CTNF 18/229,803 CTNF 86565 DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 07-06 AIA 15-10-15 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 07-07-aia AIA 07-07 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 – 07-08-aia AIA (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. 07-12-aia AIA (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. 07-15-03-aia AIA Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Toyama (US 2017/0361399) . With respect to the limitations of claim 1, Toyama teaches a device for forming a feature in a workpiece (0005, 0008, laser beam machining head, a laser machining method for machining a workpiece), the device comprising: a waterjet (Figs 5, 6, water source 30, nozzle head 34, 0021, 0022) guided laser device (laser oscillator 14, irradiation head 16, 0019) translatable relative (0017, optical head 10 configured to move linearly relative to the table 108 in three orthogonal X-, Y- and Z-aces directions) to the workpiece, the waterjet guided laser device comprising: a head assembly (optical head 10, housing 12, 0025) comprising: a nozzle comprising an aperture (downwardly tapered projection part 12a, orifice 12b, 0019) for ejecting a waterjet with an internal laser beam (0021, 0022, water jet laser beam machine); and a camera system comprising a plurality of cameras (alignment adjusting camera 26, calibration camera 42, 0023, 0025) disposed about the nozzle. With respect to the limitations of claim 5, Toyama teaches the camera system comprises two cameras to ten cameras (26, 42) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-23-aia AIA 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 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Toyama (US 2017/0361399) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Paganelli (US 2011/0120981). With respect to the limitations of claim 2, Toyama teaches a touch probe (Figs 1, 6, touch probe 40, contactor 40a, 0025). Toyama discloses the claimed invention except for the touch probe is retractable. However, Paganelli discloses the touch probe (Figs 1-3, precision electromechanical sensor 31, 0025) is retractable (claim 10) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser machining device of Toyama having a touch probe silent to retracting the probe with the touch probe is retractable of Paganelli for the purpose of providing a known retracting probe configuration that allows the probe to be deployed when a measurement has to be performed, thereby protecting the probe from damage when not in use. Claims 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Toyama (US 2017/0361399) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Hu (US 2018/0161928). With respect to the limitations of claims 3 and 4, Toyama discloses the claimed invention but is silent to the aperture has a diameter ranging from 50 microns to 100 microns; the diameter is 70 microns. However, Hu discloses the aperture has a diameter ranging from 50 microns to 100 microns (Figs 2, 3, diameter 3 of between about twenty microns (20 μm) and about one hundred and fifty microns (150 μm), 0020); the diameter is 70 microns (0020) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser machining device of Toyama having a nozzle silent to the aperture size with the aperture has a diameter ranging from 50 microns to 100 microns; the diameter is 70 microns of Hu for the purpose of providing a known nozzle aperture size that is suitable for directing the laser beam inside the confining column toward the workpiece to form a confined laser beam for machining of a workpiece (0019, 0020). Claims 6, 7 and 8 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Toyama (US 2017/0361399) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Gruber (DE102016007586). With respect to the limitations of claims 6 and 7, Toyama discloses the claimed invention except for the camera system comprises four cameras to eight cameras; the camera system comprises four cameras; each of the plurality of cameras is configured to capture a corresponding plurality of images of a workpiece. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have the camera system comprises four cameras to eight cameras; the camera system comprises four cameras; each of the plurality of cameras is configured to capture a corresponding plurality of images of a workpiece, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable number of cameras involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). Additionally, Gruber discloses the camera system comprises four cameras to eight cameras (Figs 1-5, six cameras 31-36, 0088, 0091); the camera system comprises four cameras (cameras 31-34, 0088, 0091); each of the plurality of cameras is configured to capture a corresponding plurality of images of a workpiece (0045, 0052) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser machining device of Toyama having a camera system with multiple cameras, silent to more than two cameras with the camera system comprises four cameras to eight cameras; the camera system comprises four cameras; each of the plurality of cameras is configured to capture a corresponding plurality of images of a workpiece of Gruber for the purpose of providing a known camera systems employing many cameras so that a 360 degree can be captured by the camera system (0052). Claims 9 and 10 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Toyama (US 2017/0361399) and Gruber (DE102016007586) as applied to claims 1 and 6-8, further in view of Kitai (US 2005/0205778). With respect to the limitations of claims 9 and 10, Toyama in view of Gruber discloses the claimed invention except for the camera system further comprises: a processing device for generating a composite image from the plurality of images; further comprising: a display for displaying the composite image. However, Kitai discloses the camera system further comprises: a processing device (Fig 9a, system controller 550, processing electronics 556, 0207) for generating a composite image from the plurality of images (0207, tile images A through I are then merged together by the system controller 550 or image processing electronics 556 to provide a composite image corresponding to the full image of the entire feature); further comprising: a display for displaying the composite image (display 558, 0092) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser machining device of Toyama in view of Gruber having a camera system with multiple cameras silent to a composite image and display with the camera system further comprises: a processing device for generating a composite image from the plurality of images; further comprising: a display for displaying the composite image of Kitai for the purpose of providing a known processing and display device that merges individual images together to provide a composite image corresponding to the full image of the entire feature for fine inspection on a display. With respect to the limitations of claim 11, Toyama teaches a method of forming a feature in a workpiece (0005, 0008, laser beam machining head, a laser machining method for machining a workpiece), the method comprising: orienting a waterjet (Figs 5, 6, water source 30, nozzle head 34, 0021, 0022) guided laser device (laser oscillator 14, irradiation head 16, 0019) about the workpiece by: capturing a plurality of images of the workpiece with a corresponding plurality of cameras (alignment adjusting camera 26, calibration camera 42, 0023, 0025); aligning a nozzle (downwardly tapered projection part 12a, orifice 12b, 0019) of the waterjet guided laser device to the workpiece based on the image (0039); ejecting a waterjet (Figs 5, 6, water source 30, nozzle head 34, 0021, 0022) from an aperture (orifice 12b, 0019) of the nozzle; and impinging the waterjet against the workpiece causing a corresponding removal of material therefrom (0008, a laser machining method for machining a workpiece. Toyama discloses the claimed invention except for explicitly showing capturing a plurality of images of the workpiece with a corresponding plurality of cameras; generating a composite image from the plurality of images. However, Gruber discloses capturing a plurality of images of the workpiece (0045, 0052) with a corresponding plurality of cameras (Figs 1-5, six cameras 31-36, 0088, 0091) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser machining method of Toyama having a camera system with multiple cameras silent to the plurality of images with the capturing a plurality of images of the workpiece with a corresponding plurality of cameras of Gruber for the purpose of providing a known camera systems employing many cameras so that a 360 degree can be captured by the camera system (0052). Additionally, Kitai discloses generating a composite image from the plurality of images (0207, tile images A through I are then merged together by the system controller 550 or image processing electronics 556 to provide a composite image corresponding to the full image of the entire feature) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser machining method of Toyama in view of Gruber having a camera system with multiple cameras silent to a composite image with the generating a composite image from the plurality of images of Kitai for the purpose of providing a known composite image generation configuration that merges individual images together to provide a composite image corresponding to the full image of the entire feature for fine inspection. With respect to the limitations of claims 12, 13 and 16, Toyama teaches each of the plurality of cameras (26, 42) is disposed about the nozzle (12a); further comprising: positioning the waterjet guided laser device (Figs 5, 6, optical head 10, 16, 34) such that the plurality of cameras (26, 42) are offset a distance from the workpiece (workpiece on table 108); the plurality of cameras comprises two cameras to ten cameras (26, 42). With respect to the limitations of claim 14, Toyama in view of Gruber and Kitai discloses the claimed invention except for the distance ranges from 0.5 in to 1.5 in. However, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date was made to have the distance ranges from 0.5 in to 1.5 in, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable camera distance ranges involves only routine skill in the art (see MPEP 2144.04). With respect to the limitations of claims 17, 18, 19 and 20, Toyama in view of Gruber and Kitai discloses the plurality of cameras comprises four cameras to eight cameras (Gruber, Figs 1-5, six cameras 31-36, 0088, 0091); further comprising: displaying the composite image on a display (Kitai, display 558, 0092); a processing device (Kitai, Fig 9a, system controller 550, processing electronics 556, 0207) generates the composite image (Kitai, 0207); the step of impinging the waterjet against the workpiece comprises impinging the waterjet against a partially formed feature in the workpiece (Toyama, 0005, 0008, laser beam machining head, a laser machining method for machining a workpiece). Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Toyama (US 2017/0361399) and Gruber (DE102016007586) and Kitai (US 2005/0205778) as applied to claims 11-14, further in view of Hu (US 2018/0161928). With respect to the limitations of claim 15, Toyama in view of Gruber and Kitai discloses the claimed invention except for the aperture has a diameter ranging from 50 microns to 100 microns. However, Hu discloses the aperture has a diameter ranging from 50 microns to 100 microns (Figs 2, 3, diameter 3 of between about twenty microns (20 μm) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser machining method of Toyama in view of Gruber and Kitai having a nozzle silent to the aperture size with the aperture has a diameter ranging from 50 microns to 100 microns of Hu for the purpose of providing a known nozzle aperture size that is suitable for directing the laser beam inside the confining column toward the workpiece to form a confined laser beam for machining of a workpiece (0019, 0020). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00]. 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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. /THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/23/2026 Application/Control Number: 18/229,803 Page 2 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/229,803 Page 3 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/229,803 Page 4 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/229,803 Page 5 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/229,803 Page 6 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/229,803 Page 7 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/229,803 Page 8 Art Unit: 3761 Application/Control Number: 18/229,803 Page 9 Art Unit: 3761