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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Inventorship
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.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 02/23/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “15” is shown in Fig. 1, Fig. 3A-B, Fig. 4A-B, and Fig. 5A-B, but not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“Energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism” in claim 1 (line 6). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” (Prong A); the term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “adjustment” (Prong B); and the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism” will be interpreted as the “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism”, “collimating lens”, or “condensing lens” and their equivalents, as indicated by: “the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism according to the present invention can be realized by using at least one of the laser beam direction adjustment mechanism 20, the collimating lens 21, and the condensing lens 22” (Pg. 33, Paragraph 47, lines 2-5).
“Laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” in claim 5 (line 4). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “mechanism” (Prong A); the term “mechanism” is modified by functional language “adjustment” (Prong B); and the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” will be interpreted as the “connector unit” or the “connector receiving unit” having a structure with the laser beam output end of the optical fiber as a center point, and their equivalents, as indicated by: “this is because the laser beam direction adjustment mechanism 20 has a structure in which at least one of the connector unit 31 and the connector receiving unit 32 turns in an arc shape with the center portion of the core of the optical fiber 30 at the laser beam output end as a center point” (Pg. 35, Paragraph 51, lines 5-10) and “the structure of the connector unit 31 has the angle of - θ with respect to the optical axis 10 of the irradiation trajectory” (Pg. 35, Paragraph 50, lines 5-7). The “connector unit” is being interpreted as any device that can connect and “connector receiving unit” to be any unit that can connect and receive. Examiner note: The capability of the “connector unit” and the “connector receiving unit” to turn in an arc shape is acknowledged by the examiner. However, “turns in an arc shape” is a function of the “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit,” rather than what the actual structure of the “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit” is. Additionally, the “connector unit” being positioned at the range of angles θ or – θ, relative to the optical axis, is acknowledged by the examiner, however this is also a function of what the “connector unit” does, rather than what it is.
“Observation device” in claim 6 (line 2). This limitation uses the generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “observation” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “observation device” will be interpreted as any observation device and its equivalents, as indicated by: “The observation device 23 is not particularly limited as long as it can observe the irradiation position of the laser beam adjusted using the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism according to the present invention and the energy intensity distribution of the laser beam, and any observation device can be used” (Pg. 37, Paragraph 55, lines 1-6) and “Forcus Monitor FM+ (manufactured by PRIMES) was used as the observation device 23” (Pg. 44, paragraph 0068, lines 2-4). Examiner note: It is acknowledged by the examiner that the “Forcus Monitor FM+ (manufactured by PRIMES)” was used as the observation device, however as stated in specification, the observation device is not limited to the “Forcus Monitor FM+ (manufactured by PRIMES)” observation device.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 5 recites “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” in line 4. The description for the “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” and what it encompasses are “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit”. There is insufficient description for the “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit” and what they encompass, thus there is also insufficient description for the “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” and what it encompasses. The “connector unit” is being interpreted as any device that can connect and “connector receiving unit” to be any unit that can connect and receive.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 2, 5, 6, and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 2 recites the terms “weak” and “strong” these are relative terms which renders the claim indefinite. The terms “weak” and “strong” are not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The energy intensity of the laser beam in the front region and in the rear region is rendered indefinite.
Claim 5 recites “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” in line 4. The description for the “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” and what it encompasses are “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit”. There is insufficient description for the “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit” and what they encompass. Due to the lack of description for the “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit” and what they encompass, it is unclear what the structure of the “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” encompasses. The “connector unit” is being interpreted as any device that can connect and “connector receiving unit” to be any unit that can connect and receive.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "an energy intensity distribution" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. “An energy intensity distribution” is already established in claim 1.
Claim 7 is rejected for its dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by J.P. Patent No. 2020508223.
J.P. 2020508223 teaches:
PNG
media_image1.png
460
810
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (JP2020508223)
Regarding claim 1, (See Annotated Figure 1 above) A laser beam irradiation optical unit (Annotated Figure 1) for forming a spot (Annotated Figure 1) on an object to be machined (10) and irradiating the object to be machined with a laser beam (112) emitted from a laser oscillator (110) to perform laser machining “an apparatus for processing a material using a laser beam along a processing direction and a method for processing a material using a laser beam. In particular, this disclosure relates to an apparatus and method for laser cutting a workpiece” (Pg. 1, Paragraph 0001, lines 1-2), the laser beam irradiation optical unit comprising (Annotated Figure 1): an energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1) that adjusts an energy intensity distribution of the laser beam (112) at the spot (Annotated Figure 1) in an irradiation trajectory (Annotated Figure 1) of the laser beam (112) from the laser oscillator (110) to the object to be machined (10), wherein the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1) adjusts the energy intensity distribution of the laser beam (112) at the spot (Annotated Figure 1) so as to be non-uniform “The adjustment mechanism includes a first adjustment device for the laser beam, configured to adjust the power density distribution or intensity distribution of the laser beam perpendicular to the processing direction so that it is asymmetrical” (Pg. 2, Paragraph 0008, lines 6-8).
PNG
media_image2.png
553
858
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (JP2020508223)
Regarding claim 4, (See Annotated Figure 2 above) wherein an image shape (Annotated Figure 2) of the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, (112)) at the spot (Annotated Figure 2) is an annular shape (Annotated Figure 2) including at least an annular peripheral region (Annotated Figure 2).
PNG
media_image3.png
463
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (JP2020508223)
Regarding claim 5, (See Annotated Figures 1 and 3 above), wherein the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1) includes at least one of a laser beam direction adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1, (124) and Annotated Figure 3, (120 and 410)) configured to adjust an incident direction of the laser beam on the irradiation trajectory “Alternatively, or in addition, to adjust the power density distribution of the laser beam 112, the first adjustment device 120 may be movable or displaceable in a plane substantially parallel to the optical axis 124. For example, the first adjustment device 120 may be displaceable perpendicular to and/or parallel to the optical axis 124. In some embodiments, the first adjustment device 120 may be tiltable with respect to the optical axis 124 to adjust the power density distribution. In a further embodiment, the first adjustment device 120 may be movable along a circular path. The center point of the circular path can be located on the optical axis 124. With respect to such circular movement, the degree of asymmetry can be kept constant, and the power density distribution can rotate around the optical axis 124” (Pg. 10, Paragraph 0044, lines 4-12), a collimating lens (Annotated Figure 1, (121)) configured to collimate the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, (112)), and a condensing lens (Annotated Figure 1, (122)) configured to condense the laser beam (112) on the spot (Annotated Figure 1) “In some embodiments, the focusing optical systems 121, 122 may include a collimator optical system121 and a focusing optical system 122. For example, the divergent laser beam emitted from the optical fiber of the laser source 110 is converted into a parallel laser beam by the collimator optical system 121, and this beam is focused onto the workpiece 10 by the focusing lens 122“ (Pg. 7, Paragraph 0030, lines 1-5). Examiner note: (410) is being interpreted as the “connector unit” and (120) is being interpreted as the “connector receiving unit.”
Regarding claim 8, (See Annotated Figure 1 above) A laser machining apparatus (400) obtained by accommodating the laser beam irradiation optical unit according to claim 1 in a laser machining head. “Typically, the gas is injected into the device 100 or 400, which may be a laser processing head or a cutting head, from one side“ (Pg. 13, Paragraph 0060, lines 1-2), “In particular, the beam shaping optics can be used within the laser material processing head” (Pg. 13, Paragraph 0063, line 4), and “An apparatus (100, 400) according to any one of Embodiments 1 to 9, wherein the apparatus (100, 400) is characterized in that it comprises a laser processing head or a laser welding head” (Pg. 14, Paragraph 0064, lines 33-34).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over J.P. Patent No. 2020508223.
J.P. 2020508223 teaches:
Regarding claim 3, (See Annotated Figure 2 above) wherein in an intensity ratio of the non-uniform energy intensity distribution, a weak energy intensity is 0.1 or more and 0.95 or less when a strong energy intensity in the energy intensity distribution is 1 “The maximum portion 210 is the region of maximum power density or intensity. The minimum portion220 is the region of minimum power density or intensity. The minimum portion 220, i.e., the minimum power density or intensity, can be less than 90% of the maximum portion, i.e., the maximum power density or intensity, preferably less than 50%, preferably less than 25%, and more preferably less than 10%” (Pgs. 7-8, Paragraph 0033, lines 3-7).
Regarding claim 3, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, since the reference shows the overlap with the claimed weak energy intensity (0.1 or more and 0.95 or less). The courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lay inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05 I). In this case the weak energy intensity (minimum portion, minimum power density or intensity, 220) of the prior art is (0.9 or less) which overlaps with the claimed weak energy intensity (0.1 or more and 0.95 or less) and therefore prior art is an evidence of prima facie obviousness.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J.P. Patent No. 2020508223 in view of Watanabe (J.P. Patent No. 2012086229).
J.P. 2020508223 teaches:
Regarding claim 2, (See Annotated Figures 1 and 2 above) wherein the non-uniform energy intensity distribution is an energy intensity distribution in which an energy intensity of the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, (112)) is weak (220) in a right side region (Annotated Figure 2) that is a region perpendicular to a traveling direction side (20) of the spot (Annotated Figure 2) on the object to be machined (Annotated Figure 1, (10)), and the energy intensity of the laser beam (112) is strong (210) in a left side region (Annotated Figure 2) different from the right region (Annotated Figure 2).
J.P. 2020508223 does not teach:
Regarding claim 2, wherein the non-uniform energy intensity distribution is an energy intensity distribution in which an energy intensity of the laser beam is weak in a front region that is a region on a traveling direction side of the spot on the object to be machined, and the energy intensity of the laser beam is strong in a rear region different from the front region.
Watanabe teaches:
PNG
media_image4.png
668
777
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 4 (Watanabe)
PNG
media_image5.png
684
604
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 5 (Watanabe)
Regarding claim 2, (See Annotated Figures 4 and 5 above) wherein the non-uniform energy intensity distribution (Annotated Figure 4) is an energy intensity distribution in which an energy intensity of the laser beam is weak in a front region (Annotated Figure 4, (S2)) that is a region on a traveling direction side (Annotated Figure 4) of the spot (Annotated Figure 5) on the object to be machined (Annotated figure 5, (30)), and the energy intensity of the laser beam is strong in a rear region (Annotated Figure 4, (S1)) different from the front region (Annotated Figure 4, (S2)) “In this way, by biasing the energy distribution of the laser beam at the focal point so that the sizes of region S1 and region S2 are different, the power of the laser beam can be consumed by both melting the metal constituting the workpiece 30 and raising the temperature of the molten metal… In other words, the metal is first melted with power corresponding to the proportion of region S2, which is the area in front of the workpiece 30 in the cutting direction, and then the temperature of the molten metal is increased with power corresponding to the proportion of region S1, which is a wider area than region S2 and is the area behind the workpiece 30 in the cutting direction” (Pg. 8, Paragraphs 0039-0040).
Regarding claim 2, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified J.P. 2020508223 to incorporate the teachings of Watanabe to have the energy intensity be weak in the front region (traveling side direction), and strong in the rear region (different from the front region). Doing so allows for “the viscosity of the molten metal increases, and the assist gas can blow the molten metal out of the workpiece 30 due to its pressure, so that the laser processing device 10 can cut thick workpieces 30,” as recognized by Watanabe (Pgs. 8-9, Paragraph 0041). Allowing for the molten metal to be blown out of the workpiece not only allows for a wider variety of thicknesses of a workpiece to be cut, but it can also improve the quality of the cut.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over J.P. Patent No. 2020508223 in view of Primes (FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual, available as of 02/2021, see bottom right of manual) .
J.P. 2020508223 teaches:
Regarding claim 6, an energy intensity distribution at the spot adjusted using the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism in the irradiation trajectory.
J.P. 2020508223 does not teach:
Regarding claim 6, further comprising an observation device configured to confirm an energy intensity distribution at the spot.
Regarding claim 7, wherein observation light observed by the observation device is the observation light for observation different from the laser beam.
Primes FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual teaches:
PNG
media_image6.png
828
1506
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 (FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual)
Regarding claim 6, (See Annotated Figure 6 above) further comprising an observation device (Annotated Figure 6) configured to confirm an energy intensity distribution at the spot “The device has been designed exclusively for measurements in the beam of high-power lasers” (Pg. 7, See underneath “Intended Use” section) and “The device measures direct laser radiation, but does not emit any radiation itself” (Pg. 7, See underneath “Danger” section).
Regarding claim 6, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified J.P. 2020508223 to incorporate the teachings of Primes FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual to have an observation device that can confirm energy intensity of a laser beam. Doing so allows for the user of the apparatus to obtain accurate measurements of the laser beam’s radiation, which would be beneficial when machining a workpiece to ensure that clean and precise welding, cutting, etc. is occurring. Additionally, it is beneficial to receive measurement feedback of a laser beam’s radiation to proper connection of optical fibers, thus also ensuring the laser beam meets quality standards.
PNG
media_image7.png
619
1463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 (FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual)
Regarding claim 7, (See Annotated Figures 6 and 7 above) wherein observation light (Annotated Figure 7, “pilot laser beam”) observed by the observation device (Annotated Figure 6) is the observation light (Annotated Figure 7, “pilot laser beam”) for observation different from the laser beam “Turn on the pilot laser and align the device: If the pilot laser beam hits perpendicular to and in the middle of the small marking in the Adjustment tool, the device is properly aligned” (Pg. 19).
Regarding claim 7, it would have been prima facia obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified J.P. 2020508223 to incorporate the teachings of Primes FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual to have an observation device that can observe observation light that is different from the laser beam. Doing so allows for the user of the apparatus to ensure that apparatus is aligned properly without damaging the observation device as recognized by Primes FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual “Damage/destruction of the adjustment tool and the FS³. If the adjustment tool is irradiated with the laser, the adjustment tool and the underlying FS³ will be destroyed. Remove the adjustment tool before turning on the laser“ (Pg. 19, see underneath pilot light section).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EMMA ELIZABETH ULATOWSKI whose telephone number is (571)272-3322. The examiner can normally be reached 9am-6pm.
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.
/E.E.U./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 04/15/2026
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights