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 Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-5, 7, 8 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briand (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0012570) in view of Briand2 (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0024831)
Regarding claim 1. A method for laser fusion cutting a workpiece, which comprises the steps of:
Briand disclose Figs. 1 and 2, and [0040]-[0065]:
directing a laser beam(3) and a cutting gas(9) at a cutting gas pressure at a workpiece surface by means of a convergent cutting nozzle(Fig. 1, 7), the convergent cutting nozzle(7) having a nozzle end face on a workpiece side(7 facing 10);
setting a laser power to be at least 6 kW(claim 5);
setting a distance between the nozzle end face and the workpiece surface during the laser fusion cutting to be 2 to 8 mm([0062]);
Briand does not disclose:
setting a diameter of a nozzle channel of the convergent cutting nozzle at the nozzle end face on the workpiece side to be 1.5 to 4 mm; and
setting the cutting gas pressure before emergence from the convergent cutting nozzle to be 15 to 30 bar.
In related art, Brland2 discloses:
setting a diameter of a nozzle channel of the convergent cutting nozzle at the nozzle end face on the workpiece side to be 1.5 to 4 mm; and ([0020])
setting the cutting gas pressure before emergence from the convergent cutting nozzle to be 15 to 30 bar([0020]).
Briand2 discloses that the recited features provide good cutting of stainless steel. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Brand in view of the teachings of Brand2 for the obvious benefit of obtaining a desired cut of a stainless-steel substrate. As such, the recited features of claim 1 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 2.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Briand does not discloses:
The method according to claim 1, which further comprises maintaining the distance between the nozzle end face and the workpiece surface throughout a cutting process.
However, the distance between the nozzle of the device of Briand could be kept constant, or changed, for the obvious benefit of obtaining a desired cut of a substrate. A such, it would have been obvious to try the recited features for the obvious benefit of obtaining a desired cut a substrate. See MPEP 2143(I)(E).
Regarding claim 3.
Briand discloses: The method according to claim 1, which further comprises providing a single-channel nozzle or an annular die as the convergent cutting nozzle.(7, [0045][0060]-[0062])
Regarding claim 4.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1:
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the cutting gas pressure before emergence from the convergent cutting nozzle is more than 18 bar.
In related art, Briand2 discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the cutting gas pressure before emergence from the convergent cutting nozzle is more than 18 bar([0020]).
Briand2 discloses that the pressure is selected based on the thickness of the substrate that is to be cut. The pressure may be less than or more than 10 bar. IT would have bee obvious to try a pressure higher than 18 bar for the benefit of cutting a desired substrate as taught by Briand2. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Thus, the features of claim 4 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 5.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1:
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, which further comprises moving the convergent cutting nozzle relative to the workpiece at least at times at a cutting speed of at least 60 m/min.
However in related art, Brand2 discloses:
Cutting speed is affected by material cut. See [0004]. The speed may be less than or more than 60m/min. IT would have been obvious to try a speed higher than 60 m/min for the benefit of cutting a desired substrate at higher speed as taught by Briand2. See MPEP 2143(I)(E). Thus, the features of claim 5 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 7.
Briand discloses:
The method according to claim 1, which further comprises setting the laser power during a cutting operation to be at least 10 kW.(See abstract)
Regarding claim 8.
Briand discloses:
The method according to claim 1, which further comprises carrying out the method on workpieces with a workpiece thickness of at least 4 mm.([0024])
Regarding claim 13.
Briand discloses: The method according to claim 1, wherein: the workpiece is a plate-shaped workpiece(10); the cutting gas is nitrogen(abstract [0024]);
Briand does not disclose:
and the distance between the nozzle end face and the workpiece surface during the laser fusion cutting is 4 to 8 mm.
However, Briand2 discloses that the processing parameters may be adjusted based on desired cuts, material to be cut and the power used. See [0004]. And [0046]. As such, it would have been obvious to select to recited spacing of the nozzle from the work piece for the obvious benefit of obtaining a desired cut of a desired material. As such, the recited features would have been obvious.
Claims 6, 9-12 and 14-16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Briand (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0012570) in view of Briand2 (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2012/0024831) in view of Mach (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2019/0240786).
Regarding claim 6.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a focal position of the laser beam lies on the workpiece surface or in a workpiece half facing towards the convergent cutting nozzle.
In related art Mach discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a focal position of the laser beam lies on the workpiece surface or in a workpiece half facing towards the convergent cutting nozzle.([0046]) Mach discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of faster processing times of a work piece. IT would have been obvious to modify Briand in view of Mach for the obvious benefit of reducing start up and processing times of the device of Briand. As such, the features of claim 6 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam punctures the workpiece surface at least at one puncture point while the convergent cutting nozzle and the workpiece are being moved relative to one another.
In related art, Mach discloses:
The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam punctures the workpiece surface at least at one puncture point while the convergent cutting nozzle and the workpiece are being moved relative to one another. (See abstract [0035])
Mach discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of faster processing times of a work piece. IT would have been obvious to modify Briand in view of Mach for the obvious benefit of reducing start up times of the device of Briand. As such, the features of claim 9 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 10.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises reducing an advancement speed to a puncture speed at the at least one puncture point.
In related art, Mach discloses:
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises reducing an advancement speed to a puncture speed at the at least one puncture point.(See abstract and [0045]-[0051]) Mach discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of faster processing times of a work piece. IT would have been obvious to modify Briand in view of Mach for the obvious benefit of reducing start up times of the device of Briand. As such, the features of claim 10 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 11.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 10, which further comprises reducing the advancement speed to the puncture speed over a displacement distance of less than 2 mm with a result that the puncture speed is reached at the at least one puncture point.
In related art, Mach discloses:
The method according to claim 10, which further comprises reducing the advancement speed to the puncture speed over a displacement distance of less than 2 mm with a result that the puncture speed is reached at the at least one puncture point.
(See abstract and [0040]-[0051]) Mach discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of faster processing times of a work piece. IT would have been obvious to modify Briand in view of Mach for the obvious benefit of reducing start up times of the device of Briand. As such, the features of claim 11 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 12. Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 10, wherein after the laser beam punctures the workpiece surface, the puncture speed is maintained for a few milliseconds and then the advancement speed is increased back up to a cutting speed.
In related art, Mach discloses:
The method according to claim 10, wherein after the laser beam punctures the workpiece surface, the puncture speed is maintained for a few milliseconds and then the advancement speed is increased back up to a cutting speed.
(See abstract and [0040]-[0051]) Mach discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of faster processing times of a work piece. IT would have been obvious to modify Briand in view of Mach for the obvious benefit of reducing start up times of the device of Briand. As such, the features of claim 12 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 14.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 1, wherein a focal position of the laser beam lies on the workpiece surface or in a workpiece half facing towards the convergent cutting nozzle and lies between 0.2 mm and 1.5 mm below a top side of the workpiece.
IN related art, Mach discloses that the focal point may be displaced based on compensating based on thermal issues. [0040], [0046]-[0047] As such, it would have bveen obvious to place the focal point as recited based on a desire to obtain a desired cut in a desired material. As such, the recited features would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 15.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 9.
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises reducing an advancement speed to the puncture speed, by 10%-90% of a cutting speed, at the at least one puncture point.
In related art, Mach discloses:
The method according to claim 9, which further comprises reducing an advancement speed to the puncture speed, by 10%-90% of a cutting speed, at the at least one puncture point. It would have been obvious to reduce as recited based on the selection of processing parameters and material thickness. (See abstract and [0045]-[0051]) Mach discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of faster processing times of a work piece. IT would have been obvious to modify Briand in view of Mach for the obvious benefit of reducing start up times of the device of Briand. As such, the features of claim 15 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 16.
Briand discloses all of the features of claim 9.
Briand does not disclose:
The method according to claim 10, which further comprises reducing the advancement speed to the puncture speed over a displacement distance of less than 0.5 mm, with a result that the puncture speed is reached at the at least one puncture point.
In related art, Mach discloses:
The method according to claim 10, which further comprises reducing the advancement speed to the puncture speed over a displacement distance of less than 0.5 mm, with a result that the puncture speed is reached at the at least one puncture point. (See abstract and [0045]-[0051]) Mach discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of faster processing times of a work piece. IT would have been obvious to modify Briand in view of Mach for the obvious benefit of reducing start up times of the device of Briand. As such, the features of claim 16 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898