DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group A, Species I (Fig. 4) and Group B, Species III (Fig. 6), claims 1-20 in the reply filed on 05/11/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-20 are pending. Claims 1-20 are examined.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. [0069], l. 11 and l. 18, “a cross-sectional aera” is believed to be in error for – a cross-sectional area –.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 1, 5, 9-11, 13, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu 2016/0243654 in view of Okuma 2019/0039174 (“Okuma ‘174”).
Regarding Claim 1, Hu teaches a manufacturing method (seen in Fig. 6), comprising:
machining an aperture 52 into a workpiece 66, 38 using a laser beam 64 ([0029, 0037, 0040]; Fig. 3);
capturing an image (characteristic of light … may be one or more wavelengths of light reflected during drilling operations) of an interaction between the laser beam 64 and the workpiece 66, 38 during the machining (during drilling operations) of the aperture 52 using a sensor 80 (optical sensor 80) ([0033, 0038]; Fig. 3);
and determining (via controller 68) a parameter (breakthrough, in [0032] or passing completely through, in [0040]) associated with the aperture 52 based on information from the image (“may determine that the confined laser beam 64 is passing completely through the near wall 66 the airfoil 38 (e.g., based on the characteristic of light sensed by the sensor 80)”) ([0032, 0036, 0040]; Fig. 3).
Hu does not teach capturing an image of an interaction between the laser beam and the workpiece during the machining of the aperture using a camera comprising an electronic shutter.
Okuma ‘174 teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
capturing an image (image) of an interaction between the laser beam L (seen in Fig. 1) and the workpiece 1 during the machining of the cut 5 using a camera 464 comprising an electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504, as part of controller 500 in Fig. 6, varying shutter time of camera 464, in [0124]) ([0010, 0123-124]; Fig. 16). Note, Okuma ‘174’s controller 504 and camera 464 comprising electronic shutter is applied for its stated and intended use of keeping a constant level of the luminance value of the intensity distribution image to be acquired and secure the quality of the intensity distribution image, and not for its location in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor 80 (optical sensor 80) of Hu with Okuma ‘174’s camera 464 comprising electronic shutter for capturing an image (image) of an interaction between the laser beam L and the workpiece 1, in order to keep a constant level of a luminance value of the image to be acquired and secure the quality of the image (Okuma ‘174, [0010], ll. 8-10).
Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, as discussed so far, does not teach capturing an image of an interaction between the laser beam and the workpiece during the machining of the aperture using a camera comprising an electronic shutter.
However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches a manufacturing method comprising machining an aperture 52 into a workpiece 66, 38 using a laser beam 64 capturing an image (image) of an interaction between the laser beam 64 and the workpiece 66, 38 during the machining (during drilling operations) of the aperture 52 using Okuma’174’s camera 464 comprising electronic shutter.
While Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Regarding Claim 5, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hu further teaches
the parameter (breakthrough, in [0032] or passing completely through, in [0040]) is indicative of break-through (breakthrough, in [0032] or passing completely through, in [0040]) of the laser beam 64 through the workpiece 66, 38 (0040]; Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 9, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, as discussed so far, does not teach synchronizing the electronic shutter with a pulse of the laser beam to capture the image of the interaction between the pulse of the laser beam and the workpiece.
Okuma ‘174 further teaches
synchronizing (varying the shutter time in accordance with the magnitude of the output of the laser light – this reads as synchronizing) the electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504 varying shutter time of camera 464, in [0124]) with a pulse (magnitude of the output of the laser light) of the laser beam L to capture the image (image) of the interaction between the pulse (magnitude of the output of the laser light) of the laser beam L (seen in Fig. 1) and the workpiece 1 ([0010; 0123-124; 0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 and synchronize (varying the shutter time in accordance with the magnitude of the output of the laser light – this reads as synchronizing) the electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504 varying shutter time of camera 464, in [0124]) with a pulse (magnitude of the output of the laser light) of the laser beam L to capture the image (image) of the interaction between the pulse (magnitude of the output of the laser light) of the laser beam L (seen in Fig. 1) and the workpiece 1, as taught by Okuma ‘174, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 10, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 9. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, as discussed so far, does not teach the electronic shutter is synchronized with the pulse of the laser beam to capture the image at an end of the pulse of the laser beam.
Okuma ‘174 further teaches
the electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504 varying shutter time of camera 464, in [0124]) is synchronized (varying the shutter time in accordance with the magnitude of the output of the laser light – this reads as synchronized) with the pulse (magnitude of the output of the laser light) of the laser beam L to capture the image (image) at an end of the pulse of the laser beam L (inherent that varying shutter time of camera 464 to match the magnitude of the output of the laser beam light L includes in the image being captured at the end of the pulse of the laser beam L, as claimed, in [0010, 0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic shutter of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Okuma ‘174’s electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504 varying shutter time of camera 464) that is synchronized (varying the shutter time in accordance with the magnitude of the output of the laser light – this reads as synchronized) with the pulse (magnitude of the output of the laser light) of the laser beam L to capture the image (image) at an end of the pulse of the laser beam L, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 11, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 9. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, as discussed so far, does not teach the electronic shutter is synchronized with the pulse of the laser beam to capture the image at a beginning of the pulse of the laser beam.
Okuma ‘174 further teaches
the electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504 varying shutter time of camera 464, in [0124]) is synchronized (varying the shutter time in accordance with the magnitude of the output of the laser light – this reads as synchronized) with the pulse (magnitude of the output of the laser light) of the laser beam L to capture the image (image) at a beginning of the pulse of the laser beam L (inherent that varying shutter time of camera 464 to match the magnitude of the output of the laser beam light L includes in the image being captured at the beginning of the pulse of the laser beam L, as claimed, in [0010, 0143]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic shutter of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Okuma ‘174’s electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504 varying shutter time of camera 464) that is synchronized (varying the shutter time in accordance with the magnitude of the output of the laser light – this reads as synchronized) with the pulse (magnitude of the output of the laser light) of the laser beam L to capture the image (image) at a beginning of the pulse of the laser beam L, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 13, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, as discussed so far, does not teach the camera further comprises a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor image detector which captures the image.
Okuma ‘174 further teaches
the camera 464 further comprises a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor image detector (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor) which captures the image (image) ([0113]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the camera 464 of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Okuma ‘174’s camera 464 that further comprises a complementary metal-oxide semiconductor image detector (Complementary Metal Oxide Semiconductor (CMOS) image sensor) which captures the image (image), for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 1 above.
Regarding Claim 15, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hu further teaches
a line of sight of the sensor 80 (optical sensor 80) is parallel (positioned in the beam axis A - this reads on sensor 80 being on the same axis (in parallel) with laser beam 64) with the laser beam 64 ([0035]).
Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, as discussed so far, does not teach a line of sight of the camera is parallel with the laser beam.
However, However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches a manufacturing method comprising machining an aperture 52 into a workpiece 66, 38 using a laser beam 64 capturing an image (image) of an interaction between the laser beam 64 and the workpiece 66, 38 during the machining (during drilling operations) of the aperture 52 using Okuma’174’s camera 464 comprising electronic shutter with the Okuma’174’s camera 464’s line of sight that is parallel (positioned in the beam axis A) with the laser beam 64, as taught by Hu. Therefore, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches a line of sight of the camera is parallel with the laser beam, as claimed.
Regarding Claim 16, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Hu further teaches
forming a component 38 of a turbine engine (gas turbine), the forming of the component 38 of the turbine engine (gas turbine) comprising the machining of the aperture 52 into the workpiece 66, 38;
and the aperture 52 comprising a cooling hole (cooling holes 52) ([0023-25; 0029, 0037, 0040]; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 17, Hu teaches a manufacturing method (seen in Fig. 6), comprising:
machining a workpiece 66, 38 using a laser beam 64 to form a feature 52 in the workpiece 66, 38 ([0029, 0037, 0040]; Fig. 3);
capturing an image (characteristic of light … may be one or more wavelengths of light reflected during drilling operations) of an interaction between the laser beam 64 and material of the workpiece 66, 38 that is machined to form the feature 52 in the workpiece 66, 38, the image (characteristic of light … may be one or more wavelengths of light reflected during drilling operations) captured using a sensor 80 (optical sensor 80) ([0033, 0038]; Fig. 3);
and determining (via controller 68) a parameter (breakthrough, in [0032] or passing completely through, in [0040]) associated with the feature 52 being machined in the workpiece 66, 38 based on information from the image (“may determine that the confined laser beam 64 is passing completely through the near wall 66 the airfoil 38 (e.g., based on the characteristic of light sensed by the sensor 80)”) ([0032, 0036, 0040]; Fig. 3).
Hu does not teach the image captured using a camera comprising an electronic shutter.
Okuma ‘174 teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
the image (image) captured using a camera 464 comprising an electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504, as part of controller 500 in Fig. 6, varying shutter time of camera 464, in [0124]) ([0010, 0123-124]; Fig. 16). Note, Okuma ‘174’s controller 504 and camera 464 comprising electronic shutter is applied for its stated and intended use of keeping a constant level of the luminance value of the intensity distribution image to be acquired and secure the quality of the intensity distribution image, and not for its location in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor 80 (optical sensor 80) of Hu with Okuma ‘174’s camera 464 comprising electronic shutter to capture the image (image), for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 1 above.
Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, as discussed so far, does not teach capturing an image of an interaction between the laser beam and material of the workpiece that is machined to form the feature in the workpiece, the image captured using a camera comprising an electronic shutter.
However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches a manufacturing method comprising machining an aperture 52 into a workpiece 66, 38 using a laser beam 64 capturing an image (image) of an interaction between the laser beam 64 and material of the workpiece 66, 38 that is machined to form the feature 52 in the workpiece 66, 38, with the image (image) using Okuma’174’s camera 464 comprising electronic shutter.
While Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Regarding Claim 18, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 17, and Hu further teaches
forming a component 38 of a turbine engine (gas turbine), the forming of the component 38 of the turbine engine (gas turbine) comprising the machining of the workpiece 66, 38 to form the feature 52;
and the aperture 52 comprising a cooling hole (cooling holes 52) in the component 38 of the turbine engine (gas turbine) ([0023-25; 0029, 0037, 0040]; Figs. 1-3).
Regarding Claim 19, Hu teaches a manufacturing method (seen in Fig. 6), comprising:
machining a workpiece 66, 38 using a laser beam 64 to form a feature 52 in the workpiece 66, 38 ([0029, 0037, 0040]; Fig. 3);
capturing an image (characteristic of light … may be one or more wavelengths of light reflected during drilling operations) of an interaction between the laser beam 64 and material of the workpiece 66, 38 being machined to form the feature 52 in the workpiece 66, 38 using a sensor 80 (optical sensor 80); the sensor 80 (optical sensor 80) outputting data (send a signal to the controller 68) indicative of the interaction ([0033, 0038]; Fig. 3);
and processing (via controller 68) the data output (signal from the sensor 80) by the sensor 80 (optical sensor 80) to determine a parameter (breakthrough, in [0032] or passing completely through, in [0040]) associated with the feature 52 being machined in the workpiece 66, 38 ([0032-33, 0036, 0040]; Fig. 3).
Hu does not teach monitoring an interaction between the laser beam and material of the workpiece being machined to form the feature in the workpiece, the interaction monitored in real time during the machining of the workpiece using a camera comprising an electronic shutter and the camera outputting data indicative of the interaction; and processing the data output by the camera to determine a parameter associated with the feature being machined in the workpiece.
Okuma ‘174 teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
monitoring (is monitored, data from camera 464 is sent to a monitor 600 to display data and reviewed by an operator, in [0083; 0128; 0163]; Fig. 16) an interaction between the laser beam L (seen in Fig. 1) and material of the workpiece 1 being machined to form the feature 5 (cut 5) in the workpiece 1, the interaction monitored (is monitored) in real time during the machining of the workpiece 1 using a camera 464 comprising an electronic shutter (inherent that camera 464 has electric shutter from controller 504, as part of controller 500 in Fig. 6, varying shutter time of camera 464, in [0124]) and the camera 464 outputting data (image 10) indicative of the interaction ([0010, 0083; 0123-124, 0128, 0163]; Fig. 16);
and processing (via controller 504 and determination unit 506) the data output (image 10) by the camera 464 to determine a parameter (the intensity modulation) associated with the feature 5 (cut 5) being machined in the workpiece 1 ([0123-124; 0145-147]; Fig. 16). Note, Okuma ‘174’s controller 504 and camera 464 comprising electronic shutter is applied for its stated and intended use of keeping a constant level of the luminance value of the intensity distribution image to be acquired and secure the quality of the intensity distribution image, and not for its location in the prior art.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify Hu to include monitoring (is monitored, data from camera 464 is sent to a monitor 600 to display data and reviewed by an operator) an interaction between the laser beam L and material of the workpiece 1 being machined to form the feature 5 (cut 5) in the workpiece 1, the interaction monitored (is monitored) in real time during the machining of the workpiece 1 using a camera 464 comprising an electronic shutter and the camera 464 outputting data (image 10) indicative of the interaction; and processing (via controller 504 and determination unit 506) the data output (image 10) by the camera 464 to determine a parameter (the intensity modulation) associated with the feature 5 (cut 5) being machined in the workpiece 1, as taught by Okuma ‘174, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 1 above.
While Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches an apparatus, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered an obvious extension of prior art teachings.
Regarding Claim 20, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 19, and Hu further teaches
the feature 52 comprises a hole (cooling holes 52) in the workpiece 66, 38 ([0028]; Fig. 3).
Claims 2-4 and 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, and further in view of Song 5589090.
Regarding Claim 2, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 does not teach the parameter is indicative of a geometry of the interaction between the laser beam and the workpiece.
Song teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
the parameter W is indicative of a geometry (width W) of the interaction between the laser beam B and the workpiece 20 (Col. 2, ll. 14-64; Col. 5, ll. 31-47; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter (breakthrough) of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Song’s parameter W is indicative of a geometry (width W) of the interaction between the laser beam B and the workpiece 20, in order to compare the cutting width W in object 20 in order to make the width be congruent with the standard dimension S1 (Song, Col. 3, ll. 50-61).
Regarding Claim 3, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 does not teach the parameter is indicative of a diameter of the interaction between the laser beam and the workpiece.
Song teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
the parameter W is indicative of a diameter (width W, this is a diameter of hole) of the interaction between the laser beam B and the workpiece 20 (Col. 2, ll. 14-64; Col. 5, ll. 31-47; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter (breakthrough) of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Song’s parameter W is indicative of a diameter (width W, this is a diameter of hole) of the interaction between the laser beam B and the workpiece 20, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 4, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 does not teach the parameter is indicative of an area of the interaction between the laser beam and the workpiece.
Song teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
the parameter W is indicative of an area (width W can be used to determine an area of hole) of the interaction between the laser beam B and the workpiece 20 (Col. 2, ll. 14-64; Col. 5, ll. 31-47; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter (breakthrough) of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Song’s parameter W is indicative of an area (width W can be used to determine an area of hole) of the interaction between the laser beam B and the workpiece 20, for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 6, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 does not teach the parameter is indicative of a geometry of a section of the aperture which has been machined into the workpiece at a point in time when the image is captured.
Song teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
the parameter W is indicative of a geometry (width W) of a section of the aperture (aperture seen in object 20 between points P1 and P2, seen in Fig. 4) which has been machined (during the cutting-off operation) into the workpiece 20 at a point in time when the image is captured (captured image is read as the width is measured by optical sensing units 70a-70b) (Col. 2, ll. 14-64; Col. 5, ll. 19-47; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter (breakthrough) of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Song’s parameter W is indicative of a geometry (width W) of a section of the aperture (aperture seen in object 20 between points P1 and P2, seen in Fig. 4) which has been machined (during the cutting-off operation) into the workpiece 20 at a point in time when the image is captured (captured image is read as the width is measured by optical sensing units 70a-70b), for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 7, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 does not teach the parameter is indicative of a diameter of a section of the aperture which has been machined into the workpiece at a point in time when the image is captured.
Song teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
the parameter W is indicative of a diameter (width W, this is a diameter of hole) of a section of the aperture (aperture seen in object 20 between points P1 and P2, seen in Fig. 4) which has been machined (during the cutting-off operation) into the workpiece 20 at a point in time when the image is captured (captured image is read as the width is measured by optical sensing units 70a-70b) (Col. 2, ll. 14-64; Col. 5, ll. 19-47; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter (breakthrough) of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Song’s parameter W is indicative of a diameter (width W, this is a diameter of hole) of a section of the aperture (aperture seen in object 20 between points P1 and P2, seen in Fig. 4) which has been machined (during the cutting-off operation) into the workpiece 20 at a point in time when the image is captured (captured image is read as the width is measured by optical sensing units 70a-70b), for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 2 above.
Regarding Claim 8, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 does not teach the parameter is indicative of an area of a section of the aperture which has been machined into the workpiece at a point in time when the image is captured.
Song teaches the apparatus that in its normal and usual course of operation carries out the claimed method wherein
the parameter W is indicative of an area (width W can be used to determine an area of hole) of a section of the aperture (aperture seen in object 20 between points P1 and P2, seen in Fig. 4) which has been machined (during the cutting-off operation) into the workpiece 20 at a point in time when the image is captured (captured image is read as the width is measured by optical sensing units 70a-70b) (Col. 2, ll. 14-64; Col. 5, ll. 19-47; Fig. 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the parameter (breakthrough) of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 with Song’s parameter W is indicative of an area (width W can be used to determine an area of hole) of a section of the aperture (aperture seen in object 20 between points P1 and P2, seen in Fig. 4) which has been machined (during the cutting-off operation) into the workpiece 20 at a point in time when the image is captured (captured image is read as the width is measured by optical sensing units 70a-70b), for the same reason as discussed in rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, and further in view of Okuma 2021/0268607 (“Okuma ‘607”).
Regarding Claim 12, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 does not teach the electronic shutter has a shutter time equal to or less than 500 microseconds.
Okuma ‘607 teaches
the electronic shutter has a shutter time (exposure time of a camera … electronic shutter speed) equal to or less than 500 microseconds (exposure time of a camera 488 is limited to 0.1 to 10 ms) ([0169]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the electronic shutter of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 to have a shutter time (exposure time of a camera … electronic shutter speed) equal to or less than 500 microseconds (exposure time of a camera 488 is limited to 0.1 to 10 ms), as taught by Okuma ‘607, in order to prevent accuracy issues and noise (Okuma ‘607, [0169]).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hu in view of Okuma ‘174, and further in view of Saito 2012/0182376
Regarding Claim 14, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 teaches the method as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1. However, Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 does not teach the camera further comprises a charged coupled device image detector which captures the image.
Saito teaches
the camera 56 further comprises a charged coupled device image detector 563 (imaging element 563 such as a CCD (Charge Coupled Device)) which captures the image (the image of the return light) ([0102-103]; Figs. 1 & 9).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to provide the camera 464 of Hu in view of Okuma ‘174 to include Saito’s charged coupled device image detector 563 (imaging element 563 such as a CCD (Charge Coupled Device)) which captures the image, in order to capture the image of the return light (Saito, [0103]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACEK LISOWSKI whose telephone number is (408) 918-7635. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 10 am - 6 pm PST.
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, Phutthiwat Wongwian can be reached on (571) 270-5426. 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.
/JACEK LISOWSKI/Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights