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 .
Summary
This action is responsive to the Request for Continued Examination filed on 03/23/2026. Applicant has submitted Claims 1-15 for examination. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/06/2025.
Examiner finds the following: 1) Claims 1-15 are rejected; 2) no claims objected to; and 3) no claims allowable.
Request for Continued Examination
Receipt is acknowledged of a Request for Continued Examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) and a submission, filed on 03/23/2026.
Response to Arguments and Remarks
Examiner respectfully acknowledges Applicant’s remarks.
Applicant' s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or non-obviousness.
Claims 1, 4-7, and 9-12, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuettel (EP0876596B1) in further view of Komatsuda (EP 1014196 A2).
Regarding Claim 1, Knuettel discloses:
A device for laser material processing, comprising:
a laser generating a light beam (Knuettel, FIG. 1, [0031], light irradiation means 8), said light beam impinging on a lens matrix disposed between said laser (Knuettel, FIG. 1, [0031], lenses 13) and a beam splitter (Knuettel, FIG. 1, [0032], beam splitter cube (BSC) 15);
said lens matrix comprising M x N microlenses, operable to generate a matrix of M x N light beams from said impinging light beam (Knuettel, FIG. 1, [0035], “The collimator lenses 13, the focusing lenses 16 and those in front of the detectors 20 arranged imaging lenses 21 are preferred each designed as a "microlens array" (16a, 21a). Such microlens arrays are commercially available”);
said beam splitter directing a first part of said M x N light beams onto a mirror in a reference arm (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0063], movable mirror 31) and a second part of said M x N light beams onto an unknown surface in a measuring arm (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0067], focus area 17), wherein said first part of said M x N light beams is reflected back from said mirror to said beam splitter and said second part of said M x N light beams is reflected back from said unknown surface to said beam splitter (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0062], “For LCI measurement, it is necessary that a portion of the light emitted from a spectral broadband emitting light transmitter is divided by a beam splitter, fed on a reference light path to an optically reflecting element, reflected by the latter and combined with the measurement light path in front of the detector in such a way that the secondary light and the reference light interfere with one another”);
said beam splitter operable to generate an interference signal by interfering said first reflected part of said M x N light beams with said second reflected part of said M x N light beams (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0062], “the light receiver measures an interference signal provided that the optical path length in the reference arm (from the beam splitter to the reflecting element) differs by at most the coherence length of the light source from the optical path length of the measurement light path from the beam splitter to the reflection point in the sample”) …; and
a detector receiving said interreference signal (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0062], “the light receiver measures an interference signal provided that the optical path length in the reference arm (from the beam splitter to the reflecting element) differs by at most the coherence length of the light source from the optical path length of the measurement light path from the beam splitter to the reflection point in the sample”).
Knuettel discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the lens matrix is arranged such that the light beam is applied to multiple microlenses at least along an axis perpendicular to a direction of incidence of the light beam; …
However, Komatsuda, in a similar field of endeavor (Method And System Of Illumination For A Projection Optical Apparatus), discloses:
… wherein the lens matrix is arranged such that the light beam is applied to multiple microlenses at least along an axis perpendicular to a direction of incidence of the light beam (Komatsuda, FIGS. 1-2, [0016], plurality of microlenses 4a); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knuettel with the microlens of Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of microlenses as disclosed by Komatsuda and how to use them to modify Knuettal. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of microlenses to separate out light beams.
Regarding Claim 4, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose polygonal shaped lenses. However, Komatsuda, in a similar field of endeavor (a method and apparatus for illuminating a surface, such as a mask or reticle surface, using a projection imaging apparatus), discloses:
… wherein said microlenses have a polygonal shape such that they are arranged with substantially no space between them (Komatsuda, FIG. 2, [0085], “the shape of the microlenses 4a comprising the micro fly's eye lens 4 for annular modified illumination is set to a regular hexagon. A regular hexagon was selected as a polygon close to a circle because dense arrangement is impossible with circular microlenses, so light loss is generated”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knuettel with the polygonal shaped lenses of Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of polygonal shaped lenses as disclosed by Komatsuda and how to use them to modify Knuettal. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of polygonal shaped lenses to minimize light loss.
Regarding Claim 5, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 1, and Knuettel further discloses:
… wherein said mirror is coupled to a drive to move said mirror in the direction of a beam path of said light beam (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0045], “These measurement results were obtained with an interferometer, with which the dependence of the phase on the Doppler frequency resulting from the movement of the interferometer mirror can be determined”).
Regarding Claim 6, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 1 and Knuettel further discloses:
… a unit for evaluating said detected interference signals, wherein said detector is connected to the unit for evaluating data (Knuettel, [0058], “The desired analytical information is determined, as mentioned, with the aid of an evaluation algorithm which links the measured values of the measured measured variable to concentration values on the basis of calibration. In the present case, this combination can consist of a simple one-dimensional evaluation curve which assigns a concentration value to the quotient of the intensity measurement values of two wavelengths or of two measurement depths”).
Regarding Claim 7, Knuettel discloses:
A method for monitoring unknown surfaces in a laser material process, the method comprising the following steps:
generating a light beam with a laser (Knuettel, FIG. 1, [0031], light irradiation means 8), said light beam impinging on a lens matrix disposed between said laser (Knuettel, FIG. 1, [0031], lenses 13) and a beam splitter (Knuettel, FIG. 1, [0032], beam splitter cube (BSC) 15);
generating a matrix of M x N light beams from said impinging light beam, using said lens matrix comprising M x N microlenses (Knuettel, FIG. 1, [0035], “The collimator lenses 13, the focusing lenses 16 and those in front of the detectors 20 arranged imaging lenses 21 are preferred each designed as a "microlens array" (16a, 21a). Such microlens arrays are commercially available”);
using said beam splitter, directing a first part of said M x N light beams onto a mirror in a reference arm (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0063], movable mirror 31) and a second part of said M x N light beams onto an unknown surface in a measuring arm (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0067], focus area 17), wherein said first part of said M x N light beams is reflected back from said mirror to said beam splitter and said second part of said M x N light beams is reflected back from said unknown surface to said beam splitter (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0062], “For LCI measurement, it is necessary that a portion of the light emitted from a spectral broadband emitting light transmitter is divided by a beam splitter, fed on a reference light path to an optically reflecting element, reflected by the latter and combined with the measurement light path in front of the detector in such a way that the secondary light and the reference light interfere with one another”) …;
generating an interference signal by interfering said first reflected part of said M x N light beams with said second reflected part of said M x N light beams in said beam splitter (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0062], “the light receiver measures an interference signal provided that the optical path length in the reference arm (from the beam splitter to the reflecting element) differs by at most the coherence length of the light source from the optical path length of the measurement light path from the beam splitter to the reflection point in the sample”); and
receiving said interreference signal at a detector (Knuettel, FIG. 5, [0062], “the light receiver measures an interference signal provided that the optical path length in the reference arm (from the beam splitter to the reflecting element) differs by at most the coherence length of the light source from the optical path length of the measurement light path from the beam splitter to the reflection point in the sample”).
Knuettel discloses the above but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein the lens matrix is arranged such that the light beam is applied to multiple microlenses at least along an axis perpendicular to a direction of incidence of the light beam; …
However, Komatsuda, in a similar field of endeavor (Method And System Of Illumination For A Projection Optical Apparatus), discloses:
… wherein the lens matrix is arranged such that the light beam is applied to multiple microlenses at least along an axis perpendicular to a direction of incidence of the light beam (Komatsuda, FIGS. 1-2, [0016], plurality of microlenses 4a); …
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Knuettel with the microlens of Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of microlenses as disclosed by Komatsuda and how to use them to modify Knuettal. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of microlenses to separate out light beams.
Regarding Claim 9, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 7 and Knuettel further discloses:
… wherein said received interference signal is evaluated by an evaluation unit connected to said detector (Knuettel, [0058], “The desired analytical information is determined, as mentioned, with the aid of an evaluation algorithm which links the measured values of the measured measured variable to concentration values on the basis of calibration. In the present case, this combination can consist of a simple one-dimensional evaluation curve which assigns a concentration value to the quotient of the intensity measurement values of two wavelengths or of two measurement depths”).
Regarding Claim 10, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 9 and Knuettel further discloses:
… wherein the result of said evaluation is shown as an image on a display (Knuettel, FIGS. 2a-4, showing the ability of Knuettel to display the datum).
Regarding Claim 11, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 7, and Knuettel further discloses:
… wherein said matrix of M x N light beams and thus a matrix of M x N pixels of said interference signal can be individually controlled (Knuettel, FIG. 3, [0064], optical fibers 33 and 34).
Regarding Claim 12, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein said individually controlled light beams and said pixels may comprise a movement in the X or Y direction.
However, Knuettel discloses in FIG. 3 and [0064] optical fibers 33 and 34. FIG. 3 shows that different pairs of optical fibres can change the X or Y position of the light beams.
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that Knuettel could change the X or Y position of the light beams through the control of the optical fibres 33 and 34. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of optical fibres as disclosed by Knuettel and how to use them change the X or Y position of the light beams through the control of the optical fibres 33 and 34.
Claims 2-3 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuettel (EP0876596B1), in view of Komatsuda (EP 1014196 A2), and in further view of Takahara (US6992718B1).
Regarding Claim 2, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein said detector is a camera.
However, Takahara, in a similar field of endeavor (illuminating apparatus and a display panel), discloses:
… wherein said detector is a camera (Takahara, FIG. 69, C59, L58-60, “A photographing lens 572 and the display panel 863 are attached to the video camera body 571”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda with the cameras of Takahara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cameras as disclosed by Takahara and how to use them to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of cameras for detecting and receiving light.
Regarding Claim 3, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 1, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein said detector is a black and white camera or a color camera.
However, Takahara, in a similar field of endeavor (illuminating apparatus and a display panel), discloses:
… wherein said detector is a black and white camera or a color camera (Takahara, FIG. 69, C59, L58-60, “A photographing lens 572 and the display panel 863 are attached to the video camera body 571,” and C59, L67 through C60, L3, “The display image on the PD display panel -863 is transferred to the concave mirror 271 disposed on the back face of the cover 641 and the observer observes the display image from the direction of the arrow”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda with the cameras of Takahara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cameras as disclosed by Takahara and how to use them to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of cameras for detecting and receiving light.
Regarding Claim 8, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose cameras. However, Takahara, in a similar field of endeavor (illuminating apparatus and a display panel), discloses:
… wherein said receiving of said interference signal is performed by a camera (Takahara, FIG. 69, C59, L58-60, “A photographing lens 572 and the display panel 863 are attached to the video camera body 571”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda with the cameras of Takahara. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of cameras as disclosed by Takahara and how to use them to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use of cameras for detecting and receiving light.
Claims 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Knuettel (EP0876596B1), in view of Komatsuda (EP 1014196 A2), and in further view of Moser (CA3088581A1).
Regarding Claim 13, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 9, but does not explicitly disclose:
… wherein said evaluation is used to control a process in laser material processing.
However, Moser, in a similar field of endeavor (distance measurement for a laser processing system, and a laser processing system), discloses:
… wherein said evaluation is used to control a process in laser material processing (Moser, FIG. , P17, “The measuring light reflected back from the keyhole, that is to say, the secondary beam, is imaged by the focussing optics 230 onto the exit/entrance surface of the optical waveguide 248, superimposed in the fibre coupler 244 with the light reflected back from the reference arm 246, and then directed back into the evaluation unit 240. The superimposed light contains information about the path length difference between the reference arm 246 and the object arm. This information is evaluated in the evaluation unit 240, as a result of which the user obtains information on the distance between the floor of the keyhole and, for example, the welding head 101”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda with the welding material processing of Moser. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of welding material processing as disclosed by Moser and how to use them to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use an imaging system in the evaluation and control of material processing.
Regarding Claim 14, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 7, but does not explicitly disclose:
… said laser material process being a a welding process or a cut material process.
However, Moser, in a similar field of endeavor (distance measurement for a laser processing system, and a laser processing system), discloses:
… said laser material process being a a welding process or a cut material process (Moser, FIG. , P17, “The measuring light reflected back from the keyhole, that is to say, the secondary beam, is imaged by the focussing optics 230 onto the exit/entrance surface of the optical waveguide 248, superimposed in the fibre coupler 244 with the light reflected back from the reference arm 246, and then directed back into the evaluation unit 240. The superimposed light contains information about the path length difference between the reference arm 246 and the object arm. This information is evaluated in the evaluation unit 240, as a result of which the user obtains information on the distance between the floor of the keyhole and, for example, the welding head 101”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda with the welding material processing of Moser. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of welding material processing as disclosed by Moser and how to use them to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use an imaging system in the evaluation and control of material processing.
Regarding Claim 15, the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda discloses Claim 11, but does not explicitly disclose:
… for monitoring joining processes when joining workpieces by means of a laser beam.
However, Moser, in a similar field of endeavor (distance measurement for a laser processing system, and a laser processing system), discloses:
… for monitoring joining processes when joining workpieces by means of a laser beam (Moser, FIG. , P17, “The measuring light reflected back from the keyhole, that is to say, the secondary beam, is imaged by the focussing optics 230 onto the exit/entrance surface of the optical waveguide 248, superimposed in the fibre coupler 244 with the light reflected back from the reference arm 246, and then directed back into the evaluation unit 240. The superimposed light contains information about the path length difference between the reference arm 246 and the object arm. This information is evaluated in the evaluation unit 240, as a result of which the user obtains information on the distance between the floor of the keyhole and, for example, the welding head 101”).
It would have been obvious to PHOSITA before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda with the welding material processing of Moser. PHOSITA would have known about the uses of welding material processing as disclosed by Moser and how to use them to modify the combination of Knuettel and Komatsuda. PHOSITA would have been motivated to do this as a combination of prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (See MPEP § 2143 (I)(A)), specifically the use an imaging system in the evaluation and control of material processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHAD A REVERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-0079. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9-5 EST.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at (571) 272-2416. 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.
/CHAD ANDREW REVERMAN/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights