 and 704A, as taught by Gaudiosi in fig. 7, in combination with the cutting sequences, as taught in fig. 15B of Nakamura, because computers can provide control system functionality and can be used to monitor system performance and in order to form stress lines within the interior of the outer perimeter of a hole to facilitate the propagation of the separation of the hole, for the advantage of preventing uncontrolled pathways of material separation or unexpected cracks when the hole is cut (Gaudiosi, paras 0056, 0043-0044, and 0074; Gaudiosi teaches a process similar to the Nakamura of applying a “first laser beam” and then a “second laser beam” along the perimeter of the outline tool path 702, para 0075).
Regarding claim 8, Nakamura teaches a processing program creation method (fig. 3; creates machining sequences to cut sections, para 0128) comprising executed by a computer (CAM 20, fig. 3; a computer is not explicitly disclosed):
laying 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);
setting directions for cutting the respective cutting paths of the pattern laid out by the computer (para 0030) and a cutting order (“machining sequence,” para 0128) of the plurality of cutting paths (para 0128); and
creating 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 computer in the directions for cutting and the cutting order set by the computer (NC device 30 receives data from operation unit 21 and CAM 20, fig. 3; para 0029), wherein
the computer (CAM 20, fig. 30; uses processing order determination unit 204 to determine the “cutting order,” para 0077) sets:
a circle (circle in fig. 15B) indicating the round hole (“circular hole,” para 0101);
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 the circle (fig. 15B);
a plurality of cutting paths (sequences 2 and 3, fig. 15B) in the virtual circle (construed such that sequences 2 and 3 overlap in the claimed “virtual circle” taught by the modifying reference);
a second 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).
Nakamura does not explicitly disclose a method executed by a computer; wherein the computer sets a virtual circle concentric with a circle and having a smaller diameter than the circle; cutting paths arranged at predetermined angular intervals in an area between the first cutting path and the virtual circle; a cutting path on the virtual circle.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting holes, Gaudiosi teaches a method (brittle material method 1000, fig. 10) executed by a computer (“control system,” para 0098; “computers,” para 0053); wherein the computer sets (step 1004, fig. 10) a virtual circle (circle inside path 704A, fig. 7; the circle is construed as being a virtual circle before the “first laser beam” is applied, para 0075) concentric with a circle (path 702, fig. 7; the path 702 is construed as being the circle taught by Nakamura in fig. 15B; area inside path 702 has the same center as the area inside path 704A, fig. 7) and having a smaller diameter than the circle (the diameter of path 704A is smaller than the diameter of path 702, fig. 7); cutting paths (paths 704 annotated in fig. 7 above; “the first laser beam that first follows the outline tool path 702, then follows the stress relief tool path 704,” para 0075; step 1006, fig. 10) arranged at predetermined angular intervals (the two construed cutting paths are approximately 180 degrees apart, annotated fig. 7) in an area between the first cutting path and the virtual circle (area between paths 702 and 704A, fig. 7); a cutting path on the virtual circle (“The brittle material 701 is first exposed to the first laser beam that first follows … 704A.,” para 0075).
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 Gaudiosi, by using a computer, as taught by Gaudiosi, as the NC control device 30, as taught by Nakamura, and by using the tool path pattern with paths 704 and 704A, as taught by Gaudiosi in fig. 7, in combination with the cutting sequences, as taught in fig. 15B of Nakamura, because computers can provide control system functionality and can be used to monitor system performance and in order to form stress lines within the interior of the outer perimeter of a hole to facilitate the propagation of the separation of the hole, for the advantage of preventing uncontrolled pathways of material separation or unexpected cracks when the hole is cut (Gaudiosi, paras 0056, 0043-0044, and 0074; Gaudiosi teaches a process similar to the Nakamura of applying a “first laser beam” and then a “second laser beam” along the perimeter of the outline tool path 702, para 0075).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Nakamura in view of Gaudiosi as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, Gaudiosi teaches wherein the plurality of cutting paths (paths 704 annotated in fig. 7 above) in the area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle (area between paths 702 and 704A, fig. 7) are arranged at equal angular intervals (the two construed cutting paths are approximately 180 degrees apart, annotated fig. 7; construed as equal angular intervals of 180 degrees).
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Nakamura in view of Gaudiosi as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 10. Specifically, Gaudiosi teaches wherein at least four
scraps are formed in the area inside the virtual circle (area inside path 704A, fig. 7; the “sacrificial portion” 704A, as taught by Gaudiosi, is construed as being four scraps due to sequences 2 and 3, as taught by Nakamura, annotated in fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Nakamura in view of Gaudiosi as set forth above regarding claim 6 teaches the invention of claim 11. Specifically, Gaudiosi teaches wherein the control
device (“control system,” para 0098) controls the processing machine body (delivery module 2026, fig. 2; step 1006, fig. 10) so as to form dividing lines (lines along the paths 704 annotated in fig. 7 above) on the sheet metal in the area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle (area between paths 702 and 704A, fig. 7) by performing irradiation with a laser beam along a plurality of cutting paths (“the first laser beam that first follows the outline tool path 702, then follows the stress relief tool path 704,” para 0075) arranged at equal angular intervals (the two construed cutting paths are approximately 180 degrees apart, annotated fig. 7; construed as equal angular intervals of 180 degrees) in the area between the first cutting line and the virtual circle (area between paths 702 and 704A, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Nakamura in view of Gaudiosi as set forth above regarding claim 6 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Gaudiosi teaches wherein the control device (“control system,” para 0098) controls the processing machine body (delivery module 2026, fig. 2; step 1006, fig. 10) so as to form at least four scraps in the area inside the virtual circle (area inside path 704A, fig. 7; the “sacrificial portion” 704A, as taught by Gaudiosi, is construed as being four scraps due to sequences 2 and 3, as taught by Nakamura, annotated in fig. 7 above).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Nakamura in view of Gaudiosi as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, Gaudiosi teaches wherein the
cutting paths (paths 704 annotated in fig. 7 above) in the area between the first cutting path and the virtual circle (area between paths 702 and 704A, fig. 7) are arranged at equal angular intervals (the two construed cutting paths are approximately 180 degrees apart, annotated fig. 7; construed as equal angular intervals of 180 degrees).
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments on pages 13-16 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Nakamura combined with Gaudiosi.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached 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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 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 7/20/2026
Prosecution Insights