DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are objected to because of the following informalities and it is thought that the following changes should be made for proper clarity and antecedent basis regarding the instant informalities:
change claim 1 line 11 accordingly: “on [[the]] a basis of”;
change claim 1 lines 10-11 accordingly: “for the processing of the workpiece”;
change claim 2 line 2 accordingly: “on [[the]] a basis of”;
change claim 3 lines 3-4 accordingly: “on [[the]] a basis of”;
change claim 9 line 5 accordingly: “on [[the]] a basis of”;
change claim 9 line 7 accordingly: “on [[the]] a basis of”;
change claim 10 line 7 accordingly: “on [[the]] a basis of”;
change claim 11 line 6 accordingly: “on [[the]] a basis of”; and
change claim 11 line 8 accordingly: “on [[the]] a basis of”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 2-8 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 limitation "the laser light source" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for a laser light.
Claim 2 recites the limitation "the light scanning unit" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for an optical scanning unit. For purposes of compact prosecution this is interpreted as the optical scanning unit for this claim and claims 3 and 7 (see below 112’s).
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the focal position" in lines 2-3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the laser light source" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. There is only antecedent basis for a laser light. This is also recited in claim 4
Claim 3 recites the limitation "the light scanning unit" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation "the focal position" in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation "the light scanning unit" in lines 3-4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims dependent thereon are rejected for the same reasons.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102/103
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.
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 pre-AIA 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(s) 1-4, 7-9 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Pub. No.: US 2014/0021177 A1 (Koch) as evidenced by US 20040095572 A1 (Iwa) or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koch, as evidenced by Iwa.
Regarding claim 1, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) a laser processing device comprising: an optical scanning unit 3 that scans laser light (see par. 41); a condenser lens (see par. 10, top; more specifically par. 23 of “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION” points out that the laser is focused using either a mirror or a lens; it is thought that one of ordinary skill in the art would understand the structure of schematic fig. 1 includes the focusing lens because the reflecting mirror 4 is not discussed as performing the focusing function; the term condenser lens is interpreted as “a lens or mirror used to concentrate light on an object”, thus a condenser lens is used to concentrate or focus the laser; Merriam-Webster online regarding condenser; Iwa par. 32 is evidence the terms focusing lens and condenser lens are interchangeable) that condenses the laser light (1; see par. 10, top) onto a workpiece (5; see par. 10, top); a plasma 8 light sensor (5 and/or 6) that detects plasma light 8 from the workpiece 5; and a control unit (computer controller; see par. 31, bottom) configured to generate processing position data (data from computer control unit sent to scanning unit or laser for use in regulating circuit; see par. 31, bottom) for the laser light 1 for processing the workpiece (for example the intensity of the plasma is used to determine whether a through hole has been completed; see par. 46; also see claim 1), wherein the control unit (computer controller; see par. 31, bottom) causes the optical scanning unit 3 to scan the laser light 1 and causes the plasma light sensor (5 and/or 6) to acquire a detection result (signals from plasma light sensors) of detecting the plasma light from the workpiece 5, and the control unit generates the processing position data (computer controller controls scanning unit 3) for the laser light 1 for the processing of the workpiece 5 on a basis of the detection result (for example the intensity of the plasma is used to determine whether a through hole has been completed; see par. 46).
It is thought one of ordinary skill would understand Koch’s fig. 1 structure includes a condenser lens regarding the 102 discussion above. However in the alternative in the scenario event one of the ordinary worker skill in the art would not make such an understanding, then it can be said that Koch does not include a condenser lens.
Koch teaches in par. 23 that the laser of Koch either includes a focusing lens (i.e. condenser lens as discussed in the 102 discussion above) or a focusing mirror to focus the laser. It is further noted that “when a patent claims a structure already known in the prior art that is altered by the mere substitution of one element for another known in the field, the combination must do more than yield a predictable result.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385 at 1395 (U.S. 2007) (MPEP 2143 I.B.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to substitute the focusing of the laser being performed by a focusing lens of Koch par. 23 for the focusing of the laser being performed by a focusing mirror of Koch for the purpose of substituting one known element for another in order to provide the expected result of focusing or condensing the laser.
Regarding claim 2, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) the processing position data is generated on a basis of a detection timing (the time of the detection of the plasma light precedes the time at which the processing data is used to control the scanning unit 3; see par. 31, bottom and par. 46) of the plasma light 8, and is data for performing the processing by controlling at least one of a focal position (see par. 13) of the condenser lens, the laser light source 2 (see par. 31, bottom), and the light scanning unit 3 (see par. 31, bottom).
Regarding claim 3, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) the control unit (computer controller; see par. 31, bottom) performs the processing by controlling at least one of the focal position (see par. 13) of the condenser lens, the laser light source 2 (see par. 31, bottom), and the light scanning unit on a basis of (see par. 31, bottom) the processing position data (data from the plasma light sensor(s); see par. 31, bottom).
Regarding claim 4, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) the control unit (computer controller; see par. 31, bottom) adjusts a control timing of the laser light source 2 or the optical scanning unit 3 according to response characteristics of the laser light source or the optical scanning unit. The control unit adjusts optical scanning unit along a timeline based on the response of the laser light the response being the varying intensity of plasma radiation detected by the plasma light sensor. For example, see figs. 3a-3c and accompanying paragraphs. In fig. 3c it is shown that the minimum intensity is when the laser beam is within the cutting kerf shown at location B in fig. 2. The control unit processes the detection result from the sensor (5 and/or 6) and commands the scanner 3 to move the position of the laser for example left or right in fig. 2 so that the laser beam stays within the cutting kerf in the scenario wherein a depth of the kerf is being machined.
Regarding claim 7, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) wherein in a state (see par. 10, top and par. 31, bottom) in which a light intensity of the laser light at a focal position in the condenser lens (see par. 10, top and par. 13, middle) is adjusted (see par. 31, bottom and claim 1) to be a processing threshold (see par. 14, top) for the workpiece 5, the light scanning unit 3 scans the laser light 1, and the plasma light sensor (5 and/or 6) detects the plasma light 8 from the workpiece 5 to acquire the detection result (signals from plasma light sensors).
Regarding claim 8, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) wherein the control unit (computer controller; see par. 31, bottom) performs the processing in a state in which the light intensity (this is referred to as “energy” or “output” or “intensity” in pars. 6, 14 and 16 for example) of the laser light 1 at the focal position (see par. 10, top and par. 13, middle) in the condenser lens (see par. 23 and the claim 1 102/103 discussion above) is set to a processing light intensity more than (there is a minimum amount of energy needed for machining corresponding with “melting” processing threshold; however the processing may include higher outputs or laser intensity; see par. 14, middle and par. 16 bottom) the processing threshold.
Regarding claim 9, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) a control method of controlling a laser processing device (structure in fig. 1 including 2,3,4) including an optical (see par. 28, middle) scanning unit 3 that scans laser light 1 and a condenser lens (see 23 and the claim 1 102/103 discussion above) that condenses the laser light (1; see par. 10, top) onto a workpiece (5; see par. 10, top), the control method comprising: causing the optical scanning unit 3 to scan (see laser light 1 from scanning unit 3 scanning workpiece 5; see figs. 1-2) the laser light 1, and generating processing position data (data from computer control unit sent to scanning unit or laser for use in regulating circuit; see par. 31, bottom) for the laser light 1 for processing the workpiece (for example the intensity of the plasma is used to determine whether a through hole has been completed; see par. 46; moreover the “signal” from the plasma sensor is used to regulate parameters such as “the position of the laser beam, the power of the laser radiation, the speed of the laser beam and/or the number of ablation cycles are influenced”, see par. 13; for example positioning of the laser is done by the scanning unit, see par. 10, bottom) on a basis of a detection result (signals from plasma light sensor, see par. 31, bottom) of a plasma light sensor (5 and/or 6) detecting plasma light 8 from the workpiece 5; and controlling (via computer controller; see par. 31, bottom) the laser processing device on a basis of (see par. 31, bottom) the processing position data.
Regarding claim 11, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) a product manufacturing method of controlling a laser processing device (structure in fig. 1 including 2,3,4) including an optical (see par. 28, middle) scanning unit 3 that scans laser light 1 and a condenser lens (see par. 23 and the claim 1 102/103 discussion above) that condenses the laser light (1; see par. 10, top) onto a workpiece (5; see par. 10, top), to manufacture (see pars. 2, 24 and 30, the latter two discussing other manufacturing information in addition to the instant laser information) a product (component of a motor vehicle; see abstract and par. 2, top), the product manufacturing method comprising: causing the optical scanning unit 3 to scan (see laser light 1 from scanning unit 3 scanning workpiece 5; see figs. 1-2) the laser light 1, and generating processing position data (data from computer control unit sent to scanning unit or laser for use in regulating circuit; see par. 31, bottom) for the laser light 1 for processing the workpiece (for example the intensity of the plasma is used to determine whether a through hole has been completed; see par. 46; moreover the “signal” from the plasma sensor is used to regulate parameters such as “the position of the laser beam, the power of the laser radiation, the speed of the laser beam and/or the number of ablation cycles are influenced”, see par. 13; for example positioning of the laser is done by the scanning unit, see par. 10, bottom) on a basis of a detection result (signals from plasma light sensor, see par. 31, bottom) of a plasma light sensor (5 and/or 6) detecting plasma light 8 from the workpiece 5; and controlling (via computer controller; see par. 31, bottom) the laser processing device on a basis of (see par. 31, bottom) the processing position data to process the workpiece 5; and manufacturing a product from the workpiece 5 processed through the processing (for example the claimed processing can comprise one ablation cycle; in scenarios there are additional ablation cycles that complete the manufacturing; see par. 13 and claim 1). In addition one of ordinary skill understands when reading Koch that manufacturing of motor vehicle parts includes a quality review step after the workpiece has completed the claimed processing (see par. 5, bottom and par. 10 middle).
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Koch as evidenced by US 2011/0180520 A1 (Yilbas), or in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Koch as evidenced by Iwa and Yilbas.
Regarding claim 10, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) a non-transitory (the type of memory used on computer controllers such as that of Koch is non-transitory; this is evidenced by Yilbas par. 28 regarding controller 36 memory 112, see figs. 1-2; Yilbas regards laser control via plasma monitoring, see title) computer-readable storage medium (the “software” of Koch computer controller is stored on memory see par. 31, bottom) storing a computer program (software, see par. 31, bottom) to generate data (data from computer control unit sent to scanning unit or laser for use in regulating circuit; see par. 31, bottom) for a laser processing device (structure in fig. 1 including 2,3,4) configured to have an optical scanning unit 3 that scans laser light 1, and a condenser lens (see par. 10, top) that condenses the laser light 1 onto a workpiece 5, wherein the computer program comprises instructions (see par. 31, bottom) for executing following processes: causing the optical scanning unit 3 to scan (see laser light 1 from scanning unit 3 scanning workpiece 5; see figs. 1-2) the laser light 1, and generating processing position data (data from computer control unit sent to scanning unit or laser for use in regulating circuit; see par. 31, bottom) for the laser light 1 for processing the workpiece (for example the intensity of the plasma is used to determine whether a through hole has been completed; see par. 46; moreover the “signal” from the plasma sensor is used to regulate parameters such as “the position of the laser beam, the power of the laser radiation, the speed of the laser beam and/or the number of ablation cycles are influenced”, see par. 13; for example positioning of the laser is done by the scanning unit, see par. 10, bottom) on a basis of a detection result (signals from plasma light sensor, see par. 31, bottom) of a plasma light sensor (5 and/or 6) detecting plasma light 8 from the workpiece 5.
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(s) 5 and 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Koch in view of US Patent 6,355,908 B1 (Tatah).
Regarding claim 5, Koch discloses the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Koch further discloses herein the control unit (computer controller; see par. 31, bottom) makes a scanning order (i.e., either a scanning command or scanning sequence) of the optical scanning unit 3 when performing the processing. The control unit processes the detection result from the sensor (5 and/or 6) and commands the scanner 3 to move the position of the laser for example left or right in fig. 2 so that the laser beam stays within the cutting kerf in the scenario wherein a depth of the kerf is being machined. For example, see figs. 3a-3c and accompanying paragraphs. In fig. 3c it is shown that the minimum intensity is when the laser beam is within the cutting kerf shown at location B in fig. 2 and thus a control is to make scanning commands and/or sequences to keep the intensity of the plasma radiation at a minimum (see par. 45). Koch does not disclose a scanning order of the optical scanning unit when generating the processing position data that is different.
Tatah teaches (see fig. 1) a scanning order regarding controlling a laser 102 based on intensity of plasma related to the laser (see abstract). For example, Tatah teaches varying the distance Z of the laser 102 in order to provide more accurate knowledge of the focal length f of the laser 102 (see figs. 2A-2C and fig. 3 showing that plasma intensity varies with Z and that for example the focal length f is at the surface of a workpiece at intensity Ib). Thus a scanning command does not involve movement from left to right and a scanning sequence includes moving the focal length up and down with respect to the workpiece 110.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Koch with a scanning order as taught by Tatah in order to facilitate providing accurate machining with lasers in order to accommodate abnormalities in reflection mirrors for example (see Tatah col. 1, ll. 20-40). Regarding claim 6, Koch discloses (see figs. 1-2) the current invention as claimed and discussed above. Koch discloses (see fig 1) the plasma light sensor (5 and/or 6) detects the plasma light 8 from the workpiece 5 and acquires the detection result while the laser light 1 is scanned by the optical scanning unit 3 in a state (see par. 10, top and par. 31, bottom) in which there is a light intensity of the laser light at the focal position in the condenser lens (see par. 10, top and par. 13, middle) and a light intensity when the workpiece is processed by using the processing position data (see par. 10, top and par. 13, middle). In other words the claimed detection result is used for the claimed the processing in real time (see par. 31, bottom) within the same process as pointed out in claim 1. Koch does not disclose the light intensity while the detection result is acquired is smaller than the light intensity when the workpiece is processed.
Tatah teaches a light intensity when a detection result (from plasma light sensor 116) is acquired (see col. 3, ll. 50-60). This intensity is less than an intensity required for ablation or machining of the workpiece 110 and thus is less than Koch intensity during the claimed processing. Tatah can be used to calibrate the location of the focal point of Koch in view of Tatah before the claimed processing takes place. Thus the prescribed contour in Koch par. 16 and claim 1 could be machined more accurately wherein one of ordinary skill would understand the prescribed contour to reside in Koch par. 31 “software” that regulates the claimed scanning unit. Koch is also concerned with the accuracy of the focal length in the software as pointed out in par. 6. This is similar to the updating the applicant CAD file in pars. 66 and 69 for example.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to provide Koch with the light intensity while the detection result is acquired is smaller than the light intensity when the workpiece is processed as taught by Tatah in order to facilitate providing accurate machining with lasers in order to accommodate abnormalities in reflection mirrors for example (see Tatah col. 1, ll. 20-40).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
laser control based on sensed plasma light: US 20110097162 20190210157 20190039178.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARC J AMAR whose telephone number is (571)272-9948. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00-6:00.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/MARC AMAR/Examiner, Art Unit 3741 /DEVON C KRAMER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3741