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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 03/09/2023 and 03/14/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(3)(i) because it does not include a concise explanation of the relevance, as it is presently understood by the individual designated in 37 CFR 1.56(c) most knowledgeable about the content of the information, of each reference listed that is not in the English language. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “ΔX” shown in Fig.6 of the drawings but not mentioned in the description. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a workpiece” in line 4. It is understood that the limitation “a workpiece” recited in claim 1 (line 4) refers to “a workpiece” recited previously in the preamble of claim 1 (line 1). Therefore, the limitation “a workpiece” recited in claim 1 (line 4) should read “the workpiece” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 1).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a cylindrical machining region” in line 5. It is understood that the limitation “a cylindrical machining region” recited in claim 1 (line 5) refers to “a cylindrical machining region” recited previously in the preamble of claim 1 (line 2). Therefore, the limitation “a cylindrical machining region” recited in claim 1 (line 5) should read “the cylindrical machining region” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 2).
Claims 2-6 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the threshold” in line 7. It is understood that the limitation “the threshold” recited in claim 6 (line 7) refers to the limitation “a predetermined threshold” recited previously in claim 6 (line 6). Therefore, the limitation “the threshold” recited in claim 6 (line 7) should read “the predetermined threshold” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 6 (line 6).
Appropriate correction is required.
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:
“feed mechanism structured to move a workpiece relative to a cylindrical machining region of laser light” in claim 1 (lines 4-5),
“feed mechanism moves the workpiece relative to the cylindrical machining region of the laser light a plurality of times along a predetermined machining locus to machine the workpiece” in claim 4 (lines 3-6),
“feed mechanism moves the workpiece relative to the cylindrical machining region of the laser light once along a predetermined machining locus to machine the workpiece” in claim 5 (lines 3-6), and
“feed mechanism to move the workpiece relative to the cylindrical machining region of the laser light on condition that the light intensity at each machining position is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold Ith” in claim 5 (lines 6-10).
These limitations use generic placeholder “mechanism” (Prong A); the term “mechanism” is modified by functional language: “structured to move a workpiece relative to a cylindrical machining region of laser light” as recited in claim 1, “moves the workpiece relative to the cylindrical machining region of the laser light a plurality of times along a predetermined machining locus to machine the workpiece” as recited in claim 4, “moves the workpiece relative to the cylindrical machining region of the laser light once along a predetermined machining locus to machine the workpiece” and “to move the workpiece relative to the cylindrical machining region of the laser light on condition that the light intensity at each machining position is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold Ith” as recited in claim 5 (Prong B); and the term “mechanism” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “feed mechanism” will be interpreted as “displacement mechanism and the actuator, each of which includes at least one motor” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0014: “The displacement mechanism 11 and the actuator 12, each of which includes at least one motor, constitute a feed mechanism that moves the workpiece 20 relative to the cylindrical machining region of the laser light 2.”.
“light receiver structured to receive the laser light that has passed through without being used for machining the workpiece” in claim 1 (lines 6-8).
This limitation uses generic placeholder “receiver” (Prong A); the term “receiver” is modified by functional language: “structured to receive the laser light that has passed through without being used for machining the workpiece” (Prong B); and the term “receiver” 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 “light receiver” will be interpreted as “light-receptive element such as photodiode or phototransistor” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0017: “The light receiver 16 includes light-receptive elements, for example, photodiode, phototransistor, etc.”
“intensity detector structured to detect light intensity of the laser light received” in claim 1 (lines 9-10), “light intensity detected by the intensity detector” in claim 6 (line 4) and “light intensity I0 detected by the intensity detector” in claim 6 (lines 7-8)
These limitations use generic placeholder “detector” (Prong A); the term “detector” is modified by functional language: “structured to detect light intensity of the laser light received” as recited in claim 1, “light intensity detected by” and “light intensity I0 detected by” as recited in claim 6 (Prong B); and the term “detector” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, these limitations invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f). It is noted that Par.0018 of the Instant Application describes: “The light receiver 16 and the intensity detector 18 may be separate from each other, or may be inseparable from each other.”. However, there is no other structures associated with the intensity detector described in the Specification besides the structure of the light receiver. Therefore, in this case, for examination purposes, the limitation “intensity detector” will be interpreted as to be inseparable from the light receiver, as indicated by Par.0018 of the Instant Application, and thus, the intensity detector is “photodiode or phototransistor, and equivalents”.
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 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 1-6 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 the limitation “the basis” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “basis” recited previously. Thus, it is unclear what “the basis” herein refers to.
Claims 2-6 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “wherein when there is no change in the light intensity detected, the controller detects the end of machining” in lines 3-4. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 3 depends on claim 2; however, claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein the controller detects the end of machining on the basis of a change in the light intensity detected” previously in lines 3-4. Thus, claim 2 requires the controller to detect the end of machining on the basis of a change in the light intensity detected; claim 3 depends on claim 2, however, claim 3 requires the controller to detect the end of machining when there is no change in the light intensity detected. Thus, claim 3 contradict with claim 2. The Specification of the Instant Application describes: “The controller may detect the end of machining on the basis of the light intensity thus detected. Specifically, when there is no change in the detected light intensity, the controller may detect the end of machining.” in Par.0054. Thus, it is understood from the Specification of the Instant Application that the controller may detect the end of machining on the basis of the light intensity in a way that when there is no change in the detected light intensity, the controller may detect the end of machining. Thus, based on the Specification of the Instant Application, it is clear that the end of machining depends on the light intensity in a way that when there is no change in the detected light intensity, the controller may detect the end of machining. However, the Claims are drafted different from the Specification. Specifically, claim 2 requires the controller to detect the end of machining on the basis of a change in the light intensity detected; however, claim 3 depends on claim 2, and claim 3 requires the controller to detect the end of machining when there is no change in the light intensity detected. Therefore, claim 3 is unclear and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph.
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 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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Etsuchi et al. (JP S61189885 A, Published 08/23/1986, Translation of the prior art Etsuchi is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Etsuchi discloses a machining apparatus (apparatus 30, Etsuchi Fig.8) that machines a workpiece (workpiece, Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 below) by scanning a cylindrical machining region (it is well known in the art that the cross-sectional shape of the laser beam is circular when the laser beam is cut in a plane that is perpendicular to the beam axis, thus, the laser beam having cylindrical region representing cylindrical machining region) including a focused spot of laser light (laser beam B, Etsuchi Fig.8), the machining apparatus (apparatus 30, Etsuchi Fig.8) comprising:
a feed mechanism (power rollers 34 and 39 driven by constant speed motors 32 and 37, Etsuchi Fig.8 and Translated Par.0017) structured to move a workpiece (workpiece, Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 below) relative to a cylindrical machining region (it is well known in the art that the cross-sectional shape of the laser beam is circular when the laser beam is cut in a plane that is perpendicular to the beam axis, thus, the laser beam having cylindrical region representing cylindrical machining region) of laser light (laser beam B, Etsuchi Fig.8);
a light receiver (“one or more sensors”, Etsuchi Translated Par.0020) structured to receive the laser light that has passed through without being used for machining the workpiece (workpiece, Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 below) (Etsuchi Translated Par.0020 discloses: “In a form of adaptive control, one or more sensors are used to detect changes in the direct and / or reflected radiation after the beam has crossed the workpiece to provide a feedback signal that is directly used and analyzed to perform scanning operations and radiation beam control …. a photoelectric detector, such as a phototransistor or photodiode, is fixedly positioned with respect to the laser or laser beam; The direct quantity from the moving laser is applied to move and scan the applied light or the light reflected from the surface of the tool during the sharpening operation or during individual light detections prior to initiating a more focused beam sharpening operation. That is, the detector receives light generated when the laser or auxiliary laser is operated at a low intensity to direct an illumination beam along a path coincident with or parallel to the path of the machining or vaporization laser beam, or generated during beam erosion and / or beam vaporization operations thereof.”; therefore, Etsuchi discloses one or more sensors configured to receive the laser light that has passed through without being used for machining the workpiece);
an intensity detector (“a photoelectric detector, such as a phototransistor or photodiode”, Etsuchi Translated Par.0020) (See the 35 U.S.C. 112 (f) Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “intensity detector”. In this case, the limitation “intensity detector” is being interpreted as to be inseparable from the light receiver, as indicated by Par.0018 of the Instant Application, and thus, the intensity detector is “photodiode or phototransistor, and equivalents”, see detailed explanation above in the Claim Interpretation section) structured to detect light intensity of the laser light (laser beam B, Etsuchi Fig.8) received (Etsuchi Translated Pars.0020-0021 discloses the photoelectric detector, such as phototransistor or photodiode configured to detect light intensity of the laser light received); and
a controller (computer or microprocessor, Etsuchi Translated Pars.0019 & 0023) structured to detect end of machining on the basis of the light intensity detected (Etsuchi discloses the controller or microprocessor configured to detect end of machining on the basis of the light intensity detected because Etsuchi Translated Par.0021 discloses: “It is generated by detecting the appearance or non-appearance of light energy and is used to automatically control one or more motors which drive the workpiece and / or the laser or laser beam mirror to appropriately control the scanning motion for the purposes described, including forming or sharpening the cutting edge of the tool. For example, when such a photoelectric detector detects direct laser light, the signal generated by the detector may be used to terminate or prevent operation of the laser in a mode in which a highly concentrated beam is generated to vaporize the workpiece until the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam. There, a control signal is generated by means of a simple electronic logic which controls the laser to increase the intensity for evaporating or eroding material along the cutting edge until the scanning axis of the beam again exceeds the cutting edge and at least direct irradiation is detected”, and Par.0023 discloses: “These photoelectric detectors are used as described above to IIJIII the outgoing signals, the signals processed by the computer, and the generation and scanning of the beams to shape or sharpen the cutting edges of the tools. It is positioned to detect such direct and reflected light to provide an output signal that is processed and analyzed by a computer. Such output signals are, after computer analysis, compared with reference signals retrieved from memory so as to generate control signals for controlling the operation of the laser and / or the relative scanning movement between the laser beam and the tool as described above.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Etsuchi discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Etsuchi also discloses:
wherein the controller (computer or microprocessor, Etsuchi Translated Pars.0019 & 0023) detects the end of machining on the basis of a change in the light intensity detected (Etsuchi discloses the controller detects the end of machining on the basis of a change in the light intensity detected because Etsuchi Translated Par.0021 discloses: “It is generated by detecting the appearance or non-appearance of light energy and is used to automatically control one or more motors which drive the workpiece and / or the laser or laser beam mirror to appropriately control the scanning motion for the purposes described, including forming or sharpening the cutting edge of the tool. For example, when such a photoelectric detector detects direct laser light, the signal generated by the detector may be used to terminate or prevent operation of the laser in a mode in which a highly concentrated beam is generated to vaporize the workpiece until the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam. There, a control signal is generated by means of a simple electronic logic which controls the laser to increase the intensity for evaporating or eroding material along the cutting edge until the scanning axis of the beam again exceeds the cutting edge and at least direct irradiation is detected”, and Par.0023 discloses: “These photoelectric detectors are used as described above to IIJIII the outgoing signals, the signals processed by the computer, and the generation and scanning of the beams to shape or sharpen the cutting edges of the tools. It is positioned to detect such direct and reflected light to provide an output signal that is processed and analyzed by a computer. Such output signals are, after computer analysis, compared with reference signals retrieved from memory so as to generate control signals for controlling the operation of the laser and / or the relative scanning movement between the laser beam and the tool as described above.”).
Regarding claim 3, Etsuchi discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 2, Etsuchi also discloses:
wherein when there is no change in the light intensity detected, the controller (computer or microprocessor, Etsuchi Translated Pars.0019 & 0023) detects the end of machining (Etsuchi discloses when there is no change in the light intensity detected, the controller detects the end of machining because Etsuchi Translated Par.0021 discloses when a photoelectric detector detects direct laser light, the signal generated by the detector may be used to terminate or prevent operation of the laser in a mode in which a highly concentrated beam is generated to vaporize the workpiece until the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam. Since the cutting edge of the tool of the workpiece appears in the scanning axis of the beam, the beam would pass adjacent to the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam, in other words, the laser beam will not be interrupted by the surface of the workpiece anymore after the cutting edge is formed on the workpiece; therefore, there is no change in the light intensity when the light is received by the detector; and thus, there is no change in the light intensity detected; therefore, Etsuchi discloses when there is no change in the light intensity detected, the controller detects the end of machining; specifically, Etsuchi Translated Par.0021 discloses: “It is generated by detecting the appearance or non-appearance of light energy and is used to automatically control one or more motors which drive the workpiece and / or the laser or laser beam mirror to appropriately control the scanning motion for the purposes described, including forming or sharpening the cutting edge of the tool. For example, when such a photoelectric detector detects direct laser light, the signal generated by the detector may be used to terminate or prevent operation of the laser in a mode in which a highly concentrated beam is generated to vaporize the workpiece until the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam. There, a control signal is generated by means of a simple electronic logic which controls the laser to increase the intensity for evaporating or eroding material along the cutting edge until the scanning axis of the beam again exceeds the cutting edge and at least direct irradiation is detected”, and Par.0023 discloses: “These photoelectric detectors are used as described above to IIJIII the outgoing signals, the signals processed by the computer, and the generation and scanning of the beams to shape or sharpen the cutting edges of the tools. It is positioned to detect such direct and reflected light to provide an output signal that is processed and analyzed by a computer. Such output signals are, after computer analysis, compared with reference signals retrieved from memory so as to generate control signals for controlling the operation of the laser and / or the relative scanning movement between the laser beam and the tool as described above.”).
Regarding claim 4, Etsuchi discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Etsuchi also discloses:
wherein when the feed mechanism (power rollers 34 and 39 driven by constant speed motors 32 and 37, Etsuchi Fig.8 and Translated Par.0017) moves the workpiece (workpiece, Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 below) relative to the cylindrical machining region (it is well known in the art that the cross-sectional shape of the laser beam is circular when the laser beam is cut in a plane that is perpendicular to the beam axis, thus, the laser beam having cylindrical region representing cylindrical machining region) of the laser light (laser beam B, Etsuchi Fig.8) a plurality of times along a predetermined machining locus to machine the workpiece (workpiece, Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 below) (Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 & Translated Pars.0017-0018 discloses the power rollers 34 and 39 driven by constant speed motors 32 and 37 in order to drive the workpiece at a constant speed in a given direction plurality of times along predetermined machining locus to machine the workpiece in order to form a cutting edge on the workpiece), the controller (computer or microprocessor, Etsuchi Translated Pars.0019 & 0023) detects the end of machining when light intensity at each machining position detected during previous machining becomes equal to light intensity at each machining position detected during current machining (Etsuchi discloses computer or microprocessor detects the end of machining when light intensity at each machining position detected during previous machining becomes equal to light intensity at each machining position detected during current machining because Etsuchi Translated Par.0021 discloses when a photoelectric detector detects direct laser light, the signal generated by the detector may be used to terminate or prevent operation of the laser in a mode in which a highly concentrated beam is generated to vaporize the workpiece until the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam. Since the cutting edge of the tool of the workpiece appears in the scanning axis of the beam, the beam would pass adjacent to the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam, in other words, the laser beam will not be interrupted by the surface of the workpiece anymore after the cutting edge is formed on the workpiece, thus, there is no change in the light intensity detected between previous machining and current machining when the cutting edge of the tool is already formed. Therefore, Etsuchi discloses computer or microprocessor detects the end of machining when light intensity at each machining position detected during previous machining becomes equal to light intensity at each machining position detected during current machining because Etsuchi Translated Par.0021 discloses when photoelectric detector detects direct laser light, the signal generated by the detector may be used to terminate or prevent operation of the laser in a mode in which a highly concentrated beam is generated to vaporize the workpiece until the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam, and it is noted that when the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam is when light intensity at each machining position detected during previous machining becomes equal to light intensity at each machining position detected during current machining, as explained in details previously; Etsuchi Translated Par.0021 discloses: “It is generated by detecting the appearance or non-appearance of light energy and is used to automatically control one or more motors which drive the workpiece and / or the laser or laser beam mirror to appropriately control the scanning motion for the purposes described, including forming or sharpening the cutting edge of the tool. For example, when such a photoelectric detector detects direct laser light, the signal generated by the detector may be used to terminate or prevent operation of the laser in a mode in which a highly concentrated beam is generated to vaporize the workpiece until the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam. There, a control signal is generated by means of a simple electronic logic which controls the laser to increase the intensity for evaporating or eroding material along the cutting edge until the scanning axis of the beam again exceeds the cutting edge and at least direct irradiation is detected”, and Par.0023 discloses: “These photoelectric detectors are used as described above to IIJIII the outgoing signals, the signals processed by the computer, and the generation and scanning of the beams to shape or sharpen the cutting edges of the tools. It is positioned to detect such direct and reflected light to provide an output signal that is processed and analyzed by a computer. Such output signals are, after computer analysis, compared with reference signals retrieved from memory so as to generate control signals for controlling the operation of the laser and / or the relative scanning movement between the laser beam and the tool as described above.”).
PNG
media_image1.png
536
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
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 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP S61189885 A, Published 08/23/1986, Translation of the prior art Etsuchi is attached) in view of Zhang et al. (CN 207516723 U, Published 06/19/2018, Translation of the prior art Zhang is attached).
Regarding claim 5, Etsuchi discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Etsuchi also discloses:
wherein when the feed mechanism (power rollers 34 and 39 driven by constant speed motors 32 and 37, Etsuchi Fig.8 and Translated Par.0017) moves the workpiece (workpiece, Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 below) relative to the cylindrical machining region (it is well known in the art that the cross-sectional shape of the laser beam is circular when the laser beam is cut in a plane that is perpendicular to the beam axis, thus, the laser beam having cylindrical region representing cylindrical machining region) of the laser light (laser beam B, Etsuchi Fig.8) once along a predetermined machining locus to machine the workpiece (workpiece, Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 below) (Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 & Translated Pars.0017-0018 discloses the power rollers 34 and 39 driven by constant speed motors 32 and 37 in order to drive the workpiece at a constant speed in a given direction once along predetermined machining locus to machine the workpiece in order to form cutting edge on the workpiece), the controller (computer or microprocessor, Etsuchi Translated Pars.0019 & 0023) controls the feed mechanism (power rollers 34 and 39 driven by constant speed motors 32 and 37, Etsuchi Fig.8 and Translated Par.0017) to move the workpiece (workpiece, Etsuchi annotated Fig.8 below) relative to the cylindrical machining region (it is well known in the art that the cross-sectional shape of the laser beam is circular when the laser beam is cut in a plane that is perpendicular to the beam axis, thus, the laser beam having cylindrical region representing cylindrical machining region) of the laser light (laser beam B, Etsuchi Fig.8) on condition of the light intensity (Etsuchi discloses the controller or microprocessor configured to control power rollers 34 and 39 to drive the workpiece relative to the cylindrical machining region of the laser beam B on condition of the light intensity because Etsuchi Translated Par.0021 discloses: “It is generated by detecting the appearance or non-appearance of light energy and is used to automatically control one or more motors which drive the workpiece and / or the laser or laser beam mirror to appropriately control the scanning motion for the purposes described, including forming or sharpening the cutting edge of the tool. For example, when such a photoelectric detector detects direct laser light, the signal generated by the detector may be used to terminate or prevent operation of the laser in a mode in which a highly concentrated beam is generated to vaporize the workpiece until the cutting edge of the tool appears in the scanning axis of the beam. There, a control signal is generated by means of a simple electronic logic which controls the laser to increase the intensity for evaporating or eroding material along the cutting edge until the scanning axis of the beam again exceeds the cutting edge and at least direct irradiation is detected”, and Par.0023 discloses: “These photoelectric detectors are used as described above to IIJIII the outgoing signals, the signals processed by the computer, and the generation and scanning of the beams to shape or sharpen the cutting edges of the tools. It is positioned to detect such direct and reflected light to provide an output signal that is processed and analyzed by a computer. Such output signals are, after computer analysis, compared with reference signals retrieved from memory so as to generate control signals for controlling the operation of the laser and / or the relative scanning movement between the laser beam and the tool as described above.”)
PNG
media_image1.png
536
692
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Etsuchi does not explicitly discloses:
on condition that the light intensity at each machining position is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold Ith.
Zhang teaches a laser system (Zhang Fig.5):
the controller (processor 16, Zhang Fig.5) controls the feed mechanism (drive section 14, Zhang Fig.5) to move the workpiece (substrate 20, Zhang Fig.5) relative to the machining region of the laser light on condition that the light intensity at each machining position is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold Ith (Zhang teaches the processor 16 controls the drive section 14 to move the substrate 20 relative to the machining region of the laser light on condition that the light intensity at each machining position is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold because Zhang Translated Document on page 6 paragraph 5 teaches: “processor 16 with the illuminance sensor 18 and the driving part 14 are connected, the processor 16 for the illuminance sensor 18 the detected illumination intensity is greater than or equal to the preset illumination intensity threshold, the control driving part 14 driving polarizer 13 and/or the glass substrate 20 to rotate.”, and Zhang Translated Document on page 6 paragraph 7 teaches: “when the illumination intensity is greater than or equal to the preset illumination intensity threshold, it shows that the included angle polarization direction of the polarizer 13 with the polarization direction of the polarizing film layer 22 does not meet a predetermined requirement. processor 16 controls the drive section 14 drives the glass substrate 20 and/or the polarizer 13, the illuminance sensor 18 can simultaneously detect the illumination intensity, the processor 16 according to the feedback real-time illumination intensity judging polarizer 13 and glass substrate 20 rotation angle satisfies the requirement until the illumination intensity is less than the preset illumination intensity threshold value, controls the driving part 14 stops working.”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Etsuchi, by adding the teaching of the controller controls the feed mechanism to move the workpiece relative to the machining region of the laser light on condition that the light intensity at each machining position is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, as taught by Zhang, in order to deliver sufficient energy density to the workpiece’s surface to rapidly heat, melt, and vaporize it for effective material removal. Therefore, making the laser process efficient. Thus, increasing production efficiency and throughput.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over (JP S61189885 A, Published 08/23/1986, Translation of the prior art Etsuchi is attached) in view of Mori (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0126492 A1) and further in view of Suwa et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2020/0290156 A1).
Regarding claim 6, Etsuchi discloses the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Etsuchi does not explicitly discloses:
wherein the controller detects the end of machining when the light intensity detected by the intensity detector during machining with the laser light becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold Ith, and
the threshold Ith is obtained by multiplying light intensity I0 detected by the intensity detector when the workpiece is not irradiated with the laser light by a value α less than 1.
Mori teaches a laser processing system (11, Mori Fig.2) having a controller (controller 7, Mori Fig.2):
wherein the controller (controller 7, Mori Fig.2) detects the end of machining when the light intensity detected by the intensity detector (sensor 6, Mori Fig.2) during machining with the laser light becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold (see steps in Mori Fig.4. To be more specific, Mori Par.0037 teaches: “The laser processing system 11 according to the first embodiment is characterized by a point that the auxiliary controller 7 generates a logic signal that forcedly controls transmission/stop of a laser beam in accordance with the intensity of the light measured by the sensor 6.”; and Mori Pars.0055-0059 & Fig.4 teaches steps S111-S116, the controller 7 determines whether or not the intensity of the radiation light 61 is equal to or higher than a threshold, and when the intensity of the radiation light 61 is equal to or larger than the threshold, the laser output is stopped.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Etsuchi, by adding the teaching of the controller detects the end of machining when the light intensity detected by the intensity detector during machining with the laser light becomes equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold, as taught by Mori, in order to prevent a workpiece from being damaged, as recognized by Mori [Mori, Pars.0006, 0010]. Thus, the modification would provide higher precision and accuracy, better material integrity, and reduced finishing steps, which ultimately leads to increased efficiency and cost savings.
Etsuchi in view of Mori does not teach:
the threshold Ith is obtained by multiplying light intensity I0 detected by the intensity detector when the workpiece is not irradiated with the laser light by a value α less than 1.
Suwa teaches a laser processing system:
the threshold Ith is obtained by multiplying light intensity I0 detected by the intensity detector when the workpiece is not irradiated with the laser light by a value α less than 1 (Suwa Par.0326 teaches: “the laser processing control unit 32C calculates, in accordance with Expression (10) below, the threshold Ith as a light intensity indicating 1/e2 of the maximum light intensity Imax (S1033). Ith=Imax/e 2 (10)”. Therefore, according to Suwa, the threshold Ith is obtained by multiplying light intensity Imax by a value 1/e2, which is less than 1. It is noted that the intensity of laser light is lower after passing through the workpiece because a portion of the laser beam’s energy is absorbed, reflected, and/or scattered by the workpiece, thus, the light intensity detected by the intensity detector when the workpiece is not irradiated with the laser light is interpreted as the maximum light intensity. It is further noted that the primary reference Etsuchi already discloses light intensity detected by the intensity detector, as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above. Therefore, in combination, Etsuchi in view of Mori and Suwa teaches the threshold Ith is obtained by multiplying light intensity detected by the intensity detector when the workpiece is not irradiated with the laser light by a value of 1/e2, which is equal to 0.135, which is less than 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention modify Etsuchi in view of Mori, by adding the teaching of the threshold is obtained by multiplying light intensity detected by the intensity detector when the workpiece is not irradiated with the laser light by a value less than 1, as taught by Suwa, in order to provide the threshold that is less than the maximum intensity of the laser light source; thus, preventing the workpiece from being damaged. Therefore, the modification would maintain final product quality, ensure structural integrity, reduce waste and post-processing, and achieve high precision.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Mochizuki (U.S. Patent No. 10,722,975 B2) discloses a laser processing device wherein in response to the monitored temporal change in the intensity of the reflected beam indicating that the intensity of the reflected beam is greater than or equal to the intensity threshold, execute a stop process by stopping the irradiation of the laser beam and preventing execution of the next process.
Ohyama et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2017/0282301 A1) discloses a laser processing device having a function for reducing intensity of a reflected laser beam, without stopping laser oscillation, in order to avoid a malfunction due to the reflected beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/15/2025