DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
Restriction
Applicant’s election of Group I (Claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 02/05/26 with traverse is acknowledged.
Applicant’s representative asserts that examining Group II (Claims 11-19) and Group III (Claim 20), in addition to Group I, will not impose a serious burden.
However, the above different groups will require different field of search and thus impose a serious burden. For example, the different groups require different search classes/subclasses, e.g.B23K26/354 for Group I, G06T7/001 for Group II, and/or G06T2207/30164 for Group III; as well as different search strategies and/or search queries, e.g. using keywords such as “melting”, “laser” for Group I, “image” and “input” for Group II, “material production/forming” for Group III.
Consequently, Consequently, the requirement for election is maintained.
Claims 1-10 are examined.
Claim Objections
Claim 1-10 is/are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, l. 4-5: “for accuracy of the softening of the feature” should be “for accuracy in softening the feature”;
Claim 2, L. 3 “to modify the feature as the softening” should be “to soften the feature”;
Claim 9, L. 1 “an error” should be “the error”, L. 2 “a nominal path” should be “the nominal path”;
Claim 10, L. 1 “an error” should be “the error”;
Claims 2-10 are also objected for being dependent on an objected Claim.
Appropriate correction required and claims are interpreted as indicated above.
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sercel (US 2019/0314934) in view of Onoda (US 11,969,820).
Regarding Claim 1: Sercel discloses a method (see title) for feature softening of a workpiece (102; Fig. 1), the method comprising: generating a nominal path (path exposing the edge to the laser; see annotated figure ‘934 and [0032]) for softening a feature (edge; [0032]) of the workpiece, where softening means moving material of the workpiece at the feature (see [0032] wherein the laser melts the edge); selecting defining points (points on which the laser will touch the workpiece, e.g. points on and/or defining the edge, [0032]) of the workpiece for accuracy of the softening of the feature, wherein the defining points have a design location (location corresponding to where the edge have been designed); forming the workpiece (see [0030] where the softening happens after the workpiece has been cut, i.e. formed); fixturing the workpiece in a workstation (see Fig. 1 wherein 102 is fixed on 170, and annotated figure ‘934); and guiding a material movement machine (laser system 100; Fig. 1) along the path (laser goes over the edge); and softening, by the material movement machine, the feature of the workpiece ([0032]).
Sercel is silent regarding imaging the workpiece as formed and fixtured in the workstation; determining, from the imaging and by a processor, an actual location of the defining points on the workpiece as formed and fixtured in the workstation; determining, by the processor, an error between the actual location of the defining points and the design location of the defining points; generating, by the processor and based on the error, a revised path for softening the feature of the workpiece; and thus having guiding a material movement machine along the path.
However, Onoda teaches a method (the disclosure of the apparatus discloses its method of operation) of operating a laser processing apparatus (see title); imaging (Col. 8 L. 45-55) a workpiece (W; Fig. 1) as formed (Since W is present, W is formed) and fixtured in a workstation (workstation fixing W is necessarily present); determining, from the imaging and by a processor (processor in computer 803; Fig. 1), an actual location of defining points on the workpiece as formed and fixtured in the workstation (location of points that defined the processing area/block showing misalignment; Col. 3 L. 1-10); determining, by the processor, an error (misalignment; Col. 3 L. 1-10) between the actual location of the defining points and the design location of the defining points (location of point in image section stored; Col. 1 L.14-21); generating, by the processor and based on the error, a revised path for processing the feature of the workpiece (“correct distance measurement”; Col. 2 L.45-48 ); and thus having guiding a material movement machine along the path ( Col. 2 L. 48-58; wherein processing/irradiation, i.e. material movement machine, is done after and following the correction).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Sercel, to have imaging the workpiece as formed and fixtured in the workstation; determining, from the imaging and by a processor, an actual location of the defining points on the workpiece as formed and fixtured in the workstation; determining, by the processor, an error between the actual location of the defining points and the design location of the defining points; generating, by the processor and based on the error, a revised path for softening the feature of the workpiece; and thus having guiding a material movement machine along the path, as taught by Onoda. Such a modification would enable to maintain high processing accuracy of the workpiece, as recognized by Onoda (see Abstract).
PNG
media_image1.png
916
816
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Sercel further discloses the softening by the material movement machine comprises melting ([0032]) the feature by a laser (“laser”) without expressing material from the workpiece to modify the feature as the softening (see [0032] wherein the laser can only melt the material which stays on the workpiece and thus is not removed).
Regarding Claim 3: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Sercel further discloses wherein generating the nominal path is based on design data for the workpiece (see Abstract wherein the path of the laser goes along the cut edges, the locations of the cut edges correspond to design data, i.e. data for predetermined desired locations).
Regarding Claim 4: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Sercel further discloses wherein the selecting the defining points comprises selecting a first point (see annotated figure ‘934) at a first end (see annotated figure ‘934) of an arc (see annotated figure ‘934) and selecting a second point (see annotated figure ‘934) at a second end of the arc (see annotated figure ‘934).
Regarding Claim 5: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Onoda further teaches wherein the imaging the workpiece comprises imaging by a camera targeting the defining points (“camera”; Col. 8 L. 45-50).
Regarding Claim 6: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Sercel further discloses comprising predetermining a laser profile (certain intensity and/or orientation of the laser is provided and thus are predetermined ) for the material movement machine, wherein the predetermining comprises predetermining a beam intensity (a certain intensity of the laser is provided and thus is predetermined; see [0035]) and a beam direction (a certain orientation of the laser is provided and thus is predetermined; see direction of laser from 160 in Fig. 1) of the material movement machine.
Regarding Claim 7: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Onoda further teaches the imaging comprises capturing multiple of the defining points on the workpiece (see Fig. 2 wherein two cameras are used, i.e. a multiple of defining points are captured).
Regarding Claim 8: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Sercel further discloses wherein the selecting defining points of the workpiece includes selecting at least one point for a linear feature of the workpiece (see Fig. 9a wherein the edge 903a,b is linear and contains at least one defining point).
Regarding Claim 9: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Sercel further selecting the nominal path for rounding a corner of the workpiece (see Figs. 9a-9c wherein the corner of the edge 903a, b is rounded).
Regarding Claim 10: Sercel in view of Onoda teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as stated above, and Onoda further teaches when an error between the actual location of the defining points and the design location of the defining points is zero, the method comprises equaling the revised path to the nominal path (when the error is zero, the misalignment is not present and therefore the nominal path is not corrected/adjusted).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights