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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) has not been submitted.
Abstract
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the holder in Claims 1, 4, 6 and 14 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
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.
Claim Objections
Claim 2 is objected to because of the following informalities:
"a computing device” in Ln. 30 should read “the computing device”.
“where in” in Ln. 32 should read “wherein”.
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 is: a computing device to process the digital image in Claim 2.
In particular, the claim limitation “device” is a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional languages “computing” and “to process the digital image” without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder “device” is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. In this case, a computing device is interpreted as any programmable electronic device capable of storing, retrieving and processing data to instruct the system to perform functions including processing the digital image, and analyzing the contour profile (Paragraph 7); computing positional and angular compensation (Paragraph 14); instructing the alignment module, and verifying the code (Paragraph 34); and verifying the scribing paths, and controlling the laser (Paragraph 38).
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
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.
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 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, and further in view of Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann.
Regarding Claim 1, Sercel teaches a system (400, laser machining system; Fig. 4B; Sercel) for cutting a composite panel (401, workpiece; Fig. 4B; Sercel) comprising
a platform (402, base; Fig. 4B; Sercel) defined by a top, a bottom and sidewalls (Fig. 4B of Sercel teaches a top, a bottom and sidewalls of the base);
a displacement module (410, part handling system; Fig. 4B; Sercel) on the top of the platform (Fig. 4B; Sercel), the displacement module (410; Sercel) comprising (i) a holder (414, vacuum gripper; Fig. 4B; Sercel) for retaining (Paragraph 36 of Sercel teaches “for gripping the workpiece”) an uncut composite panel (In Abstract, Sercel teaches solar panels are provided as an example of large flat workpiece, which the examiner interprets as uncut composite panel) and a primary actuator (415, motion stage; Fig. 4B; Sercel) arranged on the platform (Fig. 4B; Sercel) engaging to the holder in a manner facilitating transfer of the holder along with the retained panel (Paragraph 36; Sercel teaches the vacuum grippers, gripping the workpiece, are supported on motion stages capable of moving the workpiece along the indexing axis to index the workpiece through the processing section); and slicing trays for receiving the composite panel (401; Sercel) transferred thereto by the holder (414; Sercel) (Paragraph 36; Sercel) and
a cutting module (420, laser scanning stage; Fig. 4B; Sercel) located on the platform (Fig. 4B; Sercel)
PNG
media_image1.png
514
845
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4B of Sercel, annotated
Regarding Claim 1, Sercel does not explicitly teaches:
for cutting composite sheets from a composite panel;
a cutting module for slicing a plurality of the composite sheets from the composite panel, each moving sequence of the laser being configured to slice N copy of the composite sheet, each composite sheet having a contour profile,
However, Matsumoto discloses:
composite sheets (18, electronic circuit board; Fig. 1(E)) from a composite panel (16, multi-layer board; Fig. 1(D))
a cutting module for slicing a plurality of the composite sheets (18; Matsumoto) from the composite panel (16; Matsumoto), each moving sequence of the laser being configured to slice N copy of the composite sheet, each composite sheet having a contour profile (shown in Fig. 1 of Matsumoto),
Sercel and Matsumoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for planar workpieces. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser machining system taught by Sercel to incorporate the laser cutting technique taught by Matsumoto, which would have been a predictable application of a known laser cutting technique to a laser machining system, without altering the fundamental operating principles, in order to enable cutting a single multi-layered board into multiple planar workpieces with respective contour profiles in a predictable manner.
PNG
media_image2.png
365
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Matsumoto, annotated
Regarding Claim 1, Sercel and Matsumoto does not explicitly teaches:
a secondary actuator
slicing a plurality of the composite sheets from the composite panel, which is kept within the slicing tray, by way of heating the composite panel at specific locations using a laser beam generated from a laser which moves on top of the composite panel at a predetermined fashion in multiple working sequences, wherein the laser is an ultrashort pulse laser capable of emitting ultrashort pulses of laser beam in an order of nanosecond to picosecond,
However, Yamamoto discloses:
a secondary actuator (Paragraph 57 of Yamamoto teaches the holding table is movable by a motor which is not shown in the figures. The examiner interprets the motor as the secondary actuator)
slicing a plurality of the composite sheets from the composite panel, which is kept within the slicing tray (60, holding table; Fig. 4; Yamamoto teaches, in Paragraph 56, that the holding table holds the workpiece thereon while laser applying means applies a laser beam to the workpiece for processing), by way of heating the composite panel at specific locations (Paragraph 56 of Yamamoto teaches the laser applying means 62 applies the laser beam by positioning a focused spot of the laser beam) using a laser beam (LB, laser beam; Fig. 5; Yamamoto) generated from a laser (74, beam condenser; Fig. 4; Yamamoto) which moves on top of the composite panel at a predetermined fashion in multiple working sequences (In Paragraph 59, Yamamoto teaches the beam condenser 74 is movable in the Y- and Z-axis directions), wherein the laser (74; Yamamoto) is an ultrashort pulse laser capable of emitting ultrashort pulses of laser beam in an order of nanosecond to picosecond (Paragraph 120 of Yamamoto teaches the laser beam is pulsed and having the wavelength of 1064 nm, which is approximately 0.00355 picseconds),
Sercel, Matsumoto and Yamamoto are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for planar workpieces. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser machining system taught by Sercel and Matsumoto to incorporate the actuated positioning mechanisms and ultrashort laser beam processing configuration taught by Yamamoto, which would have been a predictable application of known actuation and laser processing techniques to a laser cutting system for planar workpieces, in order to enable precise and repeatable slicing of a single multi-layered board into multiple planar workpieces with respective contour profiles.
PNG
media_image3.png
416
815
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 & 5 of Yamamoto, annotated
Regarding Claim 1, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto and Yamamoto does not explicitly teaches:
(ii) at least a pair of slicing trays each with a planar surface
a secondary actuator engaging to at least one of the pair of slicing trays;
However, Ito discloses:
(ii) at least a pair of slicing trays each with a planar surface (42, chuck table; Fig. 1 of Ito teaches four chuck tables)
a secondary actuator engaging to at least one of the pair of slicing trays (42; Ito);
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto and Ito are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for planar workpieces. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser machining system taught by Sercel in combination with Matsumoto and Yamamoto to incorporate the multiple movable chuck tables of Ito, which would have been a predictable application of a known tray-based material handling technique to a known laser cutting system for planar workpieces, in order to enable controlled and coordinated laser slicing of a single multi-layered board into multiple planar workpieces with respective contour profiles.
PNG
media_image4.png
440
687
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Ito, annotated
Regarding Claim 1, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto and Ito does not explicitly teaches:
a laminate comprising at least a polyethylene layer, an electroplated layer, and a conductive metal layer with the electroplated layer sandwiching in between the polyethylene layer and the conductive metal layer.
However, Marmann discloses
a laminate (coated metal strip; Paragraph 7; Marmann) comprising at least a polyethylene layer (a polymer film of PET, PE, PP or a mixture thereof; Paragraph 34; Marmann), an electroplated layer (B, coating layer; Fig. 3; Marmann), and a conductive metal layer (M, metal strip; Fig. 3; Marmann) with the electroplated layer sandwiching in between the polyethylene layer and the conductive metal layer (Paragraph 34; Marmann teaches an organic coating of thermoplastic material is applied to the surface of the electrolytic deposition of the coating. See Annotated Fig. 3 of Marmann).
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito and Marmann are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for multilayer or laminated substrates. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser machining system taught by Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto and Ito to process the multilayer substrate of Marmann, which would have been a routine material choice for a known planar multi-layered substrate having a known laminated structure to be processed by a laser cutting system, without altering the fundamental operating principles, in order to enable reliable and repeatable laser slicing of a laminated board into multiple planar workpieces with respective contour profiles.
PNG
media_image5.png
258
802
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Marmann, annotated
Claims 2, 7-8 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann, and further in view of Leppard et al. (US 7256881) hereinafter Leppard.
Regarding Claim 2, which is a dependent claim of Claim 1, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito and Marmann teaches the system of claim 1 (400, laser machining system; Fig. 4B; Sercel) further comprising
a placing module (142, transferring means; Fig. 1; Yamamoto) comprising a first robotic arm (144, articulated arms; Fig. 1; Yamamoto) and a second robotic arm (144; Fig. 1; Yamamoto) each being configured to pick a Y number of the sliced composite sheets (18, electronic circuit board; Fig. 1(E); Matsumoto teaches multiple electronic circuit boards are cut from a multi-layer board 16) from the slicing tray and arrange each of the picked composite sheets (18; Matsumoto) onto one of multiple inspection slots (326, wafer belt conveyor; Fig. 1; Yamamoto) (Paragraph 137 of Yamamoto teaches the transferring means picks the wafer, using the suction member, and Fig. 1 teaches multiple articulated arms transferring workpieces onto and from holding tables 14, 60 and 80) (42, chuck tables; Fig. 1; Ito) located on a rotary surface (41, turntable; Fig. 1; Ito teaches four chuck tables are located on the turntable); and
an inspection module (13, quality inspecting unit; Fig. 1; Yamamoto) comprising cameras (322; image capturing means; Fig. 1; Yamamoto) each being enabled to capture a digital image comprising the contour profile of at least one composite sheet (Fig. 1 of Matsumoto teaches the contour profile of each electronic circuit board 18) at one of the inspection slots (42; Ito) and
a computing device (324, wafer defect detecting means; Fig. 18A; Yamamoto) to process the digital image for a computing device to analyse the contour profile using a set of predefined parameters (Paragraph 138 of Yamamoto teaches the wafer defect detecting means 324 processes the image captured by the image capturing means 322 and determines whether or not defects exist in the wafer 252 on the basis of the processed image, which the examiner interprets the analyses of computing device is based upon predefined parameters), the first (144; Yamamoto) and second robotic arms (144; Yamamoto) being configured to collect the composite sheets (252) meeting the parameter (Paragraph 138; Yamamoto), where in Y (Fig. 1; Matsumoto) and P are more than one.
Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito and Marmann does not explicitly teaches
a P number of cameras
where in Y and P are more than one.
However, Leppard discloses
a P number of cameras (118, camera; Fig. 2; Leppard) (Abstract of Leppard teaches the inspection system images the edge and surface of the ophthalmic lens onto a camera to create a complete digital image. Fig. 2 teaches a plurality of cameras arranged such that each camera captures digital image data corresponding to a respective inspection region of the workpiece)
where in Y and P (Fig. 2; Leppard) are more than one.
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting, processing and inspecting systems for planar workpieces. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser machining system taught by Sercel, as further modified by Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito and Marmann, which includes a quality inspecting unit, multiple chuck tables disposed on a turntable and material transferring means, to further include a plurality of cameras as taught by Leppard. Such a modification would have been a predictable application of a known multi-camera inspection technique to a known automated planar-workpiece processing system, without altering the fundamental operating principles, in order to enable efficient, accurate and automated handling and inspection of multiple sliced planar workpieces.
PNG
media_image6.png
525
891
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Yamamoto, annotated
PNG
media_image7.png
412
664
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18A of Yamamoto, annotated
PNG
media_image8.png
411
834
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Leppard, annotated
Regarding Claim 7, which is a dependent claim of Claim 2, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard teaches the Y number (Fig. 1; Matsumoto) of the sliced composite sheets (18, electronic circuit board; Fig. 1; Matsumoto) placed in the inspection slots (42, chuck tables; Fig. 1; Ito) are divided into P number of zones (Ito; Fig. 1 shows four chuck tables on the turntable) that digital image of composite sheets (18; Matsumoto) of each divided zone is captured respectively by one of the P number of cameras (118, camera; Fig. 2; Leppard).
Regarding Claim 8, which is a dependent claim of Claim 7, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard teaches the cameras (118; Leppard) are spaced apart (Ito; Fig. 1 teaches chuck tables 42 on the turntable 41 are arranged with a fixed angular separation) and suspended on top (In Fig. 2, Ito teaches rough grinding means 46, a finish grinding means 51 and polishing means 56 suspended above the chuck tables, which can be modified by cameras 118 taught by Leppard) of the rotary surface (41, turntable; Fig. 1; Ito) that the rotary surface rotates to align each divided zone with the corresponding camera for capturing digital image (Col. 4 Ln. 7-11; Leppard teaches a workpiece is positioned on a support window that is a part of a rotating table that rotates so that the workpiece is disposed between the light source and camera) in a step-wise fashion (Col. 2 Ln. 64-65; Leppard teaches the edge and surface images of the ophthalmic lenses may be inspected separately and/or in combination, which the examiner interprets as the digital image capturing in a step-wise fashion, since Fig. 2 teaches the cameras 118 are positioned at a fixed angle from one another, and Leppard further teaches in Col. 4 Ln. 5-7 that the inspection method includes a step of combining the lens images to reduce optical noise).
Regarding Claim 11, which is a dependent claim of Claim 2, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard teaches the cutting module (420, laser scanning stage; Fig. 4B; Sercel) further comprises a secondary sensor (50, CCD camera; Fig. 2; Matsumoto) capable of capturing or recognizing N number of individual fiducial marker (C, cut line; Fig. 1; Fig. 15 of Matsumoto also teaches 4 cut lines C1, C2, C3 and C4), each for a composite sheet (14, board platform; Fig. 1; Matsumoto), on the composite panel (16, multi-layer board; Fig. 1; Matsumoto) (Fig. 1(D) of Matsumoto teaches the cut lines are provided on the multi-layer board according to the size of the circuit board pattern) that the computing device (54, image processing unit; Fig. 2; Matsumoto) computes positional and angular compensation associated to the working sequence in moving the laser for slicing the composite sheets based upon the recognized N number of individual fiducial marker (C, cut line; Fig. 1; Matsumoto) (Paragraph 97 and Fig. 15 of Matsumoto teach how the CCD camera picks up and the image processing unit 54 detects the circuit board pattern so the laser light source 40 irradiates the laser light L along the cut line C).
PNG
media_image9.png
494
627
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Matsumoto, annotate
PNG
media_image10.png
329
447
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 15 of Matsumoto, annotated
Regarding Claim 12, which is a dependent claim of Claim 11, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard does not explicitly teach N ranges between 2 to 50.
However, the courts have held that where general condition of claim is disposed in the prior art (see Fig. 1 & 15 of Matsumoto where a certain number of electronic circuit boards is taught), it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable range. (MPEP 2144.05 II.A)
In this case, Matsumoto teaches a certain number of electronic circuits boards that are cut from a multilayer board, and having a specific number range is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the number of electronic circuit boards is recognized as a result-effective variable which is the result of a routine experimentation. Varying the number of electronic circuit boards cut from a multilayer board in order to optimize material utilization and cutting efficiency, e.g., by increasing the yields (Matsumoto; Paragraph 5), is known in the art.
Claims 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann, Leppard et al. (US 7256881) hereinafter Leppard, and further in view of Prebil et al. (US 20160325509) hereinafter Prebil.
Regarding Claim 3, which is a dependent claim of Claim 2, while teaching the system (400, laser machining system; Fig. 4B; Sercel), and composite panels (16, multiple layer board; Fig. 1(D); Matsumoto), Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard does not explicitly teach a loading bay for housing multiple composite panels arranged in stack.
However, Prebil discloses a loading bay (134, loading station; Fig. 5; Prebil) for housing multiple composite panels arranged in stack (Paragraph 57 and Fig. 5 of Prebil teach a prepreg stack 170 contains any number of prepreg pieces 172).
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Prebil are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for planar workpiece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser machining system taught by Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito and Marmann to incorporate the stacked loading bay taught by Prebil, which would have been a predictable use of a known material handling technique to an automated planar workpiece handling system, in order to enable reliable and continuous feeding of multiple panels for efficient and accurate sheet-based laser cutting.
PNG
media_image11.png
532
810
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Prebil, annotated
Regarding Claim 4, which is a dependent claim of Claim 3, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Prebil teaches an alignment module (200, alignment system; Fig. 5A; Prebil) having a slab (104, tabletop; Fig. 5A; Prebil) being configured to receive the composite panel (16, multi-layer board; Fig. 1(D); Matsumoto) (172, prepreg piece; Fig. 5A; Prebil) from the loading bay (134, loading station; Fig. 5; Prebil) through the holder (414, vacuum gripper; Fig. 4B; Sercel) (120, robot; Fig. 5; Paragraph 57 of Prebil teaches the robot 120 is configured as a pick-and place apparatus) and align the received composite panel thereby in accordance with a predetermined setting (Abstract and Paragraph 53 of Prebil teach an alignment system 200 configured to sense a position of the prepreg piece relative to the prepreg layer and generate a position signal representative thereof).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann, Leppard et al. (US 7256881) hereinafter Leppard, Prebil et al. (US 20160325509) hereinafter Prebil, and further in view of Gokkel (US 20180361775).
Regarding Claim 5, which is a dependent claim of Claim 4, while teaching the slab (104, tabletop; Fig. 5; Prebil), Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Prebil does not explicitly teach the slab is slant towards an angle along with the composite panel for aligning the composite panel in accordance with the predetermined setting.
However, Gokkel discloses wherein the slab (40, paper tray; Fig. 6; Gokkel) is slant towards an angle along with the composite panel for aligning the composite panel in accordance with the predetermined setting (Fig. 6 and Paragraph 121 of Gokkel teach the paper tray can tilt so that the paper stack is aligned on the tray).
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard, Prebil and Gokkel are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of planar workpiece cutting and processing machines having systems for positioning and aligning planar workpiece using mechanical support structures. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the tabletop in the cutting system of Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Prebil to be slanted at an angle as taught by Gokkel, which would have been a predictable application of a known mechanical alignment technique to a planar workpiece handling system, in order to facilitate reliable and repeatable alignment of the composite panel according to a predetermined setting.
PNG
media_image12.png
351
459
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Gokkel, annotated
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann, Leppard et al. (US 7256881) hereinafter Leppard, Prebil et al. (US 20160325509) hereinafter Prebil, Gokkel (US 20180361775), and further in view of Adams et al. (US 20150105898) hereinafter Adams.
Regarding Claim 6, which is a dependent claim of Claim 4, while teaching the composite panel (16, multi-layer board; Fig. 1(D); Matsumoto) (172, prepreg piece; Fig. 5; Prebil) that the holder (414, vacuum gripper; Fig. 4B; Sercel) (120, robot; Fig. 5; Prebil) moves a topmost composite panel (172; Prebil) from the stack (170, prepreg stack; Fig. 5; Prebil) in the loading bay (134, loading station; Fig. 5; Prebil) to the slab (104, tabletop; Fig. 5A; Prebil), Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard, Prebil and Gokkel does not explicitly teach a first sensor to detect and read at least a code carried on the composite panel that the holder moves a topmost composite panel upon verification of the code by the computing device and the code is associated with information regarding qualitative measurements of the composite panel.
However, Adams discloses a first sensor (216, reader, Fig. 2; Adams) to detect and read at least a code carried on the composite panel that the holder moves a topmost composite panel upon verification of the code by the computing device (208, computing device; Fig. 2; Adams) and the code (220, element; Fig. 2; Adams) is associated with information regarding qualitative measurements of the composite panel (Paragraph 35 & Fig. 2 of Adams teach a reader 216 included in the computing device 208 reads the element 220 providing indicia of at least one characteristic of the corresponding component 212 to be delivered).
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard, Prebil, Gokkel and Adams are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for planar workpiece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to incorporate the code-reading sensor and verification logic taught by Adams into the automated planar workpiece handling system in the planar workpiece cutting machine of Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard, Prebil and Gokkel, which would have been a predictable application of known sensor-based identification and verification techniques to a known workpiece handling system, in order to allow controlled and reliable selection as well as transfer of composite panels based on coded quality information.
PNG
media_image13.png
503
599
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Adams, annotated
Claims 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann, Leppard et al. (US 7256881) hereinafter Leppard, and further in view of Chen et al. (US 20190148333) hereinafter Chen.
Regarding Claim 9, which is a dependent claim of Clam 2, while teaching the slicing tray (42, chuck table; Fig. 1; Ito), Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard does not explicitly teach it carries a plurality of apertures on the planar surface of the slicing tray with a constant flow of negative air pressure generated such that a suction force is created to pull the sliced composite sheets towards the planar surface and/or cool the composite panel.
However, Chen discloses the slicing tray carries a plurality of apertures (119 & 129, vacuum holes; Fig. 3; Chen) on the planar surface of the slicing tray with a constant flow of negative air pressure generated such that a suction force is created to pull the sliced composite sheets towards the planar surface (Chen; Paragraph 30 teaches a suction force is exerted to a workpiece through vacuum holes by a vacuum pump 104) and/or cool the composite panel (It would have been obvious that providing a uniform vacuum as taught in Paragraph 22 of Chen requires negative pressure by a constant airflow through vacuum holes, and the examiner considers the airflow would dissipate the heat generated during laser slicing, which is a known and expected benefit of airflow in laser material processing system).
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Chen are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for planar workpiece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the chuck table in the planar workpiece cutting machine of Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard to provide a constant flow of negative air pressure during laser slicing, as taught by Chen, in order to improve cutting quality and preventing thermal damage by securely holding the sliced composite sheets against the planar surface while also cooling the composite panel during laser processing.
Regarding Claim 10, which is a dependent claim of Claim 9, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Chen discloses the suction force removes debris produced from the slicing of the composite sheets by the laser through the plurality of apertures (Matsumoto; Fig. 12 teaches the fixing jig 20 that holds the multi-layer board 16 comprises a fixing suction unit 22 which fixes the multi-layer board 16 by suction, a space box 24 which has space inside and is placed in such a way as to cover the fixing suction unit 22, and a hose 26 connected to a dust absorb cleaner not shown in the figure, whereby the debris generated during processing is removed).
PNG
media_image14.png
488
635
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Fig. 12 of Matsumoto, annotated
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann, Leppard et al. (US 7256881) hereinafter Leppard, and further in view of in view of Caristan (US 20100122971).
Regarding Claim 13, which is a dependent claim of Claim 2, while teaching the pair of slicing trays (42, chuck table; Fig. 1 of Ito teaches four chuck tables), Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard does not explicitly teach the pair of slicing trays have one of the slicing trays subjected to heating for slicing the composite sheets while another slicing tray subjected the sliced composite sheets to picking by the robotic arms.
However, Caristan discloses the pair of slicing trays (dual tables; Annotated Fig. 9; Caristan) have one of the slicing trays subjected to heating for slicing the composite sheets while another slicing tray subjected the sliced composite sheets to picking by the robotic arms (R3, robotic arm; Annotated Fig. 9; Caristan) (Paragraph 34 of Caristan teaches the laser cutting machines 23 preferably have dual tables, i.e., one side laser cuts while the other side is being loaded/unloaded. Annotated Fig. 9 of Caristan further teaches robotic arms R1 & R2 grab workpieces 4 from the first line 20 to transfer them to second line 21 to be cut into several individual final smaller pieces 6 that are then unloaded from the dual tables by robotic arm R3).
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Caristan are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for planar workpiece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the chuck table in the planar workpiece cutting machine of Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard to have the dual table and robotic arm arrangement taught by Caristan, which would have been a predictable application of a known dual-table laser cutting and robotic handling technique to a planar workpiece cutting system, in order to allow continuous and coordinated cutting and unloading of the planar workpiece.
PNG
media_image15.png
373
687
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 of Caristan, annotated
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann, Leppard et al. (US 7256881) hereinafter Leppard, Prebil et al. (US 20160325509) hereinafter Prebil, and further in view of Han et al. (US 20180375041) hereinafter Han.
Regarding Claim 14, which is a dependent claim of Claim 2, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Prebil teaches the holder (120, robot; Fig. 5; Prebil) is configured to place a cover plate onto the composite panel prior to slicing of the composite panel (Prebil; Abstract and Paragraph 53 teaches an alignment system 200 configured to sense a position of the prepreg piece relative to the prepreg layer and generate a position signal representative thereof, which the examiner interprets that the robot of Prebil is capable of placing a cover plate onto the composite panel in an aligned manner by the alignment system of Prebil) that the laser beam scribe through the cover plate along with the underneath composite panel to produce the composite sheets (Matsumoto; Fig. 1 teaches laser light L cuts through a plurality of multilayer boards 16 to have electronic circuit boards 18, which the examiner interprets the laser light L is capable of cutting the cover plate along with the underneath composite panel to produce the composite sheets).
Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Prebil does not explicitly teaches a cover plate is placed onto the composite panel prior to slicing of the composite panel.
However, Han discloses a cover plate (15, cover plate; Fig. 1C; Han) is placed onto the composite panel prior to slicing of the composite panel (Han; Paragraph 37 and Fig. 1C teach a cover plate is disposed on the display surface for protection before laser cutting process).
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard, Prebil and Han are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of cutting and processing systems for planar workpiece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser cutting system taught by Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Prebil to include the cover plate of Han, which would have been a predictable application of a known protective cover technique to a laser cutting system for multilayer workpiece, in order to allow controlled and reliable slicing of planar workpiece while the laser cuts through multiple layers in a single operation.
PNG
media_image16.png
310
1011
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1C of Han, annotated
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel et al. (US 20170157701) hereinafter Sercel, in view of Matsumoto et al. (US 20030052104) hereinafter Matsumoto, Yamamoto et al. (US 20220181174) hereinafter Yamamoto, Ito et al. (US 20160098828) hereinafter Ito, Marmann et al. (US 20200190679) hereinafter Marmann, Leppard et al. (US 7256881) hereinafter Leppard, Pavani (US 10027928), and further in view of Fukui et al. (US 20190003987) hereinafter Fukui.
Regarding Claim 15, which is a dependent claim of Claim 2, while teaching the parameter (Paragraph 138; Yamamoto), Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard does not explicitly teach the parameter comprises surface area of the available burn mark on the composite sheet, physical dimension of the composite sheet and/or ratio of surface area on the composite sheet contaminated by debris produced during the heating.
Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard does not explicitly teach surface area of the available burn mark on the composite sheet.
However, Pavani discloses surface area of the available burn mark on the composite sheet (Col. 1 Ln. 29-36; Pavani teaches, in the field of semiconductor fabs, it is a known technique that an optical inspection tool obtains information about the properties of defects including size and shape),
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Pavani are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated inspection and analysis systems for cutting and processing planar workpiece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the inspection parameter taught by Pavani into the quality inspection unit of the planar workpiece cutting system taught Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann and Leppard, which would have been a predictable use of known image-based inspection criteria for a known laser cutting system, in order to enable an automated validation for the processed planar workpieces.
Regarding Claim 15, Sercel in combination with Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Pavani does not explicitly teach physical dimension of the composite sheet and/or ratio of surface area on the composite sheet contaminated by debris produced during the heating.
However, Fukui further discloses physical dimension of the composite sheet and/or ratio of surface area on the composite sheet contaminated by debris produced during the heating (Fukui; Paragraph 53 teaches a ratio in pixel density between surface defect portions and the area defined by the contour).
Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard, Pavani and Fukui are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of automated inspection and analysis systems for cutting and processing planar workpiece. Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate the inspection parameter taught by Fukui into the quality inspection unit of the planar workpiece cutting system taught by Sercel, Matsumoto, Yamamoto, Ito, Marmann, Leppard and Pavani, which would have been a predictable use of known image-based inspection criteria for a known laser cutting system, in order to enable an automated validation for the processed planar workpieces.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at 571-272-9059. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761