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 .
Claims 1-10 are currently pending. Claims 1-10 are rejected.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on March 22, 2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(d)
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding Claim 10, it is unclear if Claim 10 clearly includes all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. Claim 10 depends upon Claim 8, which is with respect to a casting system. Claim 10 recites a casting “comprising the identifying mark marked or transferred by the casting system according to claim 8”. It is unclear if the claim is to require the whole of the casting system or just the identifying mark produced by the casting system. As such, Claim 10 fails to clearly include all the limitations of the casting system as recited in Claim 8.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Fraser et al. (US 2017/0014945 A1), hereinafter Fraser ‘945.
Regarding Claim 1, Figures 1, 3A, 4, and 6 of Fraser ‘945 disclose a casting system comprising: a laser marking device (150) configured to mark an identifying mark (50) on a casting (12) or a mold (unlabeled boxes where 12 reside) under a set marking condition (initial marking by the laser) (see method 400 in Figure 4); and a recognition device (imaging system 16 with processor 22) configured to recognize the identifying mark marked on a surface (20) of the casting (12) by the laser marking device (150), on the basis of a detection result of a sensor (16) (Figure 6, steps 602 and 604), wherein the laser marking device (150) changes the set marking condition in a case in which the identifying mark (50) on the casting is not recognized by the recognition device (16 and 22) (Figure 6, steps 606, 608, and 610). Paragraphs [0034-0036 and 0038-0039] describe the system illustrated in Figures 1 and 3A. Paragraphs [0047-0048] describe the validation of the identifying marker using the recognition device (16 and 22). Paragraph [0041] describes method (400) for applying a laser marker as an identifying mark (50). Paragraphs [0057-0058] describe the method (600). In one embodiment, the set marking condition change may be laser marking in a second area without defects. In another embodiment, the change is interpretable as the settings required to correct the existing marker.
Regarding Claim 2, Fraser ‘945 discloses the casting system as set forth in Claim 1.
Fraser ‘945 also discloses wherein the recognition device (16 and 22) comprises the sensor (16) configured to capture an image of the surface of the casting (12) marked by the laser marking device (150), and recognizes the identifying mark (50) on the casting (12) on the basis of the image captured by the sensor (16). Paragraph [0041] notes the images on the surface of casting (12) are generated by sensor (16). Paragraph [0048] describes a validation of image data to see if the identifier (50) is satisfactory or not.
Regarding Claim 3, Fraser ‘945 discloses the casting system as set forth in Claim 1.
Fraser ‘945 also discloses wherein the recognition device (16 and 22) comprises the sensor (16) configured to measure a color of the surface of the casting (12) marked by the laser marking device (150), and recognizes the identifying mark (50) on the casting (12) on the basis of a distribution of the color measured by the sensor (16). Paragraph [0041] notes the images on the surface of casting (12) are generated by sensor (16). Paragraph [0048] describes a validation of image data to see if the identifier (50) is satisfactory or not. Paragraph [0059] states one of the defects to determine validity includes differences in color. Paragraph [0060] discusses use of greyscale pixels, which is also considered color.
Regarding Claim 4, Fraser ‘945 discloses the casting system as set forth in Claim 1.
Fraser ‘945 also discloses wherein the recognition device (16 and 22) comprises the sensor (16) configured to measure irregularities of the surface of the casting (12) marked by the laser marking device (150), and recognizes the identifying mark (50) on the casting (12) on the basis of a distribution of the irregularities measured by the sensor (16). Paragraph [0041] notes the images on the surface of casting (12) are generated by sensor (16). Paragraph [0048] describes a validation of image data to see if the identifier (50) is satisfactory or not. Paragraph [0059] states one of the defects to determine validity includes differences in color or surface irregularities, both of which satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of irregularities.
Regarding Claim 5, Fraser ‘945 discloses the casting system as set forth in Claim 1.
Fraser ‘945 also discloses wherein: the set marking condition includes laser output; and the laser marking device (150) changes the laser output in a case in which the identifying mark (50) on the casting (12) is not recognized by the recognition device (16 and 22). Paragraphs [0057-0058] describe the method (600). In one embodiment, the set marking condition change may be laser marking in a second area without defects. In another embodiment, the change is interpretable as the settings required to correct the existing marker. Both of these satisfy the broadest reasonable interpretation of changing a laser output, since the change is a location or differing the laser itself to apply only corrections to the existing marker.
Regarding Claim 6, Fraser ‘945 discloses the casting system as set forth in Claim 1.
Fraser ‘945 also discloses wherein: the set marking condition includes a marking rate; and the laser marking device (150) changes the marking rate in a case in which the identifying mark (50) on the casting is not recognized by the recognition device (16 and 22). Paragraph [0058] discusses determining what corrections need to be made to the identifying mark and then applying the corrections. As such, this satisfies the broadest reasonable interpretation of a different marking rate since a different mark (the corrections) is produced compared the original unsatisfactory mark, i.e. the rate at which the marking is applied differs because the application differs. See also paragraph [0069] discussing adjustment of speed.
Regarding Claim 7, Fraser ‘945 discloses the casting system as set forth in Claim 1.
Fraser ‘945 also discloses wherein, in response to recognition of the identifying mark (50) on the casting (12) by the recognition device (16 and 22), the laser marking device (150) stores to a storage device a marking condition related to the identifying mark (50) recognized by the recognition device (16 and 22). This is interpretable as storing the condition needed to correct an unsatisfactory mark as described in paragraphs [0057-0058]. Alternatively, paragraph [0074] describes finding a defect-free portion of one part and applying the laser similarly to each subsequent park.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser ‘945 in view of Fraser et al. (US 2021/0308798 A1), hereinafter Fraser ‘798.
Regarding Claim 8, Fraser ‘945 teaches the casting system as set forth in Claim 1.
Fraser ‘945 does not expressly teach wherein the recognition device recognizes the identifying mark on the casting after blasting of the casting as claimed. However, being recognizable blasting would have been obvious in view of Fraser ‘798.
Fraser ‘798 teaches a system in which castings (10) are blasted. Blasting is one of the steps after removal of the part from the cast (10). The casting (10) is manipulated multiple times and may be erroneously identified during such manipulations. The disadvantage of identifying castings (10) only as early as possible in production is that blasting can erase previously made identifying markers, thus it would be desirable to produce a mark that is resistant to such a process [0004-0009].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casting system taught by Fraser ‘945 such that the recognition device recognizes the identifying mark on the casting after blasting of the casting as suggested by Fraser ‘798, to provide the benefit of having the mark still be identifiable after processing of the cast component.
Regarding Claim 10, assuming proper dependency, Fraser ‘945 and Fraser ‘798 teach the casting system as set forth in Claim 8.
The modification in Claim 8 by Fraser ‘798 results in a casting comprising the identifying mark recognizable even after blasting of the casting, as described by the motivation and desire to obtain a resistant mark described in paragraphs [0004-0009] of Fraser ‘798.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fraser ‘945 in view of “The Factors Affecting the Quality of Laser Cutting Machine”, hereinafter “Factors”.
Regarding Claim 9, Fraser ‘945 teaches the casting system as set forth in Claim 1.
Fraser ‘945 does not expressly teach wherein the laser marking device outputs a laser beam of 50 μm to 100 μm in beam width at 50 W to 100 W, and changes the set marking condition by a time adjustment range of 0.5 sec to 1 sec per character as claimed. However, such properties would have been obvious in view of “Factors”.
“Factors” discusses properties of the laser which affect the quality of a laser cutting machine. Note that a “cut” is essentially a mark that has gone through the chosen material, thus the results of the variables described are the same. In section 1 Beam characteristics, “Factors” explains the dimension of the laser beam is related to the power density, suggesting that a smaller diameter provides more cutting power. In section 2 Laser power, “Factors” explains a higher energy allows for cutting of thicker material, dimensional accuracy, roughness, and width of the heat affected zone created by the laser. In section 3 Cutting speed, “Factors” explains the speed of the laser affects the resulting cut. A faster cut results in less depth. Too slow a cut will cause melting, widening of the cutting seam, or even burning. Thus, all three of the claimed variables, beam width, power, and time are all shown to be results-effective variables, to which one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize to obtain a desired quality on the final product. See MPEP 2144.05, II regarding routine optimization.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the casting system taught by Fraser ‘945 such that the laser marking device outputs a laser beam of 50 μm to 100 μm in beam width at 50 W to 100 W, and changes the set marking condition by a time adjustment range of 0.5 sec to 1 sec per character as evidenced by “Factors”, since one of ordinary skill would routinely optimize the beam width, power, and time to achieve a desired quality cut into a material for a given application when using lasers.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELTON K WONG whose telephone number is (408)918-7626. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00AM - 5:00PM PST.
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, Court Heinle can be reached at (571)270-3508. 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.
/ELTON K WONG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745