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 on or after December 16, 2025 has been entered. Claims 1 and 3-10 remain pending in the application. Claim 2 is canceled. Claim 1 is amended. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed December 16, 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The amendment of the independent Claim 1 overcomes the originally set forth rejection in view of Kangastupa in view of Livingston: The examiner agrees. The previously set forth 103 is rejection is subsequently withdrawn. A new rejection, necessitated by amendment, is provided in view of Kangastupa, Livingston, and Suizu.
Suizu does not teach the limitations of newly amended limitations of Claim 1 (Originally limitations of Claim 2) and in particular that a reflectance of the peripheral portion of the second coating film is higher that the predetermined reflectance of the first coating film: With regard to this argument, the applicants notes that “Suizu has higher reflectivity at its center portion.” However, this argument is not found to be persuasive. As set forth in the previous office action and in the section regarding Claim 1 as currently amended, Suizu teaches a laser oscillator with a first optical component (Figure 1 Element 4) and a second optical component (Figure 1 Element 3) with respective first coating (Figure 1 Element 41) and second coating (Figure 1 Element 31) wherein reflectance of the peripheral portion of the second coating film is higher than the predetermined reflectance of the first coating film (“second coating material that has reflectance higher than…that of the first coating material” Abstract) and any centrality cited by the applicant does not negate the peripheral placement of the coating and the manner in which the prior art reads on the limitations of the claims.
Claims 1 and 3-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kangastupa (US 2019/0383998 A1) in view of Livingston (US 2008/0253417 A1) and Suizu (US 2016/0118761 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
380
626
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
254
366
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
622
738
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
422
654
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Kangastupa teaches a laser processing apparatus (“Laser Processing Apparatus” Title) comprising: a laser oscillator (“multiple fiber laser oscillator” [0059] Figure 4 Element 30) configured to generate laser light (The prior art further teaches that the laser oscillator is configured to generate laser light [0059]) ; an optical fiber (“multi-core optical fiber” [0017] Figure 4 Element 32) configured to transmit the laser light incident on an incident end (Figure 4 further shows that the optical fiber is configured to transmit the laser light incident on an incident end); and a laser head (“laser head” [0012] Figure 4 Element 20) configured to receive the laser light transmitted through the optical fiber (Figure 4 further shows that the laser head is configured to refuse the laser light) and irradiate a workpiece (“workpiece” [0012] Figure 4 Element 21) with the laser light (Figure 4 further shows the workpiece being irradiated with the laser light), wherein the laser head includes: a housing (The prior art further teaches that the laser head includes a “housing” [0062])
Kangastupa does not teach a first optical component and a second optical component each disposed inside the housing; and a first light receiver and a second light receiver each disposed inside the housing, wherein the first optical component is disposed at a position closer to an emission end of the optical fiber than the second optical component is, the first optical component is provided with a first coating film having a predetermined reflectance on at least one of light receiving surfaces of the laser light, the second optical component is provided with a second coating film on at least one of light receiving surfaces of the laser light, the first light receiver receives the laser light reflected by the first coating film and outputs a first light receiving signal corresponding to the laser light received, and the second light receiver receives the laser light reflected by a peripheral portion of the second coating film and outputs a second light receiving signal corresponding to the laser light received.
However, Livingston does teach a high-power laser system [0010] with first optical component (“beam splitter” Figure 1 Element 146) and a second optical component (“beam splitter” Figure 1 Element 138); and a first light receiver (“Piston Error Detection & Processing” Figure 1 Element 144) and a second light receiver (Figure 1 Element 136), wherein the first optical component is disposed at a position closer to an emission end of the optical fiber (The invention pertains to a “optical fiber laser” [0002] originating from a “master oscillator shown in Figure 1 Element 110) than the second optical component is (Figure 1 further shows that the first optical component is closer to the emission end of the optical fiber than the second), the first optical component is provided with a first coating film (the prior art teaches that the “beam splitter” Figure 1 Element 146 contains a “partially silvered mirror” [0043] which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a first coating) having a predetermined reflectance on at least one of light receiving surfaces of the laser light (the coating would further be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as having a predetermined reflectance on the light receiving surface), the second optical component is provided with a second coating film on at least one of light receiving surfaces of the laser light (the prior art teaches that the “beam splitter” Figure 1 Element 138 contains a “partially silvered mirror” [0043] which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a second coating), the first light receiver receives the laser light reflected by the first coating film and outputs a first light receiving signal corresponding to the laser light received (Figure 1 further shows the first light receiver receives the laser light reflected by the first coating film and outputs a first light receiving signal corresponding to the laser light received), and the second light receiver receives the laser light reflected by a peripheral portion of the second coating film and outputs a second light receiving signal corresponding to the laser light received (Figure 1 further shows that the second light receiver receives the laser light reflected by a peripheral portion of the second coating film and outputs a second light receiving signal corresponding to the laser light received).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kangastupa with the first optical component, first coating film, second optical component, first coating film, first light receiver, and second light receiver of Livingston in order to minimize the piston and tilt error of the laser beam and therefore improve the quality of the output beam on the workpiece being processed by the laser beam processing apparatus [0009].
Additionally, Kangastupa as modified by Livingston does not teach that a reflectance of the peripheral portion of the second coating film is higher than the predetermined reflectance of the first coating film.
However, Suizu does teach a laser oscillator with a first optical component (Figure 1 Element 4) and a second optical component (Figure 1 Element 3) with respective first coating (Figure 1 Element 41) and second coating (Figure 1 Element 31) wherein reflectance of the peripheral portion of the second coating film is higher than the predetermined reflectance of the first coating film (“second coating material that has reflectance higher than…that of the first coating material” Abstract)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kangastupa as modified by Livingston such that reflectance of the peripheral portion of the second coating film is higher than the predetermined reflectance of the first coating film as taught by Suizu in order to “improve the beam quality without complicating the manufacturing process” [0025].
Regarding Claim 3: Kangastupa further teaches that the optical fiber includes at least: a first core at an axial center (Figure 6A “First Core”); a first cladding (Figure 6A Element 54)provided coaxially with the first core in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the first core (Figure 6A Element 54) ; and a second core (Figure 6A Element 53) provided coaxially with the first core in contact with an outer peripheral surface of the first cladding (Figure 6A Further shows that the second core is provided coaxially with the first core in contact with the outer surface of the first cladding). All of the limitations of claim 3 are taught by Kangastupa.
Regarding Claim 4: Kangastupa further teaches a controller (“control unit” [0062] Figure 4 Element 10), wherein the controller is configured to detect a change in a numerical aperture of the laser light incident (the prior art teaches that the control unit “control[s] power densities in the center beam and/or the ring beam, regardless of the state of the other beam. In particular, specific power density control is arranged causing a beam profile combination optimal for a discrepancy point in the cutting process and/or material being cut” which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the as having the capacity to perform the function as claimed) on the optical fiber (“multi-core optical fiber” [0017] Figure 4 Element 32
Kangastupa does not teach that the controller is the object to which the first light receiving signal and the second light receiving signal are input, wherein the controller is configured to detect a change in a numerical aperture of the laser light incident on the optical fiber based on an intensity ratio between the first light receiving signal and the second light receiving signal.
However, Livingston does teach that the controller (“controller” Abstract) is the object to which the first light receiving signal (signal from the Piston error detection unit Figure 1 Element 144) and the second light receiving signal (signal from the Tilt error detection unit Figure 1 Element 136) are inputted and that the based on an intensity ratio between the first light receiving signal and the second light receiving signal (as the controller detects changes in the “piston error and tilter error” [0009], the ratios of both signals could be considered as a ratio by the controller without additional modification to the controller or programming and would be understood as requiring only routine skill in the art).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Kangastupa such that the controller is the object to which the first light receiving signal and the second light receiving signal are input, wherein the controller is configured to detect a change in a numerical aperture of the laser light incident on the optical fiber based on an intensity ratio between the first light receiving signal and the second light receiving signal as taught by Livingston in order to minimize the piston and tilt error of the laser beam and therefore improve the quality of the output beam on the workpiece being processed by the laser beam processing apparatus [0009].
Kangastupa as modified by Livingston does not teach that the controller is configured to detect a change in a numerical aperture of the laser light
However, Suizu does teach that the controller is configured to detect a change in a numerical aperture of the laser light ( the prior art teaches that the controller results in “employing a configuration of arranging an aperture between the output coupler 3 and the rear mirror 4 and limiting a diameter of laser beam by the aperture, the number of parts increases to complicate the configuration and the aperture absorbs laser beam, resulting in the reduction of laser output” [0025] which reads on the limitations of the claim)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kangastupa as modified by Livingston with such that the controller is configured to detect a change in a numerical aperture of the laser light as taught by Suizu in order to “to improve beam quality” [0025].
Regarding Claim 5: Kangastupa as modified by Livingston does not teach the laser processing apparatus, further comprising an optical coupler configured to cause the laser light emitted from the laser oscillator to enter the incident end of the optical fiber.
However, Suizu does a laser processing apparatus, further comprising an optical coupler (“output coupler” [0029]) configured to cause the laser light emitted from the laser oscillator to enter the incident end of the optical fiber (thus the “output coupler” [0029] could be configured by the user to cause the laser light emitted from the laser oscillator to enter the incident end of the optical fiber).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention to modify the invention of Kangastupa as modified by Livingston such that the apparatus has an optical coupler configured to cause the laser light emitted from the laser oscillator to enter the incident end of the optical fiber as taught by Suizu in order to “improve the beam quality without complicating the manufacturing process” [0025].
Regarding Claim 6: Kangastupa as modified by Livingston and Suizu further teaches that the numerical aperture exceeds a predetermined range, the controller controls the optical coupler, the numerical aperture falling within the predetermined range (Suizu further teaches that the controller results in “employing a configuration of arranging an aperture between the output coupler and the rear mirror and limiting a diameter of laser beam by the aperture, the number of parts increases to complicate the configuration and the aperture absorbs laser beam, resulting in the reduction of laser output” [0025] which reads on the limitations of the claim. The limiting diameter, as set by the user, is the predetermined range).
Regarding Claim 7: Kangastupa as modified by Livingston and Suizu further teaches that the controller (“controller” Abstract- Livingston) changes at least one of an incident position and a spot diameter of the laser light on an incident end surface (Suizu teaches that the controller results in “limiting a diameter of laser beam…resulting in the reduction of laser output” [0025] onto the incident end surface which reads on the limitations of the claim). of the optical fiber (“multi-core optical fiber” [0017] Figure 4 Element 32-Kangastupa), and controls the optical coupler (“output coupler” [0029]-Suizu), the numerical aperture having a desired value(Suizu teaches that the controller results in “employing a configuration of arranging an aperture between the output coupler and the rear mirror and limiting a diameter of laser beam by the aperture, the number of parts increases to complicate the configuration and the aperture absorbs laser beam, resulting in the reduction of laser output” [0025] which reads on the limitations of the claim).
Regarding Claim 8: Kangastupa further teaches that the laser processing apparatus (“Laser Processing Apparatus” Title) wherein the controller (“control unit” [0062] Figure 4 Element 10) causes the laser head (“laser head” [0012] Figure 4 Element 20) to condense the laser light at a desired condensing position (Figure 4 further shows that the laser head condenses the laser light (element 2) at the desired condensing position on the workpiece (element 21)).
Regarding Claim 9: Kangastupa as modified by Livingston and Suizu further teaches that a film thickness (Suizu Figure 1 Element 31) of a central portion of the second coating film (Suizu Figure 1 Element 31) is different from a film thickness of the peripheral portion (Suizu Figure 1 shows that the coating film on the second optical element is different between the central and peripheral portions).
Regarding Claim 10: Kangastupa as modified by Livingston and Suizu further teaches the film thickness of the central portion of the second coating film (Suizu Figure 1 Element 31) is larger than the film thickness of the peripheral portion (Suizu Figure 1 shows that the coating film on the second optical element is thicker in the central portion and thinner at the peripheral portions).
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761