Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 3-4, 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochiyama et al (US 2020/0083665) in view of Domoto et al (JP 2020-060725) with references made to attached machine translation.
Regarding claims 1 and 7, Mochiyama discloses, A laser processing device comprising: a laser oscillator (laser oscillation device 101) that generates a laser light beam (beam 130); an optical fiber (optical fiber 102) that transmits the laser light beam (See Paragraphs [0003]-[0006]); a laser head (machining head 103) that receives the laser light beam transmitted through the optical fiber and emits the laser light beam to a workpiece; and a chiller (water circulation device 20) that allows cooling water to flow through the laser oscillator to cool the laser oscillator, wherein the laser oscillator includes one or more laser diodes (laser diodes 40), and a base (cooling plate 41) that includes a cooling water channel inside and has the one or more laser diodes mounted on a surface of the base, (a cooling plate 41, pipes 26a and 26b, a pressure sensor 27, a flow rate sensor 28, and an adjuster 25, the cooling plate 41 cools each laser diode 40, the pipes 26a and 26b supply a cooling medium to the cooling flow path 47 of the cooling plate 41, the pressure sensor 27 detects the pressure of water as a cooling medium flowing through the pipes 26a and 26b, the flow rate sensor 28 detects the flow rate of water flowing through the pipes 26a and 26b, the adjuster 25 automatically adjusts the cooling medium to a predetermined pressure and flow rate based on the values of the pressure sensor 27 and the flow rate sensor 28, and the cooling water is supplied by a cooling water circulation device) It is recognized that the pressure of water as a cooling medium flowing through the pipes 26a and 26b is equal to the water pressure of the cooling medium in the cooling flow path 47. Because the pressure is automatically adjusted to a predetermined pressure, this would change incident angle of the laser light incident on the process fiber 102. (See Paragraph, [0002], [0003], [0048], Figs 1 and 2)
While Mochiyama discloses changing the pressure and in turn, changing the incident angle is a byproduct. The present application changes the pressure intentionally for changing the beam profile. However, the functional language of the claim is not written to exclude the prior art.
Further, Mochiyama may fail to disclose the laser processing device is configured to change an incident angle of the laser light beam incident on the optical fiber by changing a water pressure of the cooling water circulating through the cooling water channel.
Domoto is in the same field as it discloses a laser oscillating device with a beam emitted from a transmission fiber, equivalent to the optical fiber. Domoto discloses, changing the pressure of the liquid in flowing through a channel in optical fiber in order to change the incident angle of the laser beam to a desired value. (See Paragraphs [0032]-[0034])
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify the elements in Mochiyama to provide the laser processing device is configured to change an incident angle of the laser light beam incident on the optical fiber by changing a water pressure of the cooling water circulating through the cooling water channel, as suggested and taught by Domoto for the purpose of changing the incident angle of the beam by changing the curvature of the surface for reducing beam loss and maintaining beam quality. The liquid may also be selected to have a specific refractive index for reducing beam loss and maintaining beam quality.
Mochiyama discloses, regarding claim 3, a condenser lens 105 or 156 and reflective mirror 116 or 155 (See Fig 9A and Paragraph [0025]) The reflective mirror reflects the light 154 from the laser toward the condenser lens 155.
While Mochiyama discloses changing the pressure and in turn, changing the incident angle is a byproduct. The present application changes the pressure intentionally for changing the beam profile. However, the functional language of the claim is not written to exclude the prior art.
Domoto discloses, changing the pressure of the liquid in order to change the incident angle of the laser beam to a desired value. It would have been obvious to adapt Mochiyama in view of Domoto to provide the laser processing device is configured to change an incident angle of the laser light beam incident on the optical fiber by changing a water pressure of the cooling water circulating through the cooling water channel for changing the incident angle of the beam by changing the curvature of the surface. The liquid may also be selected to have a specific refractive index for reducing beam loss and maintaining beam quality. (See Paragraphs [0032]-[0034])
Regarding claim 4, Mochiyama discloses e a process fiber 102 having a first core at the axial center, a first clad in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the first core and provided coaxially with the first core, a second core in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the first clad and provided coaxially with the first core, and a second clad in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the second core and provided coaxially with the first core, and at that time, automatically adjusting the cooling medium to a predetermined pressure so that the laser light is transmitted to the first core and the second core.
Domoto discloses, an optical fiber of a laser processing device having a first core at the axial center, a first clad in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the first core and provided coaxially with the first core, a second core in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the first clad and provided coaxially with the first core, and a second clad in contact with the outer peripheral surface of the second core and provided coaxially with the first core (see paragraphs [0021] - [0029], Figs. 1-2,)
Regarding claim 6, as Mochiyama in view of Domoto discloses a first core in the fiber a light transmitted with the incident angle changed by the water pressure of the cooling water, claim 6 is considered to be an inherent characteristic of the prior art. Claim 6 can be achieved without further instructions or function required. Compared to claim 5, which comprises the second core, this would require additional steps which are not considered obvious or inherent.
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mochiyama et al (US 2020/0083665) in view of Domoto et al (JP 2020-060725) and DeMuth et al (US 2017/0219855).
The teaching of Mochiyama have been discussed above. Mochiyama discloses a chiller for circulating the coolant. As the coolant is circulated, the device would contain a pump and a heat exchanger for keeping the fluid cool as well as a controller.
Domoto discloses a controller 400 which would control the pressure for changing the beam shape and incident angle. (See Paragraph [0027] and [0063])
DeMuth discloses a cooling system for a laser processing device. (See Abstract) The device comprises a cooler (title) having a heat exchanger 304 a coolant supply 306, a pump 308 and a controller 102 for circulating cooling water and controlling the operation of the pump.
It would have been obvious to adapt Mochiyama in view of Domoto to provide the controller for changing an incident angle of the laser light beam incident on the optical fiber by changing a water pressure of the cooling water circulating through the cooling water channel for changing the incident angle of the beam by changing the curvature of the surface. The liquid may also be selected to have a specific refractive index for reducing beam loss and maintaining beam quality. It would have also been obvious to adapt Mochiyama in further view of DeMuth to provide the heat exchanger, pump and controller for controlling the circulation of the cooling fluid in order to remove heat from the system.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/4/2025