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 .
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.
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1, 2, 3, 5, and 6 as amended and claim 9 as new. Claims 1-9 remain pending examination.
The amendments to claims 1 and 5 obviates the interpretation of the claim limitations: 1) “energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism” and 2) “laser beam adjustment mechanism” under 35 USC 112 (f).
The amendments to the claims 2 and 6 obviate the rejections of the claim limitations: 1) “weak” and strong” and 2) “an energy intensity distribution” under 35 USC 112 (b).
The amendment to the specification obviates the previously indicated drawing objection.
Further grounds of rejection, necessitated by amendment, are presented herein.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/26/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Rejections under 112(a)
With respect to claim 5, Applicant traverses in that:
With respect to the "connector unit" and the "connector receiving unit" forming part of the claimed "laser beam direction adjustment mechanism", it is clear from paragraphs [0048] to [0054] and FIGS. 5 and 6 that these components have the structures described in items (i) to (iii) below. These features already provide sufficient structural limitations for the claimed laser beam direction adjustment mechanism. A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the disclosed structure and would be able to implement it.
(i) An arc-shaped unit having a hollow center through which the laser beam is guided.
(ii) The arc is configured such that the connector unit has a convex surface and the connector receiving unit has a corresponding concave surface.
(iii) The radius of curvature of the arc is equal to the distance from the laser emission portion.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges what is disclosed in paragraphs [0048] to [0054], as well as Figs. 5A-6B. However, applicant seems to be traversing with respect to a 112(a) enablement rejection rather than a 112(a) written description rejection, as ascertained from: “A person of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the disclosed structure and would be able to implement it” [Pg. 8 of Remarks]. Examiner is still unsure as to what the “connector unit” structure and “connector receiving unit” structure are, rather than whether one skilled in the art would be able to make and use the claimed device through experimentation, based upon the currently disclosed specification. Additionally, it is acknowledged by the examiner that the structures of the “connecting unit” and “connecting receiving unit” have the attributes of a hole or “hollow center” through which the laser beam is able to pass, being able to turn in an arc shape with a convex or concave surface, and a radius of curvature that the arc turns is equal to the distance from the laser emission portion. These attributes would enable a person of ordinary skill in the art to make or use the invention through experimentation (as acknowledged by the applicant), these attributes do not, however, tell the examiner what it is the applicant is actually claiming. For example, the “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit” could be gears, lenses, ball and socket joints, wheels, or anything that can functionally do the equivalent as to what is being described. The examiner is trying to set forth to the applicant that, all the previous examples can have the attributes of the “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit” being described, however all the previous examples are different structures. “This requirement is separate and distinct from the enablement requirement. Ariad Pharm., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1340, 94 USPQ2d 1161, 1167 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc); Vas-Cath, Inc. v. Mahurkar, 935 F.2d 1555, 1560, 19 USPQ2d 1111, 1114 (Fed. Cir. 1991); see also Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916, 920-23, 69 USPQ2d 1886, 1890-93 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (discussing the history and purpose of the written description requirement); In re Curtis, 354 F.3d 1347, 1357, 69 USPQ2d 1274, 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2004) ("conclusive evidence of a claim’s enablement is not equally conclusive of that claim’s satisfactory written description"). The written description requirement has several policy objectives. "[T]he ‘essential goal’ of the description of the invention requirement is to clearly convey the information that an applicant [inventor] has invented the subject matter which is claimed." In re Barker, 559 F.2d 588, 592 n.4, 194 USPQ 470, 473 n.4 (CCPA 1977). Another objective is to convey to the public what the applicant claims as the invention. See Regents of the Univ. of Cal. v. Eli Lilly, 119 F.3d 1559, 1566, 43 USPQ2d 1398, 1404 (Fed. Cir. 1997), cert. denied, 523 U.S. 1089 (1998). "The ‘written description’ requirement implements the principle that a patent must describe the technology that is sought to be patented; the requirement serves both to satisfy the inventor’s obligation to disclose the technologic knowledge upon which the patent is based, and to demonstrate that the patentee [inventor] was in possession of the invention that is claimed." Capon v. Eshhar, 418 F.3d 1349, 1357, 76 USPQ2d 1078, 1084 (Fed. Cir. 2005)” (See MPEP 2163-I).
Rejections under 112(b)
With respect to claim 5, Applicant traverses in that:
Regarding claim 5, as discussed above, it is clear from paragraphs [0048] to [0054] and FIGS. 5 and 6 that these components have the structures of (i) an arc-shaped unit having a hollow center through which the laser beam is guided; (ii) the arc is configured such that the connector unit has a convex surface and the connector receiving unit has a corresponding concave surface; and (iii) the radius of curvature of the arc is equal to the distance from the laser emission portion.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. For the same reasons listed above under 112(a) the rejection under 112(b) is not resolved. Due to the lack of written description as to what the “connector unit” and “connector receiving unit” structure are, the claim fails to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter.
Rejections under 35 USC 102 and 103
With respect to claim 1, Applicant traverses the (J.P. 2020508223) reference in that:
Paragraph [0025] of Rudolf discloses that adjustment device 120 for adjusting the power-density distribution of the laser beam so that the distribution becomes asymmetric is constituted by at least one beam-shaping optical system selected from the group consisting of a Siemens star, a deformable mirror, a refractive optical element, an axicon, and any combination thereof.
In contrast, amended claim 1 of the present application specifies that the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism "includes a laser beam direction adjuster that adjusts an incident direction of the laser beam on the irradiation trajectory." Rudolf fails to disclose or suggest providing a laser beam direction adjuster and adjusting the energy intensity distribution using the laser beam direction adjuster.
Accordingly, Rudolf clearly does not teach or suggest, inter alia, that "the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism includes a laser beam direction adjuster that adjusts an incident direction of the laser beam on the irradiation trajectory," as recited by amended claim 1, and the Office Action does not assert otherwise.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Examiner acknowledges that the “first adjustment device 120” alone does not adjust the incident direction of the laser beam on the irradiation trajectory, however as stated in the Non-Final Rejection, the “laser beam direction adjustment mechanism” (now the “laser beam direction adjuster” as per the amendment) is both the “first adjustment device 120” and the “swivel device 410.” The “swivel device 410” comprises the “moveable swivel device 414.” Furthermore, it is the “first adjustment device’s 120” connection to the “moveable swivel device 414” that adjusts the incident direction of the laser beam, as stated in [0046]. Additionally, the “moveable swivel device 414” is similar to the “connector unit” and the “first adjustment device 120” is similar to the “connector receiving unit”, as shown in Fig. 6B of the instant application. This is due to the “moveable swivel device 414” changing the direction of the incident direction of the laser beam path, same as the “connector unit 31”, and the “first adjustment device 120” being connected to it as it moves along its curved shaped path, same as the “connector receiving unit 32,” in Fig. 6B of the instant application.
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:
“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 1-9 are 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 claim(s) contains 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 1 recites “laser beam direction adjuster” in lines 8-9 of the claim. The description for the “laser beam direction adjuster” 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 adjuster” 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, as indicated by: “In FIG. 6B, the optical fiber 30 and the connector unit 31 side are turned in an arc shape with a radius r at an angle of -8 with the central portion of the optical fiber output end as a center point by using the laser beam direction adjustment mechanism 20. A turning trajectory 40 indicates a trajectory when the connector unit 31 turns in an arc shape at a radius r. That is, a reference optical axis 12 determined by the structure of the output end of the optical fiber 30 and the structure of the connector unit 31 has the angle of -e with respect to the optical axis 10 of the irradiation trajectory. With this adjustment, the emission direction 11 of the laser beam output from the output end of the optical fiber 30 substantially coincides with the optical axis 10 of the irradiation trajectory” [Pgs. 34-35, paragraph 0050], “At this time, the laser beam direction adjustment mechanism 20 preferably has a structure that turns in an arc shape with the central portion of the output end of the optical fiber 30 of the laser oscillator as a center point. 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, and thus, it is possible to adjust the incident direction of the laser beam output from the output end of the optical fiber with respect to the irradiation trajectory of the laser beam with respect to the reference optical axis 12 determined by the structure portion of the output end of the optical fiber 30 and the structure of the connector unit 31 to substantially coincide with the optical axis 10 of the irradiation trajectory of the laser beam of the laser beam irradiation optical unit 1” [Pg. 35, paragraph 0051], “This adjustment is performed using the "arc-shaped turning" function of the laser beam direction adjustment mechanism 20. The tilt operation in the third embodiment of the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism according to the present invention utilizes the "arc-shaped turning" function of the laser beam direction adjustment mechanism 20” [Pg. 33, paragraph 0048], and Figs. 5A-6B.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
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 1-9 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 1 recites “laser beam direction adjuster” in lines 8-9 of the claim. The description for the “laser beam direction adjuster” 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 adjuster” 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.
Claims 2-9 are rejected for their dependence on an indefinite claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 8, and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by (J.P. 2020508223).
