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 .
Claim Status
Claims 1-20 are pending:
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2024 is/are being considered by the examiner.
NPL 16 was not considered due to the document title and author in the IDS (“Lightweight materials such aluminum alloys offer a good comprise between weight” by Wallersteina) and the document title and author of the provided reference (“Developments in laser welding” by Wallerstein) not matching.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
Claim Interpretation - Language
Claims 12/19 have overlapping first and second hydrogen concentration ranges, which would result in an increase of hydrogen concentration from the first concentration to the second concentration. The range overlapping portion is not considered to invoke an issue under 35 USC 112(d) for failing to include the limitations of Claim 1, due to the fact when considering a possible infringement situation – the analysis for infringement of Claim 1 requires that hydrogen to be removed between a generic first and second concentration value. Therefore any possible infringement on the particular concentration ranges of Claims 12/19 where there is an overlap would never be invoked due to failing the analysis in Claim 1.
In short, a possible infringement situation where evaluation of an increased hydrogen concentration based on the particular ranges of Claim 12/19 would never exist due to that situation inherently having hydrogen being added to the arrangement (not removed) which would be a separate method that does not infringe on the scope of Claim 1.
Markush Claim Construction
The office would like to include an explicit discussion of Markush claim construction for the instant application. Guidance on Markush claim construction is discussed in MPEP 2117 which states “Claim language defined by a Markush grouping requires selection from a closed group "consisting of" the alternative members.”, and MPEP 2173.05(h) states “A Markush grouping is a closed group of alternatives, i.e., the selection is made from a group "consisting of" (rather than "comprising" or "including") the alternative members. … If a Markush grouping requires a material selected from an open list of alternatives (e.g., selected from the group "comprising" or "consisting essentially of" the recited alternatives), the claim should generally be rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as indefinite because it is unclear what other alternatives are intended to be encompassed by the claim.”
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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:
“an oil and gas production system” in claim 3
Corresponding structure:
Pipeline, vessel, pipe elbow, as informed by P1Para5 and Fig4
Or Equivalents
“an oil and gas transportation system” in claim 3
Corresponding structure:
Pipeline, vessel, pipe elbow, etc, as informed by P9Para1 and Fig4
Or Equivalents
“an oil and gas processing system” in claim 3
Corresponding structure:
Gas-oil separation plant, pipeline, vessel, pipe elbow, etc, as informed by P9Para1 and Fig4
Or 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 § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4-5, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hackel (US 7,723,643)
Claim 1
Hackel discloses:
“A method, comprising:
using a laser to heat (best seen Fig1, laser 16) a component comprising a material (best seen Fig1-2, workpiece 10) having a first hydrogen concentration to remove hydrogen from the material so that the material has a second hydrogen concentration which is less than the first hydrogen concentration (Abstract, Title, col. 2, ll. 25-27 “baking heat treatment is employed to expel any hydrogen”),
wherein the material comprises a metal (Claim 1, metal of steel, titanium, or aluminum).”
Claim 4
Hackel discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein the metal comprises a member selected from the group consisting of steel, iron, nickel, titanium, cobalt, aluminum and copper (Claim 1, metal of steel, titanium, or aluminum).”
Claim 5
Hackel discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein the metal comprises steel (Claim 1, metal of steel, titanium, or aluminum).”
Claim 20
Hackel discloses: “The method of claim 1, further comprising, before using the laser to heat the component (Abstract, Title, Claim 1 mapping), welding the component (C2L12-38, welding induced hydrogen embrittlement occurs prior to the hydrogen reduction laser process of Claim 1 mapping).”
Claim(s) 1, 4, 13-14, 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Yang (US 10,946,479)
Claim 1
Yang discloses:
“A method (best seen Fig1-3), comprising:
using a laser to heat (laser beam 24) a component comprising a material (workpiece 12/14/42) having a first hydrogen concentration to remove hydrogen from the material so that the material has a second hydrogen concentration which is less than the first hydrogen concentration (C5L39-58, C2L22-43, C15L28-42: laser 24 is run surrounding the weld region in order to purge the hydrogen from contained weld pool – first concentration of hydrogen would be when the weld pool is formed, the second concentration of hydrogen would be after the laser beam 24 purges the weld pool),
wherein the material comprises a metal (Abstract/Title, aluminum workpieces 12/14/42).”
Claim 4
Yang discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein the metal comprises a member selected from the group consisting of steel, iron, nickel, titanium, cobalt, aluminum and copper (Abstract/Title, aluminum workpieces 12/14/42).”
Claim 13
Yang discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein the laser comprises a carbon dioxide laser (Yang: C5L48-55, carbon dioxide laser).”
Claim 14
Yang discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein the laser has an average output power of 1 W to 60 kW (C15L14-16, 0.2 kW to 50kW).”
Claim 17
Yang discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein the laser has a beam diameter of 2.75 mm to 7.5 mm (C11L66-C12L10, Fig4, outer diameter 84 of laser 24 has a diameter of 3-15 mm).”
Claim 18
Yang discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein the laser is scanned, and the laser has a scan speed of 3 m/min to 13.15 m/min (Para31, laser scan speed on material feed ranges between 0-100 ft/min [0-30.48 m/min]).”
Claim 20
Yang discloses: “The method of claim 1, further comprising, before using the laser to heat the component, welding the component (best seen Fig4, weld pool is formed in area 82, this occurs to the workpiece 12/14/42 prior to the laser purging the hydrogen in the weld pool in outer area 84 due to the relative movement along travel pattern 74).”
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackel (US 7,723,643) in view of RU 173 017.
Claim 2
Hackel discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
Hackel is directed towards (C2L12-16) a metal component that has hydrogen embrittlement due to a part being welded. Hackel is silent to the particular shape/form of the weld joint workpiece.
RU 173 017 teaches (Fig1, overlap weld joint 7, pipe 1, coupling 6) that it is known to apply an overlap weld joint to form a weld connection between a pipe and a surrounding coupling to form a weld joint connection along a pipe for an oil-gas pipeline (Description Para1, “The proposed utility model relates to the design of pipelines, in particular, to a welded joint for connecting pipes with an internal protective coating, and can be used in the assembly of pipelines (metal, polymer, etc.) in the oil, gas, chemical, and other industries.”). The office notes that the pipe arrangement of RU 173 017 is: a pipe, by nature of being a pipe; a vessel, by nature of the pipe being a curved container than is used to hold liquid; and a flange, by nature of weld 7 being located on overlapping flange of coupling 6 around pipe 1 extending from sleeve 3.
Vessel, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vessel, accessed 03/03/2026, “a curved container that is used to hold liquid”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular application area in order to apply the arrangement of Hackel, as Hackel is silent to a particular application area, and RU 173 017 teaches that a pipe for an oil/gas pipeline is a known in the art application area for an overlap weld joint, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Hackel with a known in the art application area in order to actually practice the disclosure of Hackel in the real word application art area of a pipe for an oil/gas pipeline as taught by RU 173 017
Claim 3, as understood in light of the interpretation invoked by 35 USC 112(f) above
Hackel discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
Hackel is directed towards (C2L12-16) a metal component that has hydrogen embrittlement due to a part being welded. Hackel is silent to the particular shape/form of the weld joint workpiece.
RU 173 017 teaches (Fig1, overlap weld joint 7, pipe 1, coupling 6) that it is known to apply an overlap weld joint to form a weld connection between a pipe and a surrounding coupling to form a weld joint connection along a pipe for an oil-gas pipeline (Description Para1, “The proposed utility model relates to the design of pipelines, in particular, to a welded joint for connecting pipes with an internal protective coating, and can be used in the assembly of pipelines (metal, polymer, etc.) in the oil, gas, chemical, and other industries.”). The office notes that the pipe arrangement of RU 173 017 is: a pipe, by nature of being a pipe; a vessel, by nature of the pipe being a curved container than is used to hold liquid; and a flange, by nature of weld 7 being located on overlapping flange of coupling 6 around pipe 1 extending from sleeve 3.
Vessel, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vessel, accessed 03/03/2026, “a curved container that is used to hold liquid”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular application area in order to apply the arrangement of Hackel, as Hackel is silent to a particular application area, and RU 173 017 teaches that a pipe for an oil/gas pipeline is a known in the art application area for an overlap weld joint, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Hackel with a known in the art application area in order to actually practice the disclosure of Hackel in the real word application art area of a pipe for an oil/gas pipeline as taught by RU 173 017
Claim(s) 6-8, 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackel (US 7,723,643) in view of Kashulines (US 2022/0312792).
Claim 6
Hackel discloses the arrangement of Claim 5.
Hackel is silent to the particular laser used.
Kashulines (Para32) teaches that it is known in the art to use a carbon dioxide laser as a possible laser selection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Hackel to select a carbon dioxide laser as taught by Kashulines, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Hackel and Kashulines teaches that such a material section for the laser is a known in the art material selection, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Hackel with a known particular laser material as taught by Kashulines in order to practice the disclosure of Hackel.
Claim 7
The modified arrangement of Hackel by the teachings of Kashulines discloses: “The method of claim 6, wherein the laser has an average output power of 1 W to 60 kW (Kashulines: Para32, laser output power of 0.01-10 kW).”
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Hackel by the teachings of Kashulines discloses: “The method of claim 7, wherein the laser emits at a wavelength of 9 [mu]m to 11 [mu]m (Kashulines: Para32, laser wavelength between 5-15 microns i.e. [mu]m).”
Claim 13
Hackel discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
Hackel is silent to the particular laser used.
Kashulines (Para32) teaches that it is known in the art to use a carbon dioxide laser as a possible laser selection.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Hackel to select a carbon dioxide laser as taught by Kashulines, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Hackel and Kashulines teaches that such a material section for the laser is a known in the art material selection, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Hackel with a known particular laser material as taught by Kashulines in order to practice the disclosure of Hackel.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hackel (US 7,723,643)
Claim 19
Hackel discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein: the first hydrogen concentration is … to … (Hackel inherently has a first hydrogen concentration prior to the laser reducing the hydrogen concentration); and the second hydrogen concentration is … to … (Hackel inherently has a second hydrogen concentration after to the laser reduces the hydrogen concentration).”
Hackel is silent to the particular values of the first and second hydrogen concentrations due to the hydrogen reduction.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the particularly claimed concentration values solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the generic function of there inherently being a particular value for the first and second hydrogen concentrations in the real world, and it appears the inherent but not particularly specified hydrogen concentrations Hackel would perform equally well to that of Applicant.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify inherent but not explicitly specified hydrogen concentrations Hackel to those as particularly recited by the claim language for the purpose of explicitly indicating the values of the first and second hydrogen concentrations.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 10,946,479) in view of RU 173 017.
Claim 2
Yang discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
Yang is directed towards (C1L6-8) a weld joint of overlapping metal components. Yang is silent to the particular shape/form of the weld joint workpiece.
RU 173 017 teaches (Fig1, overlap weld joint 7, pipe 1, coupling 6) that it is known to apply an overlap weld joint to form a weld connection between a pipe and a surrounding coupling to form a weld joint connection along a pipe for an oil-gas pipeline (Description Para1, “The proposed utility model relates to the design of pipelines, in particular, to a welded joint for connecting pipes with an internal protective coating, and can be used in the assembly of pipelines (metal, polymer, etc.) in the oil, gas, chemical, and other industries.”). The office notes that the pipe arrangement of RU 173 017 is: a pipe, by nature of being a pipe; a vessel, by nature of the pipe being a curved container than is used to hold liquid; and a flange, by nature of weld 7 being located on overlapping flange of coupling 6 around pipe 1 extending from sleeve 3.
Vessel, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vessel, accessed 03/03/2026, “a curved container that is used to hold liquid”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular application area in order to apply the arrangement of Yang, as Yang is silent to a particular application area, and RU 173 017 teaches that a pipe for an oil/gas pipeline is a known in the art application area for an overlap weld joint, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Yang with a known in the art application area in order to actually practice the disclosure of Yang in the real word application art area of a pipe for an oil/gas pipeline as taught by RU 173 017
Claim 3, as understood in light of the interpretation invoked by 35 USC 112(f) above
Yang discloses the arrangement of claim 1.
Yang is directed towards (C1L6-8) a weld joint of overlapping metal components. Yang is silent to the particular shape/form of the weld joint workpiece.
RU 173 017 teaches (Fig1, overlap weld joint 7, pipe 1, coupling 6) that it is known to apply an overlap weld joint to form a weld connection between a pipe and a surrounding coupling to form a weld joint connection along a pipe for an oil-gas pipeline (Description Para1, “The proposed utility model relates to the design of pipelines, in particular, to a welded joint for connecting pipes with an internal protective coating, and can be used in the assembly of pipelines (metal, polymer, etc.) in the oil, gas, chemical, and other industries.”). The office notes that the pipe arrangement of RU 173 017 is: a pipe, by nature of being a pipe; a vessel, by nature of the pipe being a curved container than is used to hold liquid; and a flange, by nature of weld 7 being located on overlapping flange of coupling 6 around pipe 1 extending from sleeve 3.
Vessel, https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/vessel, accessed 03/03/2026, “a curved container that is used to hold liquid”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular application area in order to apply the arrangement of Yang, as Yang is silent to a particular application area, and RU 173 017 teaches that a pipe for an oil/gas pipeline is a known in the art application area for an overlap weld joint, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Yang with a known in the art application area in order to actually practice the disclosure of Yang in the real word application art area of a pipe for an oil/gas pipeline as taught by RU 173 017
Claim(s) 5-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 10,946,479) in view of Hackel (US 7,723,643)
Claim 5
Yang discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
Yang is silent to the metal being steel.
Hackel teaches (Claim 1) that it is known to use laser hydrogen concentration removal on various metals including steel, titanium, or aluminum.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Yang to substitute the workpiece material of aluminum to that of steel, as Hackel teaches that laser hydrogen concentration removal is applicable to both aluminum or steel workpieces, and the resulting arrangement the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Yang with improved usability as the process of Yang may be applied to additional workpiece materials.
Claim 6
The modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel discloses: “The method of claim 5, wherein the laser comprises a carbon dioxide laser (Yang: C5L48-55, carbon dioxide laser).”
Claim 7
The modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel discloses: “The method of claim 6, wherein the laser has an average output power of 1 W to 60 kW (Yang: C15L14-16, 0.2 kW to 50kW).”
Claim(s) 8-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 10,946,479) in view of Hackel (US 7,723,643), and in further view of Kashulines (US 2022/0312792)
Claim 8
The modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel discloses the arrangement of Claim 7.
The modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel is silent to the wavelength of the laser of Yang.
Kashulines teaches (Para32) that the carbon dioxide laser wavelength between 5-15 microns i.e. [mu]m).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel to select a carbon dioxide laser wavelength as taught by Kashulines, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel, and Kashulines teaches that a carbon dioxide laser wavelength between 5-15 microns is a known in the art carbon dioxide laser wavelength selection, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel with a known particular carbon dioxide laser wavelength as taught by Kashulines in order to practice the disclosure of the modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel.
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel and Kashulines discloses: “The method of claim 8, wherein the laser has a beam diameter of 2.75 mm to 7.5 mm (Yang: C11L66-C12L10, Fig4, outer diameter 84 of laser 24 has a diameter of 3-15 mm).”
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel and Kashulines discloses the arrangement of Claim 9.
The modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel and Kashulines is silent to the particular temperature the laser heats the material.
Kashulines teaches (Para46) that the laser beam can have a temperature of 350 Celsius or greater and that material around the working spot has a temperature between 100-1000 Celsius with 300/350/500 Celsius being explicit critical identified temperatures.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel and Kashulines to select a carbon dioxide laser temperature as taught by Kashulines, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel and Kashulines, and Kashulines teaches that a carbon dioxide laser temperature of 350 Celsius or greater that results in material around the working spot has a temperature between 100-1000 Celsius with 300/350/500 Celsius being explicit critical identified temperatures is a known in the art carbon dioxide laser temperature selection, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel and Kashulines with a known particular carbon dioxide laser temperature as taught by Kashulines in order to practice the disclosure of the modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel and Kashulines.
Claim 11
The modified arrangement of Yang by the teachings Hackel and Kashulines discloses: “The method of claim 10, wherein the laser is scanned, and the laser has a scan speed of 3 m/min to 13.15 m/min (Yang: Para31, laser scan speed on material feed ranges between 0-100 ft/min [0-30.48 m/min]).”
Claim(s) 15-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 10,946,479) in view of Kashulines (US 2022/0312792)
Claim 15
Yang discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
Yang is silent to the wavelength of the laser of Yang.
Kashulines teaches (Para32) that the carbon dioxide laser wavelength between 5-15 microns i.e. [mu]m).
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Yang to select a carbon dioxide laser wavelength as taught by Kashulines, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the arrangement of Yang, and Kashulines teaches that a carbon dioxide laser wavelength between 5-15 microns is a known in the art carbon dioxide laser wavelength selection, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Yang with a known particular carbon dioxide laser wavelength as taught by Kashulines in order to practice the disclosure of the arrangement of Yang.
Claim 16
Yang discloses the arrangement of Claim 1.
Yang is silent to the particular temperature the laser heats the material.
Kashulines teaches (Para46) that the laser beam can have a temperature of 350 Celsius or greater and that material around the working spot has a temperature between 100-1000 Celsius with 300/350/500 Celsius being explicit critical identified temperatures.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the arrangement of Yang to select a carbon dioxide laser temperature as taught by Kashulines, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the arrangement of Yang, and Kashulines teaches that a carbon dioxide laser temperature of 350 Celsius or greater that results in material around the working spot has a temperature between 100-1000 Celsius with 300/350/500 Celsius being explicit critical identified temperatures is a known in the art carbon dioxide laser temperature selection, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Yang with a known particular carbon dioxide laser temperature as taught by Kashulines in order to practice the disclosure of the arrangement of Yang.
Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yang (US 10,946,479)
Claim 19
Yang discloses: “The method of claim 1, wherein: the first hydrogen concentration is … to … (Yang inherently has a first hydrogen concentration prior to the laser reducing the hydrogen concentration); and the second hydrogen concentration is … to … (Yang inherently has a second hydrogen concentration after to the laser reduces the hydrogen concentration).”
Yang is silent to the particular values of the first and second hydrogen concentrations due to the hydrogen reduction.
Since applicant has not disclosed that having the particularly claimed concentration values solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the generic function of there inherently being a particular value for the first and second hydrogen concentrations in the real world, and it appears the inherent but not particularly specified hydrogen concentrations Yang would perform equally well to that of Applicant.
It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify inherent but not explicitly specified hydrogen concentrations Yang to those as particularly recited by the claim language for the purpose of explicitly indicating the values of the first and second hydrogen concentrations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 12 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.
Claim 12
The prior art of record fails to anticipate or render obvious the limitations of the claim, and in particular the limitations of claim 12 in combination with the remaining limitations of claims 1 + (5 to 11).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 12,268,223 to Kashulines: US Patent version of Kashulines above
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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 at 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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761