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 Group I (claims 1-2) in the reply filed on 02/26/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim 3 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/26/2026.
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:
“an absorption unit that received the first laser light and absorbs the first laser light unit an amount of the first laser light” in claim 1.
“a quality evaluation unit that outputs an evaluation result representing the quality of the laser processing at the processing target portion based on a measurement result”
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.
“an absorption unit” (claim 1) is interpreted as “The damping structure 40 is also referred to as an absorption unit. The damping structure 40 is a member that is formed in a tubular shape and that has one end that is open. The damping structure 40 is made of aluminum, for example. The damping structure 40 includes a first straight portion 42, a first bending portion 43, a second straight portion 44, a second bending portion 45, a third straight portion 46, and a terminal end portion 47. The first straight portion 42 is a passage extending along the Z-axis direction. The end of the first straight portion 42 on the positive Z side is open.” [0037] and [0038] of instant publication application.
“a quality evaluation unit” (claim 1) is interpreted as “The control unit 60 is also referred to as a quality evaluation unit. The functions of the control unit 60 are realized by a computer including a central processing unit (CPU) and a memory. The memory stores a program for executing a laser welding process. This program is executed by the CPU” [0054] and [0055] of instant publication application.
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
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 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Funami (CN 112643191 A).
Regarding claim 1, Funami discloses “a laser processing device” (fig.1) “including a function of evaluating quality of laser processing” (abstract, all, in particular at lines 1-4, i.e., The invention claims a laser welding quality inspection method and a laser welding quality inspection device. The method for inspecting laser welding quality is a method for inspecting the welding quality of the welding part of the joiner and the joined object by irradiating the jointer and the joined object by the laser beam), the laser processing device comprising:
“an oscillator” (fig.1, 1. On page 9, laser oscillator 1) that oscillates laser light;
“a mirror” (fig.1, 4. On page 9, Holofote) disposed in “an optical path of the laser light” (the mirror 4 is in the optical path of the laser light), in which “second laser light” (fig.1 shows the a light 10 perpendicular to the workpiece) that is “another part of the laser light is reflected by the mirror” (fig.1, 10 has a light path perpendicular to the workpiece, 10 is the another part of the laser light reflected by the mirror) while “first laser light that is a part of the laser light” (fig.1, 14 is a first laser light that is a part of the laser light) emitted from “the oscillator” (1) “is transmitted through the mirror” (on page 9, i.e., On the other hand, the laser beam 10 is not completely reflected by the holophote 4; about 0.5 % of the laser output is transmitted to the holophote 4; and the transmitted laser beam 14 is incident on the light-receiving sensor 8.) “to irradiate a processing target portion with the second laser light” (the second laser light 10 is perpendicular to the workpiece), and
“first reflected light” (11) that is a part of reflected light in which “the second laser light (fig.1, 10 shows the second laser light is perpendicular to the workpiece) “with which the processing target portion is irradiated is reflected by the processing target portion is transmitted through the mirror” (fig.1, 10 shows the second laser light is perpendicular to the workpiece and irradiate the target portion and then forms the reflected light 11 is transmitted through the mirror upwardly from the mirror 5);
“an absorption unit” (fig.1, 8. On page 9, light sensor 7) that receives “the first laser light” (first laser light 11 transmitted through optical devices 3,4,5 to the light sensor 7) and “absorbs the first laser light until an amount of the first laser light becomes equal to or less than a predetermined light amount” (Examiner noted that it is inherently and necessarily that the light sensor 7 inherently absorb light to function as the sensor rely on converting photon energy into electrical signal. Examiner noted that “a predetermined light amount” can be the light amount of first laser light 11. On page 9, i.e., When the laser welding is performed, the welding light 11 generated from the compound 15 is separated by the wavelength of the dichroic mirror 5 by the condenser lens 3 and the holophote 4. The wavelength-separated welding light, for example, by a band-pass filter (not shown), is divided into heat radiation light (e.g., wavelength 1300nm) 12 and plasma light (e.g., wavelength 400 ~ 700nm) 13, respectively incident to the light-receiving sensor 6, 7.);
“a sensor unit” (6) “that measures intensity of the first reflected light transmitted through the mirror” (at least a portion of the first reflected light 11 transmitted through the mirror 4. On page 9, i.e., based on the comparison of the signal intensity of the heat radiation light and the signal intensity of the plasma light, judging whether the welding part of the work piece comprises an abnormality. The sensor unit 6 receiving the portion of the first reflected light 12); and
“a quality evaluation unit” (30) “that outputs an evaluation result representing the quality of the laser processing at the processing target portion based on a measurement result of the intensity of the first reflected light measured by the sensor unit” (On page 10, i.e., The three optical signals incident on the light-receiving sensors 6, 7, 8 are transmitted to the welding-state determination means 30 and are signal-processed. welding state judging device 30 based on the result of the signal processing, judging whether the welding part of the compound 15 and the conjugate 16 comprises abnormality, the quality inspection of laser welding.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 2 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.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20050091859 [0035] FIG. 3b represents a conical totally reflecting mirror (holophote).
JP 2006247681 A.
JP 2694929 B2.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761