PNG
media_image1.png
475
666
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1 (JP2020508223)
PNG
media_image2.png
553
858
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 2 (JP2020508223)
PNG
media_image3.png
463
530
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3 (JP2020508223)
Regarding claim 1, (JP 2020508223) discloses a laser beam irradiation optical unit (Annotated Figure 1, “Laser Beam Irradiation Optical Unit”) for forming a spot (Annotated Figure 1, “Spot”) on an object to be machined and irradiating the object to be machined with a laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, “ laser beam 112” [0023]) emitted from a laser oscillator (Annotated Figure 1 “laser source 110” [0028]) 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” [0001]), the laser beam irradiation optical unit (Annotated Figure 1, “Laser Beam Irradiation Optical Unit”) comprising:
an energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1, “Energy Intensity Distribution Adjustment Mechanism”) that adjusts an energy intensity distribution (“power density distribution or intensity distribution” [0008]) of the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, “ laser beam 112” [0023]) at the spot (Annotated Figure 1, “Spot”) in an irradiation trajectory (Annotated Figure 1, “Irradiation Trajectory”) of the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, “ laser beam 112” [0023]) from the laser oscillator (Annotated Figure 1 “laser source 110” [0028]) to the object to be machined, wherein
the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1, “Energy Intensity Distribution Adjustment Mechanism”) includes a laser beam direction adjuster (Annotated Figs. 1 and 3, “first adjustment device 120” and “moveable swivel element 414” of “swivel device 410” [0046]) that adjusts an incident direction (Annotated Fig. 1, “Incident Direction”) of the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, “ laser beam 112” [0023]) on the irradiation trajectory (Annotated Figure 1, “Irradiation Trajectory”), and (“To enable asymmetric beam forming, the movable pivot member 414 or pivot axis 416 can be moved. For example, the pivot axis 416 can be moved or tilted. According to one embodiment, the displacement of the pivot axis 416 may be performed in a plane parallel to the optical axis 124 and/or in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis 124. The tilt can be performed such that the pivot axis 416 and the optical axis 124 enclose an angle greater than 0° and less than 90°. In other words, the tilt is defined by the pivot axis 416 and the optical axis 124, which are not parallel to each other” [0046])
Examiner note: (“moveable swivel element 414” of “swivel device 410”) is being interpreted as the “connector unit” and (“first adjustment device 120”) is being interpreted as the “connector receiving unit” (“Referring to Figure 4A, the device 400 includes a swivel device 410 having a movable swivel element 414 that defines a swivel axis 416. The first adjustment device 120 is connected to the movable swivel element 414 via the connecting element 412” [0046]).
the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1, “Energy Intensity Distribution Adjustment Mechanism”) adjusts the energy intensity distribution (“power density distribution or intensity distribution” [0008]) of the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, “ laser beam 112” [0023]) at the spot (Annotated Figure 1, “Spot”) 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” [0008]).
Regarding claim 4, (JP 2020508223) further discloses wherein an image shape (Annotated Figure 2, “Image Shape”) of the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, “ laser beam 112” [0023]) at the spot (Annotated Figure 1, “Spot”) is an annular shape (Annotated Figure 2, “Annular Shape”) including at least an annular peripheral region (Annotated Figure 2, “Annular Peripheral Region”).
Regarding claim 5, (JP 2020508223) further discloses wherein the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1, “Energy Intensity Distribution Adjustment Mechanism”) further includes at least one of a collimating lens (Annotated Figure 1, “collimator optical system 121” [0030]) configured to collimate the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, “ laser beam 112” [0023]), and a condensing lens (Annotated Figure 1, “focusing optical system 122”) configured to condense the laser beam (Annotated Figure 1, “ laser beam 112” [0023]) on the spot (Annotated Figure 1, “Spot”).
Regarding claim 8, (JP 2020508223) further discloses a laser machining apparatus (Annotated Fig. 1, “apparatus / device 400” [0042]; [0046]) obtained by accommodating the laser beam irradiation optical unit (Annotated Figure 1, “Laser Beam Irradiation Optical Unit”) according to claim 1 in a laser machining head (“laser processing head or a cutting head” [0060]; “laser welding head” [0064]). (“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“ [0060]; “In particular, the beam shaping optics can be used within the laser material processing head” [0063]; “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” [0064]).
Regarding claim 9, (JP 2020508223) further discloses wherein the laser beam direction adjuster (Annotated Figs. 1 and 3, “first adjustment device 120” and “moveable swivel element 414” of “swivel device 410” [0046]) has a structure that turns in an arc shape (“To enable asymmetric beam forming, the movable pivot member 414 or pivot axis 416 can be moved. For example, the pivot axis 416 can be moved or tilted. According to one embodiment, the displacement of the pivot axis 416 may be performed in a plane parallel to the optical axis 124 and/or in a plane perpendicular to the optical axis 124. The tilt can be performed such that the pivot axis 416 and the optical axis 124 enclose an angle greater than 0° and less than 90°. In other words, the tilt is defined by the pivot axis 416 and the optical axis 124, which are not parallel to each other” [0046]; Examiner note: the tilt of the movable pivot member with respect to the optical axis 124 that enclose an angle greater than 0° and less than 90° implies that the movable pivot member 414 and/or the pivot axis 416 turns in an arc shape/path when tilted into position relative to the optical axis 124) with a central portion (“optical guide core” [0030]) of an output end of an optical fiber (“optical fiber” [0030]) of the laser oscillator (Annotated Figure 1 “laser source 110” [0028]) as a center point (Annotated Fig. 1, “optical axis 124” [0029]).
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.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (J.P. 2020508223) in view of Watanabe (J.P. 2012086229).
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, (JP 2020508223) further discloses an intensity ratio of the non-uniform energy intensity distribution (“asymmetric power density distribution” [0033]), a weak energy intensity (Annotated Fig. 2, “minimum portion 220” [0033]) is 0.1 or more and 0.95 or less when a strong energy intensity (Annotated Fig. 2, “maximum portion 210” [0033]) 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%” [0033]).
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 evidence of prima facie obviousness.
(JP 2020508223) does not explicitly disclose 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.
However, Watanabe discloses a laser beam irradiation optical unit (“laser processing apparatus” [0012]) wherein the non-uniform energy intensity distribution (Annotated Figure 4, “Non-uniform Energy Intensity Distribution”) is an energy intensity distribution in which an energy intensity of the laser beam (“laser beam” [0012]) is weak in a front region (Annotated Figure 4, “region S2” [0038]) that is a region on a traveling direction side (Annotated Figure 4, “Region S2 being the front direction of the cutting direction” [0038]) of the spot (Annotated Figure 5, “Spot”) on the object to be machined (Annotated figure 5, “workpiece 30” [0036]), [[and]] the energy intensity of the laser beam is strong in a rear region (Annotated Figure 4, “region S1” [0038]) different from the front region (Annotated Figure 4, “region S2” [0038]). (“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” [0039]-[0040]).
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 [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.
Regarding claim 3, (JP 2020508223) further discloses an intensity ratio of the non-uniform energy intensity distribution (“asymmetric power density distribution” [0033]), a weak energy intensity (Annotated Fig. 2, “minimum portion 220” [0033]) is 0.1 or more and 0.95 or less when a strong energy intensity (Annotated Fig. 2, “maximum portion 210” [0033]) 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%” [0033]).
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 evidence of prima facie obviousness.
(JP 2020508223) in view of Watanabe does not explicitly disclose the non-uniform energy intensity distribution is an energy intensity distribution in which an energy intensity of the laser beam is strong in a front region that is a region on a traveling direction side of the spot on the object to be machined, and an energy intensity of the laser beam is weak in a rear region different from the front region.
However, it is noted that at the time of the invention, there had been a recognized problem or need in the art to control the energy intensity distribution to be non-uniform. Such problems or needs were that when cutting thick workpieces lasers with shorter wavelengths than CO ２ lasers were unable to raise the internal temperature of the workpiece to cut, and a need to improve the cut quality of the product side of a workpiece. (“When a workpiece reaches a high temperature, the metals that make up the workpiece and the metal oxides generated during the process of obtaining oxidation heat melt and become molten metal. Then, the molten metal is blown away and removed from the workpiece by the pressure of the assist gas, thereby cutting the workpiece. Incidentally, since the viscosity of molten metal decreases and its fluidity increases as the temperature rises, laser processing equipment needs to lower the viscosity of the molten metal by raising the cutting temperature of the workpiece, thereby improving the ability of the assist gas to remove the molten metal. [0004] Therefore, in laser beam cutting, the internal temperature of the workpiece, i.e., the cutting temperature, must be raised to a high temperature” Watanabe [0003]-[0004]; “laser processing equipment using laser beams with shorter wavelengths than the CO ２ laser had a problem in that, when cutting thick workpieces, it was sometimes unable to raise the internal temperature of the workpiece to the temperature required for cutting, and therefore could not cut the workpiece” Watanabe [0008]; “During laser cutting, parts can be separated from the workpiece. Typically, the part's outline is formed, and as a result, one half fails to satisfy its further purpose and is therefore disposed of as waste. Therefore, the cutting quality of the ‘waste material’ is often not important. Therefore, it should be advantageous to improve the cutting quality of the ‘product side’“ (JP 2020508223) [0003]).
(JP 2020508223) and Watanabe attempt to solve these problems by creating asymmetry in the energy intensity distribution. (“Here, an asymmetric power density distribution of the laser beam and/or a density distribution of the gas jet are formed at the location of the workpiece. Therefore, the external cutting can be clearly improved on one side, for example, on the side of the desired part, i.e., the “product side’” (JP 2020508223) [0022]; “Therefore, the present invention focuses the laser beam so that the energy distribution of the laser beam is biased at the workpiece's position relative to the direction of cutting of the workpiece. This makes it possible to focus the laser beam so that its power is consumed by the temperature increase of the molten metal, thereby raising the temperature of the molten metal to a high level. As a result, the viscosity of the molten metal can be reduced to the point where it can be blown away by an assist gas, so the present invention makes it possible to cut thick workpieces using a laser with a shorter wavelength than the CO２ laser” [0015]).
Additionally, there is only a finite number of identified predictable potential solutions to create asymmetry in the energy intensity distribution. Those finite solutions being: 1) energy intensity of the laser beam is weak in the front region and strong in the rear region (as taught by Watanabe), 2) energy intensity of the laser beam is weak in a left/right side region and strong in a left/right side region (as taught by (JP 2020508223)), or 3) energy intensity of the laser beam is strong in the front region and weak in the rear region.
This is further recognized by (JP 2020508223) and Watanabe as they both state that the asymmetric/ non-unform energy intensity of the laser beam distribution of the laser beam can be adjusted (“Furthermore, the degree of bias in the energy distribution of the laser beam at the focal point can be adjusted by combining this with adjustments to the height position of the laser emission unit 24 from the optical system 26. Furthermore, the ratio of regions S1 and S2 is adjusted according to the type of laser beam used in the laser processing device 10 and the composition of the workpiece 30, so that the workpiece 30 is cut with a more suitable degree of bias” Watanabe [0042]; “While conventional methods achieve the same quality on both sides of the calfskin, this invention allows for the redistribution of quality, making it higher on one side. This may be possible in any desired cutting direction, where the "product side" may be freely selectable. For example, embodiments of the present disclosure can be automatically adapted to the cutting direction, and therefore, in the case of outer shape cutting, the "product side" is always associated with the part being cut off” [0014]).
One of ordinary skill in the art has good reason to pursue the known options within their technical grasp. In this case, asymmetric/ non-unform energy intensity of the laser beam distribution of the laser beam allows for increased cut or weld quality and variation in thicknesses being cut or welded.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify (JP 2020508223) in view of Watanabe, by changing energy intensity of the laser beam to be strong in the front region and weak in the rear region, since one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. “[A] person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. If this leads to the anticipated success, it is likely that product [was] not of innovation but of ordinary skill and common sense.” See MPEP 2143-I-E.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (J.P. 2020508223) in view of Primes (FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual, available as of 02/2021, see bottom right of manual).
PNG
media_image6.png
828
1506
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 6 (FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual)
PNG
media_image7.png
619
1463
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 7 (FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual)
PNG
media_image8.png
371
896
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 8 (FocusMonitor FM+ HPD Instruction Manual)
Regarding claim 6, (JP 2020508223) further discloses the energy intensity distribution (“power density distribution or intensity distribution” [0008]) at the spot (Annotated Figure 1, “Spot”) as adjusted by the energy intensity distribution adjustment mechanism (Annotated Figure 1, “Energy Intensity Distribution Adjustment Mechanism”).
(JP 2020508223) does not explicitly disclose an observation device in the irradiation trajectory configured to confirm the energy intensity distribution at the spot.
However, Primes discloses an observation device (Annotated Figure 6, “observation device”) in the irradiation trajectory (Annotated Fig. 8, “beam incidence”) configured to confirm the 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]).
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 (JP 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.
Regarding claim 7, (JP 2020508223) does not explicitly disclose wherein observation light observed by the observation device is the observation light for observation different from the laser beam.
However, Primes discloses wherein observation light (Annotated Figure 7, “pilot laser beam”) observed by the observation device (Annotated Figure 6, “observation device”) 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]).
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 (JP 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to 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 08/26/2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights