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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant filed a response and amended claim 1 and 13 on 03/02/2026.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues:
“Conneely, while disclosing the use of an assist gas, focuses on generating a liquid phase in the laser material interaction zone to suspend and collect ablated matter, primarily for removal and cleanup (Conneely, [0034], [0075]). Conneely's teaching is concerned with collecting debris, often in a liquid phase, and does not disclose applying a pressurized air or gas stream to carry away metal vapor and particulate matter while applying laser pulses specifically to reduce recontamination of the treated surface portion and improve adhesion as defined in the present claims. Conneely's mechanism involves creating a liquid environment, which is fundamentally different from using a gaseous stream to actively carry away vapor and particulate matter to prevent recontamination for improved adhesion.” (Remarks, Page 2)
“The Examiner's broad motivation "for the benefit of removing debris particles from the area for the benefit of removing particulates and cleaning the ablated surface" (Office Action, Page 6) does not bridge the gap between Conneely's liquid phase debris suspension/collection and the Applicant's distinct mechanism of using a pressurized air or gas stream to actively carry away metal vapor and particulate matter to reduce recontamination and improve adhesion. This specific technical problem (recontamination affecting adhesion) and its solution (active removal of vapor/particulates by pressurized gas stream during laser treatment) are not addressed by the cited prior art. The Applicant's specification highlights that "it was found that recontamination in general and for a first metal part made of steel specifically recontamination comprising chromium causes loosely adhering recontamination areas that may cause breaking points for the glue being applied to the ablated surface" (Application Specification, Page 4, Lines 1-4), and that the pressurized air or gas stream "can considerably improve the resulting purity of the ablated surface portion and the probability that metal particles become deposited on the ablated
metal surface is reduced" (Application Specification, Page 4, Lines 5-8), leading to "much better adhesive to metal surface connection" (Application Specification, Page 11, Lines 22-23). These are unexpected results not taught or suggested by the combination of Gross and Conneely.” (Remark, Page 2)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Conneely teaches supplying an assist gas ([0113] and [0116]) and actively exhausting the vapor exhaust from the process, which includes gas, entrained air, and liquid droplets [0116], which assist in the removal of particles from the surfaces near the laser-ablated features and reduces re-deposited particulate in and around the laser-machined feature [0062]. Connelly teaches high flow of the assist gas, wherein liquefaction occurs when process assist gases or decomposed by-products of the assist gas is controlled to establish a liquid phase for a time interval [0058]. Connely teaches the liquefied assist gas and assist gas by-products envelope the particulate and reduce the hazards associated with picosecond or femtosecond machining [0056].
Furthermore, Conneely teaches the process is still an essentially dry process, in that the liquefaction only generates small volumes of liquid which rapidly evaporate or are extracted from the process region, and these small volumes of liquid are sufficient to create a liquid flow to remove debris, with damage to delicate or porous substrates [0061].
Based on the teachings of Conneely, it appears the pressurized gas stream would provide benefits of removing contaminants, thereby resulting purity of the ablated surface portion and the probability that metal particles become deposited on the ablated
metal surface is reduced. There appears to be no unexpected benefits from applying a pressurized gas stream to the surface portion to carry away metal vapor and particular matter that become ejected from the treated surface.
Regarding the rejection of claims 2, 5, 8, and 14 over Gross in view of Conneely and Kim, Applicant argues:
“The Applicant's specification specifically teaches that "A velocity of the pressurized air or gas stream at the surface portion being treated in a range of between 80 m/s and 400 m/s has been found to be effective" (Application Specification, Page 5, Lines 14-16) in solving the problem of recontamination for improved adhesion. This is a specific, effective range linked to the unexpected result of improved adhesion, not merely an arbitrary selection from an overlapping range for a different purpose. No motivation exists to combine Kim's velocity range with Gross and Conneely for the Applicant's distinct objective.”
The Applicant's specification states that maintaining such a consistent static pressure" tends to lead to improved adhesion results" (Application Specification, Page 5, Line 27). This direct link to improved adhesion by ensuring homogeneous treatment is a specific technical problem and solution not addressed by the general teachings of the cited art regarding assist gas delivery or debris removal.” (Remarks Page 3-4)
“As with claims 2 and 14, Kim's teaching is in a different context and does not
provide a motivation to select or apply this specific range for improving adhesion in a gluing process by preventing recontamination. The Applicant's specific range is disclosed as effective for the stated purpose of carrying away metal vapor and particulate matter (Application Specification, Page 5, Lines 11-13).” (Remarks, Page 4)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Kim teaches supplying air and suctioning exhaust for removal of contamination materials and splinters during laser treatment of a target object, such as a metal object. It appears the pressurized gas stream velocity taught by Kim for removal of metal contaminants during laser treatment would be a suitable velocity range for carrying away metal vapor and particulate matter as desired by Gross in view of Conneely.
There appears to be no evidence supporting the claimed range provides unexpected result of improved adhesion as argued.
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)(II)). Evidence must be provided to support unexpected results (MPEP 716.02(a)).
Applicant argues:
“Regarding claim 5, which recites a static pressure condition, the Examiner suggests this would be obvious given the nozzle parameters from Conneely and Kim (Office Action, Page 13).However, the specific condition that "a static pressure of the pressurized air or gas stream over at least 50% of the surface portion is not deviating from a mean static pressure value in the at least 50% of the surface portion by more than about ±20%" is not taught or suggested by the combination of references. The Applicant's specification states that maintaining such a consistent static pressure "tends to lead to improved adhesion results" (Application Specification, Page 5, Line 27). This direct link to improved adhesion by ensuring homogeneous treatment is a specific technical problem and solution not addressed by the general teachings of the cited art regarding assist gas delivery or debris removal.” (Remarks, Page 3-4)
The fact that Applicant has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985).
Regarding the rejection of claim 3 over Gross in view of Conneely and Nakagawa, Applicant argues:
“While Nakagawa (Nakagawa, page 18, lines 1-5) discloses flow rates for high-speed air to blow out fumes in a welding context, this is a different field (welding vs. gluing) and a different mechanism (blowing fumes vs. actively carrying away metal vapor and particulates to prevent recontamination for improved adhesion). Conneely's flow rate for generating a liquid phase (Conneely, [0118]) is also for a different purpose. There is no motivation to combine these references to arrive at the Applicant's specific flow rate range for a pressurized air or gas stream to achieve the unexpected result of reducing recontamination for improved adhesion in a gluing process with simultaneous laser treatment. The Applicant's specification teaches this range as effective for this specific purpose (Application Specification, Page 5, Line 3).” (Remarks, Page 4 and 5)
Examiner respectfully disagrees. Nakagawa is pertinent to the claimed invention, as Nakawa teaches supplying gas at a flow rate blow out fumes and spatters because insufficient air stream at the treatment surface would decrease removal of spatter and cause adhesion of fumes and spatters to a welding head [0025], [0040], [0045[].
One of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention would look to the teachings of Nakagawa to modify the process of Gross in view of Conneely to provide a suitable range of high-speed air flow for removal of fumes (e.g., vapor) and spatters (e.g., contaminants).
There appears to be no evidence supporting the claimed range provides unexpected results.
To establish unexpected results over a claimed range, applicants should compare a sufficient number of tests both inside and outside the claimed range to show the criticality of the claimed range (MPEP 716.02(d)(II)). Evidence must be provided to support unexpected results (MPEP 716.02(a)).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
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(s) 1, 4, 6, 7, 11-13, 15-17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (PG-PUB 2021/0079940) in view of Conneely (PG-PUB 2010/0301013).
Regarding claim 1, Gross teaches a process of gluing a first metal part to another part, the process comprising the steps of:
providing a first metal part, and a second part [0042];
treating a surface portion of the first metal part intended for being glued to the second part with laser pulses so that a surface layer of the first metal part across the surface portion is removed (Table 1, Figure 1B-1C, [0019]-[0021], [0024]-[0027], [0038], [0040]);
applying an adhesive to at least the surface portion of the first metal part and/or to a surface of the second part [0033]-[0034], [0042]; and
gluing the first metal part and the second part together (Figure 1E, 3A, and 3B and [0033]-[0034], [0042].
Gross does not teach while applying laser pulses to the surface portion of the first metal part also applying a pressurized air or gas stream to the surface portion to carry away metal vapor and particulate matter that become ejected from the treated surface portion into a treatment volume, thereby reducing recontamination of the treated surface portion and improving the adhesion.
Conneely teaches a method for laser ablation, comprising:
[0031] providing a substrate from which material is to be ablated;
[0032] providing an ambient environment for the laser ablation process, comprising supplying a prescribed assist gas in a prescribed delivery configuration during the ablation event [0035];
[0033] focusing a laser beam onto the substrate to be ablated at a power density above an ablation threshold of the material to remove material from the substrate in a
laser material interaction zone at or adjacent to the focal point of the laser, and
[0034] controlling the supply of the assist gas and/or the laser power to generate a liquid phase in the laser material interaction zone in which the ablated matter is suspended; and
providing a sample collector to collect the debris particles [0077]-[0081].
Conneely teaches applying a gas stream to carry away vapor and particulate matter that become ejected from the treated surface portion into a treatment volume, thereby reducing recontamination of the treated surface portion and improving the adhesion [0056]-[0062].
Conneely teaches the technique and parameters applied for supplying gas [0048]-[0049]. Conneely teaches the process assists in the removal of debris particles from surfaces near to the laser ablated features and reduces re-deposited particulate in and around the laser-machined feature by enabling an integral self-cleaning laser process [0056]-[0057], [0062], [0116]. Conneely teaches present invention provides a process that is essentially self-cleaning, thereby greatly reducing the need for an additional cleaning step after laser processing [0062], [0064]-[0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Gross with the technique of suppling assist gas and extraction of the exhaust as taught by Conneely for the benefit of removing vapor and debris particles from the area for the benefit of removing contaminants and cleaning the ablated surface.
Given that the process of Gross in view of Conneely extracts vapor and debris, the process would naturally also reduce recontamination of the treat surface portion and improve adhesion.
Regarding claim 4, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein an angle between a center line of the pressurized air or gas stream and a center line of the laser pulse is in a range of from 20 degrees to 90 degrees (Conneely, [0048]).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 6, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the pressurized air or gas stream is provided by a pressure
nozzle having an air or gas outlet that has a distance to the surface portion in about 5 mm, where the distance is measured between a central point of the air or
gas outlet and a central point of the surf ace portion (Conneely, Figure 3 and [0048]-[0049] and [0117]).
While Gross in view of Conneely does not explicitly teach the claimed range of from 4 mm to 20 mm, given that the prior art distance of 5 mm is within the claimed range, a prima facie case of obviousness exists.
Regarding claim 7, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 6, wherein the pressure nozzle has a shape so that a cross-sectional shape of the pressurized air or gas stream impinging on the surface portion of the first metal
part follows about a shape of the surface portion (Conneely, Figure 3 and [0049] and Gross, Table 1 and [0026]).
Regarding claim 11, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the method comprises a step of rotating the first metal part around a longitudinal extension axis and wherein a total surface portion intended for being glued to the second part circumferentially extends around the first metal part (Gross, [0026]-[0028]).
Regarding claim 12, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the laser pulses have a pulse length in a range of from nano-second to femto-second (Gross, Table 1 and [0021], [0040]).
Regarding claim 13, Gross teaches a method of manufacturing a personal care device comprising the step of gluing a steel
shaft into a metal cap, the method comprising the steps of:
providing the steel shaft and the metal cap sized to receive at least a tip region of the steel shaft (Figures 1A-1E);
treating a surface portion of the steel shaft intended for being glued to the metal cap with laser pulses so that a surface layer from the steel shaft across the surface portion is removed by ablation (Table 1, Figure 1B-1C, [0019]-[0021], [0024]-[0027], [0038], [0040]);
treating at least a portion of an inner surface of the metal cap intended for being glued to the respective surface portion of the steel shaft with laser pulses (Figure 1C);
applying an adhesive to the surface portion of the steel shaft and/or to the portion of the inner surface of the metal cap (Figure 1E, 3A, and 3B and [0033]-[0034], [0042]); and
fitting the metal cap onto the steel shaft and curing of the adhesive (Figure 1E and Figure 3B and [0042]).
Gross does not teach treating the surface portion of the steel shaft with the laser pulses also applying a pressurized air or gas stream to the surface portion to carry away metal vapor and particulate matter that become ejected from the treated surface portion into a treatment volume, thereby reducing recontamination of the treated surface portion and improving adhesion.
Conneely teaches a method for laser ablation, comprising:
[0031] providing a substrate from which material is to be ablated;
[0032] providing an ambient environment for the laser ablation process, comprising supplying a prescribed assist gas in a prescribed delivery configuration during the ablation event [0035];
[0033] focusing a laser beam onto the substrate to be ablated at a power density above an ablation threshold of the material to remove material from the substrate in a
laser material interaction zone at or adjacent to the focal point of the laser, and
[0034] controlling the supply of the assist gas and/or the laser power to generate a liquid phase in the laser material interaction zone in which the ablated matter is sus
pended; and
providing a sample connector to collect the debris particles [0077]-[0081], [0116].
Conneely teaches the technique and parameters applied for supplying gas [0048]-[0049]. Conneely teaches immediate agglomeration of nanoparticles produced by laser ablation using picosecond and femtosecond sources minimizes the hazards associated with such laser machining, since the agglomerated particles are too large to
penetrate the human body such as through the skin, blood and brain barriers [0057].
Conneely teaches supplying the gas and extracting the exhaust assist in the removal of debris particles from surfaces near to the laser ablated features and reduces re-deposited particulate in and around the laser-machined feature by enabling an integral self-cleaning laser process [0056]-[0057], [0062]. Conneely teaches applying a gas stream to carry away vapor and particulate matter that become ejected from the treated surface portion into a treatment volume, thereby reducing recontamination of the treated surface portion and improving the adhesion [0056]-[0062], [0064]-[0065].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to improve the process of Gross with the technique of suppling assist gas and extraction of the exhaust as taught by Conneely for the benefit of removing debris particles from the area for the benefit of removing particulates and cleaning the ablated surface.
Given that the process of Gross in view of Conneely extracts vapor and debris, the process would naturally also reduce recontamination of the treat surface portion and improve adhesion.
Regarding claim 15, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 13, wherein the pressure nozzle has a shape so that a cross-sectional shape of the pressurized air or gas stream impinging on the surface portion of the first metal
part follows about a shape of the surface portion (Conneely, Figure 3 and [0049] and Gross, Table 1 and [0026]).
Regarding claim 16, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the first metal part is a steel shaft (Gross, [0042] and Figure 1E, item 10).
Regarding claim 17, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the second part is a second metal part (Gross, [0042] and Figure 1E, item 20).
Regarding claim 20, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein in the step of treating a surface portion of the first metal part intended for being glued to the second part with laser pulses, the surface layer of the first metal part across the surface portion is removed by ablation (Gross, Figures 1A-1E and [0039]-[0042]).
Claim(s) 2, 5, 8, and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (PG-PUB 2021/0079940) in view of Conneely (PG-PUB 2010/0301013), as applied to claim 1 and 13, in further view of Kim (PG-PUB 2019/0126405).
Regarding claim 2, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1.
Gross in view of Conneely does not teach the pressurized air or gas stream has a velocity at the surface portion in a range of from 80 m/s to 400 m/s.
Kim teaches a laser processing apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a laser generator configured to generate a laser beam; a stage configured to support a target object;
at least one supply nozzle on the stage to eject an air toward the stage;
a suction unit configured to inhale external air; and
a suction structure on the stage and adjacent to the at least one supply nozzle.
Kim teaches supplying air and suctioning the exhaust allow for removal of the contamination material and splinters [0082]-[0084]. Kim teaches a fluid velocity of the air inhaled by the suction unit may be in a range from about 30 m/s to 100 m/s, wherein the fluid velocity may be an instantaneous velocity of the air inhaled by the suction unit [0052]. Kim teaches air supplied from the air supplying part may be ejected or sprayed toward the stage 200 through the supply nozzle 500 [0053]-[00545]. Kim teaches a fluid velocity of the air ejected from the supply nozzle 500 may be in a range from about 70 m/s to 200 m/s [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Gross in view of Conneely with the fluid velocity of the air supply nozzle of Kim, a known suitable velocity for a supply nozzle for the purpose of removing contaminants during laser processing.
While Gross in view of Conneely does not explicitly teach the pressurized air or gas stream has a velocity at the surface portion in a range of from 80 m/s to 400 m/s, given that the pressurized gas stream is supplied through a nozzle with an internal diameter of 0.5- 8 mm at an angle of about 20 to 90 degrees (Conneely, [0049]) at a rate of 70 m/s to 200 m/s (Kim, [0054]) identical to the claimed process, it appears that the pressurized gas stream of Gross in view of Conneely and Kim would also have a velocity at the surface portion in a range of from 70 m/s to 200 m/s.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Gross in view of Conneely and Kim teaches the process as applied to claim 2.
Gross in view of Conneely does not explicitly teach a static pressure of the pressurized air or gas stream over at least 50% of the surface portion is not deviating from a mean static pressure value in the at least 50% of the surface portion by more than about + 20%.
However, given that the pressurized gas stream is supplied through a nozzle with an internal diameter of 0.5- 8 mm at an angle of about 20 to 90 degrees (Conneely, [0049]) at a rate of 70 m/s to 200 m/s (Kim, [0054]) identical to the claimed process, it appears that static pressure of the pressurized air or gas stream over at least 50% of the surface portion of Gross in view of Conneely would also be consistent with no more than about + 20% deviation from the mean static pressure of the at least 50% of the surface portion.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Regarding claim 8, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 6.
Gross in view of Conneely does not teach a velocity of the pressurized air or gas stream at the air or gas outlets of the pressure nozzles is in a range of from 100 m/s to 700 m/s.
Kim teaches a laser processing apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a laser generator configured to generate a laser beam; a stage configured to support a target object;
at least one supply nozzle on the stage to eject an air toward the stage;
a suction unit configured to inhale external air; and
a suction structure on the stage and adjacent to the at least one supply nozzle.
Kim teaches supplying air and suctioning the exhaust allow for removal of the contamination material and splinters [0082]-[0084]. Kim teaches a fluid velocity of the air inhaled by the suction unit may be in a range from about 30 m/s to 100 m/s, wherein the fluid velocity may be an instantaneous velocity of the air inhaled by the suction unit [0052]. Kim teaches air supplied from the air supplying part may be ejected or sprayed toward the stage 200 through the supply nozzle 500 [0053]-[00545]. Kim teaches a fluid velocity of the air ejected from the supply nozzle 500 may be in a range from about 70 m/s to 200 m/s [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Gross in view of Conneely with the fluid velocity of the air supply nozzle of Kim, a known suitable velocity for a supply nozzle for the purpose of removing contaminants during laser processing.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 13.
Gross in view of Conneely does not teach the pressurized air or gas stream has a velocity at the surface portion in a range of from 80 m/s to 400 m/s.
Kim teaches a laser processing apparatus (Figure 2) comprising:
a laser generator configured to generate a laser beam; a stage configured to support a target object;
at least one supply nozzle on the stage to eject an air toward the stage;
a suction unit configured to inhale external air; and
a suction structure on the stage and adjacent to the at least one supply nozzle.
Kim teaches supplying air and suctioning the exhaust allow for removal of the contamination material and splinters [0082]-[0084]. Kim teaches a fluid velocity of the air inhaled by the suction unit may be in a range from about 30 m/s to 100 m/s, wherein the fluid velocity may be an instantaneous velocity of the air inhaled by the suction unit [0052]. Kim teaches air supplied from the air supplying part may be ejected or sprayed toward the stage 200 through the supply nozzle 500 [0053]-[00545]. Kim teaches a fluid velocity of the air ejected from the supply nozzle 500 may be in a range from about 70 m/s to 200 m/s [0054].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the Gross in view of Conneely with the fluid velocity of the air supply nozzle of Kim, a known suitable velocity for a supply nozzle for the purpose of removing contaminants during laser processing.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
While Gross in view of Conneely does not explicitly teach the pressurized air or gas stream has a velocity at the surface portion in a range of from 80 m/s to 400 m/s, given that the pressurized gas stream is supplied through a nozzle with an internal diameter of 0.5- 8 mm at an angle of about 20 to 90 degrees (Conneely, [0049]) at a rate of 70 m/s to 200 m/s (Kim, [0054]) identical to the claimed process, it appears that the pressurized gas stream of Gross in view of Conneely and Kim would also have a velocity at the surface portion in a range of from 80 m/s to 400 m/s.
Where the claimed and prior art products are identical or substantially identical in structure or composition, or are produced by identical or substantially identical processes, a prima facie case of either anticipation or obviousness has been established. In re Best, 562 F.2d 1252, 1255, 195 USPQ 430, 433 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2112.01 (I).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (PG-PUB 2021/0079940) in view of Conneely (PG-PUB 2010/0301013), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Nakagawa (PG-PUB 2019/0118291).
Regarding claim 3, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein the flow rate was in the range of between 0 and 2 litres min-1 (Conneely, [0118]).
Conneely teaches the flow rate must be sufficient to supply the liquid generating step of the process and to maintain an appropriate quantity of liquid droplets or liquid thin film, so that it will impact the process of laser ablation [0118]. Conneely teaches at excessively high flow rates, the liquid drops or thin liquid films that are generated can be disrupted so that it has little impact on the ablation process [0118]. Conneely teaches in practice, the precise flow rate for the assist gas is adjusted depending on the gas, the gas delivery system, laser parameters, material properties and geometry to be ablated or the intended purpose of the liquefaction process [0118].
Gross in view of Conneely does not teach the air or gas flow volume of the pressurized air or gas stream is in a range of from 50 L/min to 400 L/min.
Nakagawa teaches a laser welding device including welding head 1, shield gas supplying nozzle 4, and high-speed air supplying nozzle(first air supplying nozzle) 3. Nakagawa teaches the welding head 1 is configured to irradiate working point 8 with laser beam 6 condensed by condensing lens 10 disposed in the laser welding device, shield gas supplying nozzle 4 is configured to supply shield gas 16 to working point 8 in proximity to working point 8, and high-speed air supplying nozzle 3 is configured to supply high-speed air stream 15 between shield gas supplying nozzle 4 and welding head 1. Nakagawa teaches high-speed air supplying nozzle(First air supplying nozzle) 3 is disposed near shield gas supplying nozzle 4, and is configured to supply high-speed air stream(first air stream) 15 with a flow rate (for example, from 100 L/min to 200 L/min both inclusive) that is larger than a flow rate of shield gas 16 (for example, from 20 L/min to 40 L/min both inclusive) so as to blow out fumes 7 and spatters, etc. rising from working point 8 through an atmosphere of the shield gas (Figure 1).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Gross in view of Conneely with the flow rate of Nakagawa, a known suitable flow rate for blowing fumes and spatters away from a working point as taught by Nakagawa, to yield the predictable result of providing appropriate flow parameters for removing the particulates as desired by Gross in view of Conneely.
Claim(s) 9 and 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (PG-PUB 2021/0079940) in view of Conneely (PG-PUB 2010/0301013), as applied to claim 6, in further view of Luzius (US 10,245,677).
Regarding claim 9 and 19, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 6.
Gross in view of Conneely does not teach the pressurized air or gas stream is delivered from a compressed air or gas reservoir or an air or gas compressor where the air or gas is compressed in a range of from 1 bar to 6 bar,
wherein the air or gas is compressed in the range of from 2 bar to 5 bar.
Luzius teaches a laser decorating device comprising a laser beam generation unit and a plurality of nozzles to direct inert gas onto a laser spot defined by the laser beam for removing debris (Figure 2 and 3; col 3, ln 22-60; col 3, ln 65- col 4, ln 16; col 2, ln 16-61). Luzius teaches the gas is directed at a pressure of at least 3 bar at an acute angle onto the laser sport on the metal sheet surface (col 3, ln 65- col 4, ln 16).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Gross and Conneely with the gas pressure of Luzius, a known suitable pressure for supplying gas for removing laser-removed debris.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (PG-PUB 2021/0079940) in view of Conneely (PG-PUB 2010/0301013), as applied to claim 1, in further view of Endo (PG-PUB 2014/0305918).
Regarding claim 10, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 1, wherein a sample collector is used to exhaust the contaminants (Conneely, [0077]-[0080]).
Gross in view of Conneely does not teach a step of exhausting air and/or gas from a treatment volume with an exhaustion rate from 500 L/min to 3000 L/min.
Endo teaches a laser processing apparatus including a dust discharging unit for discharging dust generated by application of a laser beam from a focusing unit to a workpiece (Abstract and Figure 1 and 6). Endo teaches air in the dust collector
71 is sucked through the suction duct 721 connected to the vacuum source 722 at a suction rate of 1 m3 /min.
Gross in view of Conneely is silent to the exhaustion rate for removing the contaminant and gas, prompting one to look elsewhere in the art. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the process of Gross in view of Conneely with the exhaustion rate of Endo, a known suitable exhaustion rate for removing waste from laser processing.
The prior art teaches an exhaustion rate of 1000 L/min that is within the claimed range. In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Claim(s) 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross (PG-PUB 2021/0079940) in view of Conneely (PG-PUB 2010/0301013), as applied to claim 16, in further view of Huth (PG-PUB 2003/0155328).
Regarding claim 18, Gross in view of Conneely teaches the process as applied to claim 16, wherein the pressurized air or gas stream is provided by a pressure nozzle having an air or gas outlet that has a distance to the surface portion at about 5 mm (Conneely, Figure 3 and [0048]-[0049] and [0117]).
Gross in view of Conneely does not teach the pressurized air or gas stream is provided by a pressure nozzle having an air or gas outlet that has a distance to the surface portion in the range of between 8 mm and 16 mm.
Huth teaches a process of laser micromachining a substrate (Figure 4) using a debris extraction system to remove vaporized substrate materials and/or molecules formed from substrate material and a component of the assist gas, as well as various
other molecules [0035] and gas supply for providing assist gas to the interface region through a plurality of gas supply nozzles [0034]-[0036]. Huth teaches the exit aperture of the gas assist nozzles can be about 12 mm vertically above the first surface (Figure 4 and [0045]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the invention to modify the process of Gross in view of Conneely with the outlet position of the gas pressure nozzle as taught by Huth, a known suitable gas pressure nozzle position for supply assist gas in a laser treatment process.
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HANA C PAGE whose telephone number is (571)272-1578. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9:00-5:30.
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, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 5712721095. 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.
HANA C. PAGE
Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/MICHAEL A TOLIN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745
Prosecution Insights