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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Species A: FIGS. 1-13 in the reply filed on 03/04/26 is acknowledged.
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 1-15 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 “a laser cutting method for metal foil …. applying a pulse of laser beam to a metal foil”, it is unclear whether the second install of “metal foil” is the same or different than the first instance of “metal foil”. Appropriate correction is required.
As claims 2-15 depend either directly and/or indirectly from independent claim 1, the claims are rejected for at least the reason of their respective dependency from independent claim 1. Preproperate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai et al. (WO 201608686).
With regard to claim 1, Asai teaches A laser cutting method for metal foil (M) (“The scanner 12 is a device that moves the pulsed laser beam PW along the cutting line CL of the portion made only of the metal foil M”, pg. 3, ln. 61), comprising: cutting a processing target (M) by laser by intermittently applying a pulse of laser beam to a surface of a metal foil serving as the processing target (“FIG. 3 shows an example of the time change PE of the energy of the pulsed laser beam PW. Thus, the pulsed laser beam PW is energy having a pulse width of a short time every fixed time according to the repetition frequency.”, pg. 3, ln. 49-50; “The scanner 12 is a device that moves the pulsed laser beam PW along the cutting line CL of the portion made only of the metal foil M”, pg. 3, ln. 61).
With regard to the limitation of “at a frequency of 1 [MHz] or less”, it is submitted that although the citation does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, the citation does indeed teach a frequency which is within the claimed range, namely the citation teaches: “the repetition frequency of the pulsed laser beam PW is, for example, 200 kHz. In the pulsed laser beam oscillator 10, the repetition frequency can be changed within a predetermined range. FIG. 3 shows an example of the time change PE of the energy of the pulsed laser beam PW…”: Asai: pg, 3, ln. 47-49), and as such, it is submitted that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” (as taught here by the prior art with regard to the claimed range), a price facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 Obviousness of Similar and Overlapping Ranges (“I. OVERLAPPING, APPROACHING, AND SIMILAR RANGES, AMOUNTS, AND PROPORTIONS In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.); In re Geisler, 116 F.3d 1465, 1469-71, 43 USPQ2d 1362, 1365-66 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (Claim reciting thickness of a protective layer as falling within a range of “50 to 100 Angstroms” considered prima facie obvious in view of prior art reference teaching that “for suitable protection, the thickness of the protective layer should be not less than about 10 nm [i.e., 100 Angstroms].” The court stated that “by stating that ‘suitable protection’ is provided if the protective layer is ‘about’ 100 Angstroms thick, [the prior art reference] directly teaches the use of a thickness within [applicant’s] claimed range.”). See also In re Bergen, 120 F.2d 329, 332, 49 USPQ 749, 751-52 (CCPA 1941) (The court found that the overlapping endpoint of the prior art and claimed range was sufficient to support an obviousness rejection, particularly when there was no showing of criticality of the claimed range).”). Accordingly, it is submitted that it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the device in the Acai reference, such that the laser beam operates at the claimed frequency, as suggested and taught by the citation, for the purpose of providing a predetermined operational laser beam pulse value based upon the structural features of the workpiece being worked upon as a matter of routine experimentation.
Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai et al. (WO 201608686) in view of Wei et al. (CN 103280690).
With regard to claim 2, Asai teaches the invention as claimed above; however, the citation does not teach the frequency is A [Hz] and a full width at half maximum of the pulse is B [s], a duty ratio Rd [%] expressed by following equation Rd=A×B×100 . . . (1) is 0.1 or more and 80 or less. However, Wei from the same field of endeavor directed toward a system and method for controlling access to a service or to a place teaches the aforementioned limitation: frequency A is 49 Mhz (49000000 hz) and a full width at half maximum of the pulse is 35 ps (3.5000E-11), a duty ratio Rd[%] expressed by the equation Rd=AxBx100 is 0.1 or more and 80 or less (3.5000E-11 x 49000000 x 100 = 0.1715).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Asai reference, such that the frequency is A [Hz] and a full width at half maximum of the pulse is B [s], a duty ratio Rd [%] expressed by following equation Rd=A×B×100 . . . (1) is 0.1 or more and 80 or less, as suggested and taught by Wei, for the purpose of providing an improved cutting method by realizing stable continuous light along the full optical fibre structure (“This invention provides a method only needs to change the feedback device can realize stable continuous light and outputting the converted between pulse light. the full optical fibre structure of the continuous and pulse laser with narrow line width and high reliability, light-light conversion efficiency, easy maintenance, compact structure size small, it can realize commercial production and has wide application space.”, para. [0003])
With regard to claim 3, with regard to the limitation of the duty ratio Rd [%] is 0.2 or more and 40 or less, it is submitted that this limitation is not critical to the instant invention as claim 2 recites a value of .1 or more and 80 or less. Notwithstanding the foregoing, it is submitted that the aforementioned claimed range would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to achieve a desired cutting operation since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claims 6-9, 11, 12, 14, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Asai et al. (WO 201608686) in view of Aida et al. (JP2017084691)
With regard to claim 6, Asai teaches the limitations as claimed; however, the citation does not teach the limitation of a thickness of the processing target is 500 [μm] or less. However, Aida from the same field of endeavor directed toward an electrode sheet manufacturing method and electrode sheet teaches the aforementioned limitation: “The spot diameters of both upstream lasers 180L and 190L are preferably set within a range of 10 to 100 μm. It is preferable that the cutting speed of the coating sheet 50 by both the upstream lasers 180L and 190L is set within a range of 1 to 3 m / s.”.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Asai reference, such that a thickness of the processing target is 500 [μm] or less, as suggested and taught by Aida, for the purpose of providing a laser processing operation to a predetermined sized target.
With regard to claim 7, Aida teaches the metal foil includes a coated region that is covered with a film and an exposed region that is not covered with the film, and the coated region and the exposed region are continuously cut by laser by sweeping the laser beam (“At least the metal foil laser that has a strength capable of cutting the metal foil and is focused, the metal foil laser is focused from the front side of the coating sheet to the front side non-coating in the virtual contour on the coating sheet. Irradiate along the part of the work area, Alternatively, the metal foil laser is irradiated from the back side of the coating sheet along the portion of the back side non-coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet, and a non-coating region cutting step, Have A method for producing an electrode sheet.”).
With regard to claim 8, Aida teaches a spot diameter of the laser beam on the surface is 100 [μm] or less (“The spot diameters of both upstream lasers 180L and 190L are preferably set within a range of 10 to 100 μm”).
With regard to claim 9, Aida teaches the spot diameter is 50 [μm] or less (“The spot diameters of both upstream lasers 180L and 190L are preferably set within a range of 10 to 100 μm”).
With regard to claim 11, Aida teaches the processing target is cut by laser by performing a plurality of sweeps of the laser beam against the surface (“There is a front side coating region cutting step of irradiating the irradiated front side laser from the front side of the coating sheet along the portion of the front side coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet. Further, at least the back side laser that has a strength capable of cutting the back side active material layer and is focused, from the back side of the coating sheet, along the location of the back side coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet Irradiating, has a back side coating area cutting step. In addition, a laser for metal foil that is at least strong enough to cut the metal foil, and the focused laser for metal foil is applied from the front side of the coating sheet to a portion of the front side non-coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet. Or a non-coating region cutting step of irradiating the metal foil laser from the back side of the coating sheet along the portion of the back side non-coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet.”).
With regard to claim 12, Aida teaches each sweep in the sweeps of the laser beam is performed under a condition where cutting of the processing target is impossible in a single sweep (“There is a front side coating region cutting step of irradiating the irradiated front side laser from the front side of the coating sheet along the portion of the front side coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet. Further, at least the back side laser that has a strength capable of cutting the back side active material layer and is focused, from the back side of the coating sheet, along the location of the back side coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet Irradiating, has a back side coating area cutting step. In addition, a laser for metal foil that is at least strong enough to cut the metal foil, and the focused laser for metal foil is applied from the front side of the coating sheet to a portion of the front side non-coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet. Or a non-coating region cutting step of irradiating the metal foil laser from the back side of the coating sheet along the portion of the back side non-coating region in the virtual contour on the coating sheet.”).
With regard to claim 14, Aida teaches a step of removing coating material on the surface by laser beam application prior to a step of cutting the processing target by laser (“The electrode sheet cutting-out step S2 is performed after the coating sheet preparing step S1, as shown in FIG. The electrode sheet cutting step S2 includes a coating region cutting step T1, a non-coating region cutting step T2, and a recovery step T3. The coating region cutting step T1 includes a front side coating region cutting step T1a and a back side coating region cutting step T1b.”).
With regard to claim 15, Aida teaches the laser beam is swept along a same path on the surface in the step of removing the coating material on the surface and the step of cutting the processing target by laser (“The electrode sheet cutting-out step S2 is performed after the coating sheet preparing step S1, as shown in FIG. The electrode sheet cutting step S2 includes a coating region cutting step T1, a non-coating region cutting step T2, and a recovery step T3. The coating region cutting step T1 includes a front side coating region cutting step T1a and a back side coating region cutting step T1b.”).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 5, 10, and 13 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims (i.e., regarding claim 4: a new independent claim which includes ALL of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 4; regarding claim 5: a new independent claim which includes ALL of the limitations of claims 1, 2, and 5; regarding claim10: a new independent claim which includes ALL of the limitations of claims 10 and 1; regarding claim 13: a new independent claim which includes ALL of the limitations of claims 13, 12, 11, and 1), and additionally, assuming the above definiteness rejection(s) was overcome.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 EST.
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 on 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 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights