DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 10/27/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the
“utilizing a beam splitter when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams, said utilizing producing said plurality of laser beams from a single laser source” of claim 21,
“when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams, providing said plurality of laser beams to have one of same wavelength, different wavelengths and a combination of same and different wavelengths; and providing said plurality of laser beams to be one of continuous wave lasers, pulsed lasers and a combination of continuous wave lasers and pulsed lasers” of claim 22,
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 3, 7, 11, and 14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 3 recites” the points” in line 5. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “points” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Claim 7 recites “length of, said” in line 3. For clarity of the claim, it seems that the coma should be removed.
Claim 11 recites “said respective one or mor laser sources” in line 1-2. For clarity of the claim, this claim should depend from claim 10 because the limitation is previously recited in claim 10 and not claim 9.
Claim 14 recites” the points” in line 5. For clarity of the claim, it should be recited as “points” since it is the first recitation of the limitation.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 3 and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 3 and 14 recites the term “approximately” in line 3 and it is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “approximately” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Double Patenting
A rejection based on double patenting of the “same invention” type finds its support in the language of 35 U.S.C. 101 which states that “whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process... may obtain a patent therefor...” (Emphasis added). Thus, the term “same invention,” in this context, means an invention drawn to identical subject matter. See Miller v. Eagle Mfg. Co., 151 U.S. 186 (1894); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Ockert, 245 F.2d 467, 114 USPQ 330 (CCPA 1957).
A statutory type (35 U.S.C. 101) double patenting rejection can be overcome by canceling or amending the claims that are directed to the same invention so they are no longer coextensive in scope. The filing of a terminal disclaimer cannot overcome a double patenting rejection based upon 35 U.S.C. 101.
Claims 1-2, 3-13, 15-22 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 18383807. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because:
Instant Application
copending Application No. 18383807
Claim 1: A laser tool comprising:(a) a liquid jet stream ejected from a first nozzle and directed towards a workpiece; and(b) one or more laser beams introduced into said liquid jet stream from respective positions that are off-axis to said first nozzle; wherein said one or more laser beams undergo total internal reflection in said liquid jet stream to arrive at said workpiece.
Claim 1: A laser tool comprising:(a) a liquid jet stream ejected from a first nozzle and directed towards a workpiece; and(b) one or more laser beams introduced into said liquid jet stream from respective positions that are off-axis to said first nozzle; wherein said one or more laser beams propagate within said liquid jet stream to arrive at said workpiece.
Claim 2: The laser tool of claim 1 wherein said liquid jet stream consists of water.
Claim 2: The laser tool of claim 1, wherein said liquid jet stream consists of water.
Claim 4: The laser tool of claim 1 wherein said one or more laser beams are reflected by respective bending mirrors before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in said element (b) above.
Claim 3: The laser tool of claim 1, wherein said one or more laser beams are reflected by respective bending mirrors before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in (b).
Claim 5: The laser tool of claim 1 wherein said one or more laser beams are reflected by an annular mirror before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in said element (b) above.
Claim 4: The laser tool of claim 1, wherein said one or more laser beams are reflected by an annular mirror before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in (b).
Claim 6: The laser tool of claim 1 wherein said one or more laser beams are refracted by respective focusing optics before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in said element (b) above.
Claim 5: The laser tool of claim 1, wherein said one or more laser beams are refracted by respective focusing optics before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in (b).
Claim 7: The laser tool of claim 1 further comprising a shielding gas ejected from a second nozzle for stabilizing and for extending a collimation length of, said liquid jet stream.
Claim 6: The laser tool of claim 1, further comprising a shielding gas ejected from a second nozzle for stabilizing and for extending a collimation length of, said liquid jet stream.
Claim 8: The laser tool of claim 1 wherein said one or more laser beams are radially distributed around said liquid jet stream.
Claim 7: The laser tool of claim 1, wherein said one or more laser beams are radially distributed around said liquid jet stream.
Claim 9: The laser tool of claim 1 further comprising a control system to adjust one or more of a power, a pulse width, and a repetition rate of each of said one or more laser beams.
Claim 8: The laser tool of claim 1, further comprising a control system to adjust one or more of a power, a pulse width, and a repetition rate of each of said one or more laser beams.
Claim 10: The laser tool of claim 1 wherein said one or more laser beams are produced by respective one or more laser sources.
Claim 9: The laser tool of claim 1, wherein said one or more laser beams are produced by respective one or more laser sources.
Claim 11: The laser tool of claim 9 wherein said respective one or more laser sources are housed in respective one or more modules, wherein said respective one or more modules have a number that is configured according to an application of said laser tool.
Claim 10: The laser tool of claim 9, wherein said respective one or more laser sources are housed in respective one or more modules, wherein said respective one or more modules have a number that is configured according to an application of said laser tool
Claim 12: A method comprising the steps of: (a) generating a liquid jet stream from a nozzle;(b) introducing one or more laser beams into said liquid jet stream from respective positions that are off-axis to said liquid jet stream and cause said one or more laser beams to undergo total internal reflection in said liquid jet stream; and(c) directing said liquid jet stream containing said one or more laser beams to a workpiece.
Claim 11: method comprising the steps of: (a) generating a liquid jet stream from a nozzle;(b) introducing one or more laser beams into said liquid jet stream from respective positions that are off-axis to said liquid jet stream and cause said one or more laser beams to propagate within said liquid jet stream; and(c) directing said liquid jet stream containing said one or more laser beams to a workpiece.
Claim 13: The method of claim 12 providing said liquid jet stream to consist of water.
Claim 12: The method of claim 11 providing said liquid jet stream to consist of water.
Claim 15: The method of claim 12 reflecting said one or more laser beams by respective bending mirrors before said introducing in said step (b) above.
Claim 13: The method of claim 11 reflecting said one or more laser beams by respective bending mirrors before said introducing in said step (b).
Claim 16: The method of claim 12 reflecting said one or more laser beams by an annular mirror before said introducing in said step (b) above.
Claim 14: The method of claim 11 reflecting said one or more laser beams by an annular mirror before said introducing in said step (b).
Claim 17: The method of claim 12 refracting said one or more laser beams by respective focusing optics before said introducing in said step (b) above.
Claim 15: The method of claim 11 refracting said one or more laser beams by respective focusing optics before said introducing in said step (b).
Claim 18: The method of claim 12 shielding said liquid jet stream by a shielding gas.
Claim 16: The method of claim 11 shielding said liquid jet stream by a shielding gas.
Claim 19: The method of claim 12 laterally distributing said one or more laser beams around said liquid jet stream
Claim 17: The method of claim 11 laterally distributing said one or more laser beams around said liquid jet stream.
Claim 20: The method of claim 12 housing said one or more laser beams in respective laser modules whose number is configurable according to an application of said method.
Claim 18: The method of claim 11 housing said one or more laser beams in respective laser modules whose number is configurable according to an application of said method.
Claim 21: The method of claim 12 utilizing a beam splitter when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams, said utilizing producing said plurality of laser beams from a single laser source.
Claim 19: The method of claim 11 utilizing a beam splitter when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams, said utilizing producing said plurality of laser beams from a single laser source.
Claim 22: The method of claim 12 when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams, providing said plurality of laser beams to have one of same wavelength, different wavelengths and a combination of same and different wavelengths; and providing said plurality of laser beams to be one of continuous wave lasers, pulsed lasers and a combination of continuous wave lasers and pulsed lasers.
Claim 20: The method of claim 11 when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams, providing said plurality of laser beams to have one of same wavelength, different wavelengths and a combination of same and different wavelengths; and providing said plurality of laser beams to be one of continuous wave lasers, pulsed lasers and a combination of continuous wave lasers and pulsed lasers.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4-6, 8-13, 15-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maehara et al. US 20110042362 in view of Hu US 20180161928.
Regarding claim 1, Maehara discloses: A laser tool (Fig 2) comprising:
(a) a liquid jet stream (70) ejected from a first nozzle (746) and directed towards a workpiece (W); and
(b) one or more laser beams (LB).
However, Maehara is silent as to:
(b) one or more laser beams introduced into said liquid jet stream from respective positions that are off-axis to said first nozzle;
wherein said one or more laser beams undergo total internal reflection in said liquid jet stream to arrive at said workpiece.
From the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses:
(b) one or more laser beams (Fig 3: 104) introduced into said liquid jet stream from respective positions that are off-axis to said first nozzle (104 is within 116 and introduced off axis from 114);
wherein said one or more laser beams undergo total internal reflection in said liquid jet stream to arrive at said workpiece (Par 22: total internal reflection of bean 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maehara to have laser beams enter the jet steam at an angle to achieve total internal reflection as taught by Hu to efficiently and effectively cut the workpiece (Par 29).
Regarding claim 2, Maehara discloses:
wherein said liquid jet stream consists of water (Fig 2: 70 is a liquid column and 75 is described as a water droplet suction mechanism; therefore the fluid is water.).
Regarding claim 4, Maehara discloses:
said one or more laser beams (Fig 2: LB) are reflected by respective bending mirrors (LB is reflected by 72) before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in said element (b) above (The reflection is before entering a fluid jet stream 70).
Regarding claim 5, Maehara discloses:
wherein said one or more laser beams (Fig 2: LB) are reflected by an annular mirror (LB is reflected by 72) before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in said element (b) above (The reflection is before entering a fluid jet stream 70).
Regarding claim 6, Maehara discloses:
wherein said one or more laser beams are refracted by respective focusing optics before being introduced into said liquid jet stream in said element (b) above (Fig 2: 73 refracts LB).
Regarding claim 8, Maehara discloses:
wherein said one or more laser beams are radially distributed around said liquid jet stream (Fig 2: 61 is radially around the stream 70).
Regarding claim 9, Maehara discloses:
a control system (Fig 2: 6) to adjust one or more of a power, a pulse width, and a repetition rate of each of said one or more laser beams (Par 26: the cyclic frequency setting is changed by 62 which corresponds to the repetition rate of the laser).
Regarding claim 10, Maehara discloses:
wherein said one or more laser beams are produced by respective one or more laser sources (Fig 2: 61).
Regarding claim 11, Maehara discloses:
wherein said respective one or more laser sources are housed in respective one or more modules (Fig 2: 61 is housed in 6), wherein said respective one or more modules have a number that is configured according to an application of said laser tool (6 is configured in par 26 to the settings for the application).
Regarding claim 12, Maehara discloses: A method comprising the steps of:
(a) generating a liquid jet stream (Fig 2: 70) from a nozzle (746);
(c) directing said liquid jet stream containing said one or more laser beams (LB) to a workpiece (Fig 2: W).
However, Maehara is silent as to:
(b) introducing one or more laser beams into said liquid jet stream from respective positions that are off-axis to said liquid jet stream and cause said one or more laser beams to undergo total internal reflection in said liquid jet stream.
From the same field of endeavor, Hu discloses:
(b) introducing one or more laser beams (Fig 3: 104) into said liquid jet stream from respective positions that are off-axis to said liquid jet stream (104 is within 116 and introduced off axis from 114) and cause said one or more laser beams to undergo total internal reflection in said liquid jet stream (Par 22: total internal reflection of bean 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maehara to have laser beams enter the jet steam at an angle to achieve total internal reflection as taught by Hu to efficiently and effectively cut the workpiece (Par 29).
Regarding claim 13, Maehara discloses:
providing said liquid jet stream to consist of water (Fig 2: 70 is a liquid column and 75 is described as a water droplet suction mechanism; therefore the fluid is water.).
Regarding claim 15, Maehara discloses:
reflecting said one or more laser beams (Fig 2: LB) by respective bending mirrors (LB is reflected by 72) before said introducing in said step (b) above (The reflection is before entering a fluid jet stream 70).
Regarding claim 16, Maehara discloses:
reflecting said one or more laser beams (Fig 2: LB) by an annular mirror (LB is reflected by 72) before said introducing in said step (b) above (The reflection is before entering a fluid jet stream 70).
Regarding claim 17, Maehara discloses:
refracting said one or more laser beams by respective focusing optics before said introducing in said step (b) above (Fig 2: 73 refracts LB).
Regarding claim 19, Maehara discloses:
laterally distributing said one or more laser beams around said liquid jet stream (Fig 2: 61 is radially around the stream 70).
Regarding claim 20, Maehara discloses:
housing said one or more laser beams in respective laser modules (Fig 2: 61 is housed in 6) whose number is configurable according to an application of said method (6 is configured in par 26 to the settings for the application).
Claims 7 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maehara et al. US 20110042362 and Hu US 20180161928 as applied to claim 1 and 12 above, and further in view of Hippert et al. US 11697175.
Regarding claim 7, Maehara as modified by Hu in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
a shielding gas ejected from a second nozzle for stabilizing and for extending a collimation length of, said liquid jet stream.
From the same field of endeavor Hippert teaches:
a shielding gas (Fig 3: Col 12, line 4-12: Helium is a protection gas) ejected from a second nozzle for stabilizing and for extending a collimation length of, said liquid jet stream (Col 12, line 4-12: Helium is ejected from 219 and envelops fluid jet 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maehara to have a gas injection below the fluid jet as taught by Hippert to envelop the liquid jet to protect the liquid stream and laser from outside objects (Col 12, line 4-12).
Regarding claim 18, Maehara discloses: Maehara as modified by Hu in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
shielding said liquid jet stream by a shielding gas.
From the same field of endeavor Hippert teaches:
shielding said liquid jet stream by a shielding gas (Fig 3: Col 12, line 4-12: Helium is a protection gas; Helium is ejected from 219 and envelops fluid jet 104).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maehara to have a gas injection below the fluid jet as taught by Hippert to envelop the liquid jet to protect the liquid stream and laser from outside objects (Col 12, line 4-12).
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maehara et al. US 20110042362 and Hu US 20180161928 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Yamazaki et al. US 20050263507.
Regarding claim 21, Maehara as modified by Hu in the rejection of claim 1, where Hu teaches:
said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams (104 is split into two rays from the source).
However, they are silent as to:
utilizing a beam splitter when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams, said utilizing producing said plurality of laser beams from a single laser source.
From the same field of endeavor, Yamazaki teaches:
utilizing a beam splitter (Fig 8: 560) when said one or more laser beams (L1) consist of a plurality of laser beams (Par 36: Laser light L1 is parallel rays), said utilizing producing said plurality of laser beams from a single laser source (550).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maehara’s laser source to use a mirror to split the light into parallel rays by as taught by Yamazaki to better teach having laser beams enter the jet steam at an angle to achieve total internal reflection as taught by Hu so that the laser can efficiently and effectively cut the workpiece (Par 29).
Claim 22 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maehara et al. US 20110042362 and Hu US 20180161928 as applied to claim 12 above, and further in view of Nomaru et al. US 20200398370.
Regarding claim 22, Maehara as modified by Hu in the rejection of claim 1, where they are silent as to:
when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams, providing said plurality of laser beams to have one of same wavelength, different wavelengths and a combination of same and different wavelengths; and providing said plurality of laser beams to be one of continuous wave lasers, pulsed lasers and a combination of continuous wave lasers and pulsed lasers.
From the same field of endeavor, Nomaru teaches:
when said one or more laser beams consist of a plurality of laser beams (Fig 4: LB1 and LB2), providing said plurality of laser beams to have one of same wavelength, different wavelengths and a combination of same and different wavelengths (Par 40: LB 1 and LB2 both have wave lengths); and providing said plurality of laser beams to be one of continuous wave lasers, pulsed lasers and a combination of continuous wave lasers and pulsed lasers (Par 40: LB 1 and LB2 have different pulse widths).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified Maehara with two laser beams as taught by Nomaru so that excellent laser processing is enabled compared with the case of executing irradiation with either the first laser beam LB1 or the second laser beam LB2 alone to perform laser processing (Par 68).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3 and 14 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.
Regarding claim 3 and 14, the claims recite “wherein respective angles of incidence of said one or more laser beams are approximately 62.1 degrees, said respective angles of incidence measured with respect to respective imaginary normal lines at the points of intersection of said one or more laser beams with said liquid jet stream” and is considered allowable subject matter. The specific angle in which the laser intersects the liquid jet stream was not taught by the prior art of record. The closest prior art of Hu US 20180161928 discloses that to achieved total internal reflection that the beam must approach the boundary at a certain angle and not the angle itself.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Touama et al. US 20180029159 teaches mirrors reflecting lasers similar to applicants. Xue et al. US 20160318123 teaches reflecting lasers at an angle similar to applicants. Gaebelein et al. US 20150165559 teaches water jet cutting with two laser beams similar to applicants. Muratsubaki et al. US 20090084765 discloses similar gas control around the liquid stream similar to applicants.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Andrew J Marien whose telephone number is (469)295-9159. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 am- 6:00 pm CST, Monday through 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, Courtney Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/Andrew J Marien/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745