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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-6 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 1, lines 6-7 recite,
“wherein the program generation device comprises a first processor,
wherein the scanner control device comprises a second processor and a memory,”
claim 1 additionally recites, “wherein the first processor is configured to convert the scanner program into a control point correction program for repeatedly scanning a control point correction trajectory for correcting a present control point at a predetermined cycle,
wherein the second processor is configured to control the scanner based on the control point correction program so as to illuminate the workpiece with the control point correction trajectory in a state in which the moving device is stopped,” in paragraphs 8 and 9.
[0090]-[0091] of the immediate specification recite,
“[0090] The embodiments of the present invention have been described above, but the laser processing system 1 can be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination thereof. The control method performed by the laser processing system 1 can also be implemented by hardware, software, or a combination thereof. Here, "implemented by software" means that it is implemented by a computer reading and executing a program.
[0091] The program may be stored in various types of non- transitory computer readable media to be provided to the computer. The non-transitory computer readable media include various types of tangible storage media. Examples of the non- transitory computer readable media include magnetic recording media (e.g., hard disk drives), magneto-optical recording media (e.g., magneto-optical disks), CD-ROMs (read only memories), CD-Rs, CD-R/Ws, and semiconductor memories (e.g., mask ROMs, PROMs (programmable ROMs), EPROMs (erasable PROMs), flash ROMs, and RAMs (random access memories)).”
However, there appears to be no recitation anywhere in the specification of a processor, nor is there a recitation of “a first processor” “a second processor”, “computer”, or “CPU”, and therefore, The claims contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
[0030] of the immediate specification recites,
“The irradiation conditions may be stored in advance in a memory in the laser control device 7.”, and it appears that in no way is there a memory associated with “the scanner control device” as claimed, and therefore contain subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 2-5 are rejected based on their dependencies.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Aoki (US PGPUB 2018/0043471 A1) in view of Boillot et al. (US PGPUB 2017/0345157 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Aoki discloses a laser processing system (10), comprising:
a scanner (12, laser irradiation device) capable of scanning a work piece (20) with a laser beam ([0021] indicates "Robot system 10 is configured to carry out predetermined laser processing (or machining) such as cutting, welding or marking, by irradiating a laser beam onto a predetermined position of an object to be processed (or a workpiece) 20 held by or located on a working table 18.");
a moving device (14) configured to move the scanner relative to the work piece ([0021]);
a scanner control device (34) configured to control the scanner ([0026]); and
a program generation device ([0026], "Robot controller 16 controls the motion of robot 14 by
generating a command for controlling robot 14 based on a predetermined operation program.") configured to generate a scanner program ([0026, "predetermined operation program") for controlling the scanner.
wherein the program generative device comprises a first processor ([0030] indicates that 16 has a CPU)
wherein the scanner control device comprises a second processor ([0026], indicates the scanner control device contains a memory and processes instructions and can be a separate device from 16 which has a CPU) and a memory,
wherein the first processor in configured to convert the scanner program into a control point correction program (S3) for repeatedly scanning a control point correction trajectory (E[i], E[j]) for correcting a preset control point (42) at a predetermined cycle (S2); and
wherein the second processor is configured to control the scanner based on the control point correction program ([0030]) so as to illuminate the workpiece with the control point correction trajectory is a state in which the moving device is stopped ("As shown in FIG. 6, the actual position of laser irradiation device 12 is deviated from the command position by the distance corresponding to deviation E[i]. In this case, by correcting the laser irradiation position toward target position 48 by the distance corresponding to E[i], the laser beam can be precisely irradiated onto target (desired) laser irradiation position 48." [0039]).
However, Aoki does not disclose, “wherein the control point correction program prevents a machining laser from outputting while enabling a guide laser to output”
Boillot et al. teaches, in the field of laser processing, a control unit with non-eye-safe (first laser unit) and eye-safe (second laser unit) modes of operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser processing device of Aoki to have a control unit with a safety interlock between the processing laser and the scanning laser as taught by Boillot et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “a control unit having first and second laser drivers for respectively driving the first and second laser units, a cut-off circuit operatively connected to the first laser driver for disabling operation of the first laser unit depending on a control signal, and a control circuit for controlling the first and second laser drivers depending on a cut-off condition of the cut-off circuit so that the first laser unit is enabled and the second laser unit is disabled in the non-eye-safe operating mode while the first laser unit is disabled and the second laser unit is enabled in the eye-safe operating mode; [0009]”
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Aoki and Boillot et al. teach all of claim 1 as above,
the second processor (Aoki; Fig. 8 shows the scanner illuminating in a location that is not directly under the irradiation device) configured to move the control point based on the control point correction trajectory (Aoki; Fig. 8); and
store a position of a moved control point (Aoki; Fig. 7) and a direction defined by the moved control point in a coordinate system (Aoki; Fig. 7) to the memory, and
wherein the first processor controls the scanner to illuminate the workpiece with the control point correction trajectory based on the position of the moved control point and the direction defined by the moved control point in the coordinate system (Aoki; Fig. 8, [0039]).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Aoki and Boillot et al. teach all of claim 1 as above, wherein the control point correction trajectory illuminated on the workpiece has the same length and shape as a control point correction trajectory in the scanner program for controlling the scanner (Aoki; In this case, by correcting the laser irradiation position toward target position 48 by the distance corresponding to E[i], the laser beam can be precisely irradiated onto target (desired) laser irradiation position 48. [0039]") and can be compared with a correction pattern ("By virtue of such correction as explained above, as, indicated by a solid line 52 in FIG. 5, in coordinate system Ot defined with respect to the laser irradiation device, the laser processing line becomes symmetrical to the solid line (or the serpentine trajectory) in FIG. 4 with respect to a straight line AB. As a result, the error due to the structure or control of the robot can be eliminated, and thus the actual laser irradiation position (or the laser processing line) becomes a trajectory along straight line AB in coordinate system Ow, whereby the precise laser processing can be carried out.” [0040]).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Aoki and Boillot et al. teaches all of claim 1 as above, wherein the control point correction trajectory includes at least one of a path indicating a position of the control point (Aoki; E[i], E[j] indicates a vector that is the difference between the actual line (46) and the desired line (42)).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Aoki and Boillot et al. teaches all of claim 1 as above, wherein the second processor executes, when converting the scanner program into the control point correction program, at least one of: changing an output condition of the laser beam (Aoki; [0039], "adjusting the focal position") or changing a scanning speed of the laser beam (Aoki; [0046]).
Regarding claim 6, Aoki discloses a method for controlling a laser processing system, the method comprising:
converting a scanner program (34, 36, 16; [0027]) for controlling a scanner (12) into a control point correction program (Fig. 3) for correcting a preset control point (42, 44);
moving (14) the scanner capable of scanning a workpiece (20) with a laser beam (26, Fig. 2),
relative to the workpiece;
stopping (Fig. 3) a moving device (14) configured to move the scanner relative to the workpiece; and
controlling the scanner based on the control point correction program to illuminate the
workpiece with a control point correction trajectory (E[i], E[j]) for correcting the preset control point (42,
44) in a state in which the moving device is stopped (Fig. 3, measuring is between two separate robot
motion steps),
wherein controlling the scanner includes controlling the scanner to repeatedly scan the control
point correction trajectory at a predetermined cycle (Fig. 3).
However, Aoki does not disclose, “wherein the control point correction program prevents a machining laser from outputting while enabling a guide laser to output”
Boillot et al. teaches, in the field of laser processing, a control unit with non-eye-safe (first laser unit) and eye-safe (second laser unit) modes of operation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the laser processing device of Aoki to have a control unit with a safety interlock between the processing laser and the scanning laser as taught by Boillot et al., as both references are in the same field of endeavor, and one of ordinary skill would appreciate that, “a control unit having first and second laser drivers for respectively driving the first and second laser units, a cut-off circuit operatively connected to the first laser driver for disabling operation of the first laser unit depending on a control signal, and a control circuit for controlling the first and second laser drivers depending on a cut-off condition of the cut-off circuit so that the first laser unit is enabled and the second laser unit is disabled in the non-eye-safe operating mode while the first laser unit is disabled and the second laser unit is enabled in the eye-safe operating mode; [0009]”
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 RYAN C CLARK whose telephone number is (571)272-2871. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Thursday 0730-1730, Alternate Fridays 0730-1630.
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 D 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.
/RYAN C CLARK/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights