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 .
Specification
A substitute specification excluding the claims is required pursuant to 37 CFR 1.125(a) because the amendments to the specification were not properly entered. The only format for an amendment to the specification (other than the claims) that is usable for publication is a substitute specification in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b)(3) and 1.125. (MPEP 714.01(e)).
A substitute specification must not contain new matter. The substitute specification must be submitted with markings showing all the changes relative to the immediate prior version of the specification of record. The text of any added subject matter must be shown by underlining the added text. The text of any deleted matter must be shown by strike-through except that double brackets placed before and after the deleted characters may be used to show deletion of five or fewer consecutive characters. The text of any deleted subject matter must be shown by being placed within double brackets if strike-through cannot be easily perceived. An accompanying clean version (without markings) and a statement that the substitute specification contains no new matter must also be supplied. Numbering the paragraphs of the specification of record is not considered a change that must be shown.
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 control-receiving unit and the electronics unit (disclosed in claim 18) must both be shown or the features canceled from the claim. 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) are the “oscillating element,” and “control-receiving unit.”
Because these claim limitation(s) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), they are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Referring to the specifications, each of the above limitations will be addressed in order. The oscillating element will be understood to describe, “an oscillating fork or a single oscillatable rod,” and equivalents thereof (Specifications, pg 11). The control receiving unit will be understood to describe, “an electromechanical converter unit, such as a piezoelectric drive or an electromagnetic drive,” and equivalence thereof (Specifications, pg 11).
If applicant does not intend to have these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claim 18 is objected to because of the following informalities: typographical error that leads to improper sentence structure. The body of claim 18 discloses, a “control-receiving unit is configured … to mechanical oscillations in an oscillation mode." This claim will be understood as a control unit configured to mechanically oscillate in oscillation mode, as it is consistent with proper grammar and verbiage. Nonetheless, appropriate correction is required.
Additionally, claim 12 is objected to because the arrangement of the purge gas supply and suction channels, with their respective openings and connectors, is inconsistent with the disclosure in the specifications. The Specification discloses a “purge gas supply channel 11 has a chamber 15 that communicates with the connector 13 and the outlet opening 14,” and a “purge gas suction channel 12 comprises a chamber 18 that communicates with the connector 16 and the inlet opening 17.” (Specifications, pg 8). However, claim 12 discloses a “purge gas supply channel comprises supply chamber within the purging attachment in communication with the supply connector and with the inlet opening, and wherein the at least one purge gas suction channel comprises a suction chamber [within] the purging attachment in communication with the discharge connector and with the outlet opening.” (Claim 12). In the interest of compact prosecution, the claim will be interpreted as disclosed in the Specifications (supply channel to outlet and suction channel to inlet) because it is consistent with direction of the airflow of the purging apparatus. Furthermore, a word was added (in bold brackets) for clarity, and consistency with the first limitation of the claim. Nonetheless, Applicant is required to cancel, or amend the claim in order to resolve these errors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C 112(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(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.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. Specifically, the “electronics unit” in claim 18 has no further structure recited in the specifications to perform claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b)
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.
Claims 10-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the joint inventors regard as the invention.
With regards to claims 10-17, each of these claims are made dependent on cancelled claims, so the Applicant’s intended scope of the subject matter is unclear. In the interest of compact prosecution, the phrase “purging attachment of claim 1” will be understood as a typographical error, where the applicant actually intended to make each of claims 11-15, dependent on claim 10. Similarly, in claim 17, “the purging attachment of according to claim 1”, will be interpreted as a typographical error meant to be a linking claim to claim 10. Finally, claim 16 will be interpreted as intended to be a claim dependent on claim 15 (consistent with original numbering). Nevertheless, the claims are rejected to, and need to be correctly numbered.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the oscillating unit" in the second paragraph in the body of claim 18. Examiner takes the position that this limitation is referring to “a mechanically oscillatable unit” in the first paragraph of claim 18. Nonetheless, there is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim limitation “electronics unit” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the functions in the claim, and no association between the structure and its functions is disclosed in the Specification beyond the generic limitation above. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b).
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f);
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 –
(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.
(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.
Claims 10-12, 14-16 are rejected as anticipated under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) or (a)(2) as anticipated by Liedtke (US 4,027,137).
Examiner Note: A statement of intended use will not distinguish over prior art that teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114-II). Furthermore, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a claimed apparatus is considered intended use, and does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim (MPEP 2115). Claim 10 is directed to a “purging attachment,” but the preamble of the claim merely recites an intended use of the apparatus with respect to the application (“using laser radiation”) and workpiece parameters (“a workpiece having…”). (Specifications, Claim 10). As these limitations do not impart any additional structure to the apparatus, they are mere statements of intended use, and thus, will not distinguish over prior art. Accordingly, the preamble will not be considered in the prior art rejection below.
With respect to claim 10, Liedtke anticipates a purging attachment (10, Fig. 1) comprising: (Examiner Note: preamble omitted for reasons above)
a central opening (34) through the purging attachment;
at least one purge gas supply channel (45) extending through the purging attachment and including, at a first end, a supply connector configured for a purge gas supply line (Fig. 1) (Examiner note: The claims do not recite or require any specific structure for the connector, therefore any connection between the supply channel and the supply line reads onto this limitation. Liedtke discloses the air supply tube (45) is coupled to the compressed air source (48) by way of a flexible hose (51), and thus, necessarily discloses a connector between the supply channel (45) and gas supply line (51) (Col. 4 L 62-4).) and, at a second end, an outlet opening (47);
at least one purge gas suction channel (36) extending through the purging attachment and including, at a first end, a discharge connector configured for a purge gas discharge line (Fig. 1) (Examiner note: The claims do not recite or require any specific structure for the connector, therefore any connection between the suction channel and discharge line reads onto this limitation. Liedtke discloses the exhaust tube (36) is coupled to the suction source (38) by way of a flexible hose (37), and thus, necessarily discloses a connector between the suction channel (36) and gas purge line (37) (Col. 4 L 25-30).) and, at a second end, an inlet opening (Fig. 2) (Examiner Note: The surface between exhaust passageway (35) and chamber (26) will herein be defined as the inlet of purge suction channel (36) (Col. 4 L 14-18). This will be indicated by reference to Fig. 2.), wherein the outlet opening of the at least one purge gas supply channel and the inlet opening of the at least one purge gas suction channel are disposed on opposite sides of the central opening; (Figs. 1-3) (Examiner Note: In Liedtke, at least one of the outlets are diametrically opposed with the inlet, and therefore reads onto this limitation.)
and at least one centering portion (33) configured to interact with a centering region of the workpiece arranged on the side of the workpiece such that the central opening, the outlet opening, and the inlet opening communicate with the workpiece chamber. Examiner Note: This limitation is a manner of intended use as it relates to the workpiece for the apparatus, and therefore, does not impart patentability (MPEP 2115). Therefore, the centering portion, as presently claimed, describes any structure capable of centering the aperture in relation to the workpiece. Liedtke discloses an aperture disk (33) that positions the aperture so that it is centered on the workpiece, and therefore reads onto this limitation (Col. 3 L 47-58, Col. 4 L 3-5).
With respect to claim 11, Liedtke further anticipates the outlet opening (47) of the at least one purge gas supply channel (45) and the inlet opening of the at least one purge gas suction channel (36) are configured as elongated holes (Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 12, Liedtke further anticipates wherein the at least one purge gas supply channel (45) comprises a supply chamber (44) within the purging attachment in communication with the supply connector (Fig. 1) and with the outlet opening (47, Fig. 2), and wherein the at least one purge gas suction channel (36) comprises a suction chamber (35) with the purging attachment in communication with the discharge connector (Fig. 1) and with the inlet opening (Fig. 2). (Bolded language is to indicate revisions based on Examiner’s claim interpretation). Examiner Note: The claims do not require or recite any additional structure or limitation of the communication between the chambers and their respective connectors, and therefore, any structure in fluid communication with the connectors and their respective openings reads onto this limitation. Liedtke discloses a supply and exhaust passageway (44, 35) within the corresponding supply and vacuum channels (45, 35), in fluid connection with the vacuum chamber (26) and therefore, necessarily in fluid connection with their respective connectors and openings (Col. 4 L 21-25, 50-57).
With respect to claim 14, Liedtke further anticipates the centering portion (33) includes a cylindrical surface that extends around a longitudinal axis of the central opening and is configured to seat against a contact surface of the workpiece as to center the workpiece with respect to the central opening of the purging attachment. Examiner Note: The italicized claim language is a functional limitation, and therefore, will not distinguish over prior art when the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114-II). Liedtke discloses, a metal aperture disk that is disposed around the perimeter of the aperture and designed to “mak[e] contact with the workpiece (Col. 3 L 46-50, Col. 4 L 3-5). As the aperture is “located in the center of the disk” and “defines the size of the hole which will be formed in the workpiece,” the metal aperture disk necessarily centers the aperture (i.e. central opening) with respect to the workpiece surface region being processed during each drilling operation (Col. 3 L 54-9). The claim does not recite or require any additional structural limitations, and thus, Liedtke reads onto the immediate claim language.
PNG
media_image1.png
458
409
media_image1.png
Greyscale
With respect to claim 15, Liedtke further anticipates the central opening (34, Fig. 1) of the purging attachment includes a cylindrically symmetrical first portion (chamber 26 represents the cylindrically symmetrical first portion, Fig. 2) having a first cross-section and a cylindrically symmetrical second portion (port 29 represents the cylindrically symmetrical second portion, Fig. 2) arranged coaxially behind the first cylindrically- symmetrical portion and having a second cross-section, (Fig. 2) (Examiner Note: “Coaxially behind” will be interpreted to mean the second cross section is a cylindrical shell of the first cross section, where the inside radius of the shell is defined by the first cross section (refer to Specifications, pg. 10). Liedtke discloses the cylindrical lower chamber (26) “is open at the bottom to form a circular port,” where the circular port (29) is a larger cylindrical cross section with the inner radius defined by the lower chamber (26) (Col. 3 L 27-30, Fig. 2). This will be understood to meet the language of the applicant’s definition of co-axially behind.).
wherein a radial shoulder (30, Examiner Annotated Fig. 2) is formed at a transition from the first portion to the second portion (Examiner Note: Liedtke discloses an annular recessed shoulder (30) between the chamber (26) and the lower port (29), that is formed by a stepped cross-sectional widening between the first cross section (26) and second cross section (29) (Col. 3 L 27-30)), which radial shoulder forms a stop surface (31) configured for the workpiece when the purging attachment is arranged on the workpiece in operation (Examiner Annotated Fig. 2). Examiner Note: The italicized claim language is a functional limitation, and therefore, will not distinguish over prior art when the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim (MPEP 2114-II). The claim does not recite or require any specific structure to form a stop surface, therefore, any contact with the workpiece to limit further displacement of the apparatus will meet this limitation. Liedtke discloses the annular recessed shoulder (30) forms a bottom surface (31) that “progressively recede[s] from the workpiece surface,” and thereby forms a stop surface with workpiece. (Col. 3 L 31-5, Examiner Annotated Fig. 2).
With respect to claim 16, Liedtke discloses all the limitations of claim 15, and further anticipates, the outlet opening (47) of the at least one gas supply channel (45) and the inlet opening (Examiner Note: As discussed in claim 10 above, the inlet is defined as the surface between the exhaust tube (36) and the chamber (26). This surface is arranged within the radial shoulder as defined by Examiner Annotated Fig. 2, and therefore reads on this limitation.) of the at least one purge gas suction channel (36) are arranged in the radial shoulder (30, Examiner Annotated Fig. 2).
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.
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 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liedtke (US 4,027,137), and further in view of Sasaki et al. (US 7,692,115).
As discussed above, Liedtke discloses all the limitations of claim 10. With respect to claim 13, Liedtke further discloses at least one purge gas suction channel (36) includes two purge gas suction channels (36, Fig. 3) extending through the purging attachment, including corresponding discharge connectors (39) and inlet openings (Fig. 2, Col. 4 L 14-18) at respective first and second ends.
Liedtke further discloses the purge gas suction channels (36) are disposed opposite and the purge gas supply channels (45) on opposing sides of the central opening (34) (Fig. 3) Examiner Note: As the central opening is circular, when the suction and supply channels are on opposite halves of the central opening, they will be considered to be opposing. Liedtke discloses a supply channel (45) with more than 1 exhaust channel (36) on the opposite half (line perpendicular to line 2-2) of the central opening, and therefore, reads onto this limitation. (Fig. 3)
Liedtke does not disclose, “at least one purge gas supply channel includes two purge gas supply channels extending through the purging attachment, including corresponding supply connectors and outlet openings at respective first and second ends.”
However, Sasaki discloses a laser processing head that has “suction (gas introduction) and exhaust functions … placed in the gas introducing-exhausting unit per 90 degree turn in a radial direction” (Col. 10 L 51-55) (17a, 18a, 31a, 32a in Fig. 8). In other words, Sasaki discloses 2 pairs of suction and exhaust pipes (17a, 18a & 31a, 32a respectively), wherein each pipe (17a, 31a) is disposed on an opposite half of the opening (20) with respect to their corresponding pair (18a, 32a) (Fig. 8).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to substitute the gas suction-supply channel configuration of Liedtke with the 2 diametrically opposed pairs of suction and exhaust channels of Sasaki because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of preventing contamination of the workpiece and optical components. The use of multiple opposing suction-supply channels is well known in the laser processing art, and a person having skill in the art would recognize that both configurations are suitable for by-product removal. Furthermore, a person having skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the opposing configuration of the suction and supply channels disclosed in Sasaki as it deflects contaminants in the suction direction, thereby increasing the recovery rate of the device, and reducing contamination of the optical components. Accordingly, claim 13 is rejected as obvious over Liedtke, in view of Sasaki.
Claim 17 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liedtke (US 4,027,137), and further in view of Gadd (US 9,387,554).
As discussed above, Liedtke discloses all the limitations of claim 10. With respect to claim 17, Liedtke further discloses a method for structuring a surface of a workpiece using a laser (Examiner Note: Claims do not define a surface structuring process, and thus any process altering the structure of a workpiece surface will read onto this limitation. Liedtke discloses a laser-nozzle for drilling holes into various workpiece materials, and thereby, changing the structure of the surface of the workpiece.) by positioning a purging attachment (10) according to claim 10 onto the workpiece (11) (Col. 6 L 6-9);
supplying gas to the workpiece chamber (Examiner Note: Claims do not recite or require any specific structure for the workpiece chamber, thus, any cavity in the workpiece will read onto this limitation. Liedtke discloses a hole in the workpiece is made after each drilling operation, and thus provides for a cavity in the workpiece that can have operations applied to it (Col. 6 L 34-40, Col. 7 L16-31). This will be interpreted to read onto the limitation of a workpiece chamber.) through the outlet opening of the at least one purge gas supply channel (Examiner Note: It is improper to read a specific order of steps into a method claim, when the claims do not directly or implicitly require a specific order of steps (MPEP 2111.01-II). No specific order is specified in the specifications or claims, and thus the method of Liedtke where the gas is supplied to the hole at some point in the process reads onto this limitation. (Col. 7 L 16-30));
suctioning the gas, and particles from the workpiece chamber entrained in the gas, through the inlet opening of the at least one purge gas suction channel (Examiner Note: Liedtke discloses the gas suction channel removing the supply gas and debris from the holes drilled in the workpiece (i.e. workpiece chambers) through the inlet at some point in the operation of the device. (Col. 6 L 34-40));
and during the suction of gas and particles beaming laser radiation generated by the laser through the central opening of the purging attachment onto the surface to be processed as to roughening the surface via the laser radiation (Col. 6 L 34-40).
Liedtke does not disclose beaming laser radiation through the central opening during the supply of gas into the workpiece chamber.
However, Gadd discloses a method and apparatus that supplies air simultaneously with the operation of the laser. Specifically, Gadd discloses that during the laser processing step (ST3, Fig. 5) that “gas is being blown from blow ports 60 …during the application of the laser beam,” and that the air curtain is blowing gas from the blow port 72 while gas is being blown from blow ports 60, and thus, supplies gas to the workpiece during the operation of the laser. (Col. 9 L 9-15, 36-41) (Figs. 4 & 5).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the effective filing date of the application to modify Liedtke with Gadd to supply purge gas simultaneously with the operation of the laser in order to improve processing speed and efficiency. One having skill in the art would recognize that Liedtke could be modified with Gadd with a reasonable degree of success as Liedtke already discloses gas supply and suction operations, and Gadd simply alters the sequence of events. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the purge gas supply step of Gadd with Liedtke because Gadd discloses that the supply of purge gas simultaneously with laser processing prevents debris from sticking to the optical components, thereby improving the quality and speed of laser processing, and the overall efficacy of the device. (Col.11 L 1-14). Additionally, one having ordinary skill in the art would be recognize that supplying gas during the operation of the laser reduces the re-adherence of unwanted by-product to the workpiece and optical components, thus further improving the recovery rate and overall efficiency of the device. Accordingly, claim 17 is rejected as obvious over Liedtke in view of Gadd.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liedtke (US 4,027,137) in view of Gadd (US 9,387,554) as applied to claim 17 above, in view of Kessler et al. (DE 10201703001 A1).
The combined Liedtke and Gadd references (hereinafter modified Liedtke) discloses all the limitations of the method in claim 17, but does not disclose a “method for producing a sensor for determining at least one process variable of a medium in a container.”
However, Kessler discloses a method for producing an adhesive bond for a vibronic sensor (7, Fig. 3a) (Para. 27) comprising roughening a rear side of a membrane (14) of a mechanically oscillatable unit (9), which includes the membrane (14) and at least one oscillating element (15a, 15b) disposed on a front side of the membrane opposite the rear side of the membrane (Fig. 3a, b).
Furthermore, Kessler discloses adhering a control-receiving unit (12) to the roughened rear side of the membrane (14) (para. 44), which control-receiving unit (12) is configured to excite the mechanically oscillatable unit (9), via an electrical excitation signal having an excitation frequency, to mechanically oscillate in an oscillation mode corresponding to the excitation frequency, to receive the mechanical oscillations from the oscillatable unit (9), and to convert the mechanical oscillations to an electrical received signal; (para. 5-7) (bolded language indicated corrections based on discussion above)
and connecting the control-receiving unit to an electronics unit (13) such that the electronics unit and the control-receiving unit (12) interact as to generate, starting from the received signal, the excitation signal, and to determine the process variable from the received signal (paras. 5-7, 42 Figs. 1a, 1b, 3a, 3b).
It would have been obvious to one having skill in the art at the effective filing date of the application to combine modified Liedtke with the method of Kessler in order to improve adhesion of components in sensor manufacturing. The use of laser surface roughening for sensor manufacturing is well known in the art, and a person having skill in the art would recognize that the modified Liedtke and Kessler could be combined with reasonable success as any suitable laser process can be implemented with the method of Kessler (para. 3). One having skill in the art would be motivated to combine modified Liedtke with Kessler because the method of Kessler “enables uniform flow of the adhesive, which is fundamental to the greatest possible adhesion and correspondingly decisive for the reproducibility and long-term stability of the adhesive bond.” (Kessler, para. 13). As Kessler discloses that adhesion between sensor components is difficult to achieve, and directly the properties and accuracy of the sensor, one having skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Kessler with Liedtke to improve the quality and durability of the adhesive bonds in the sensor (para. 16, 27). Accordingly, claim 18 is rejected as obvious over modified Liedtke in view of Kessler.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Takahashi et al. (US 10,213,076) reads very closely to the arrangement of suction/supply channels and their respective inlet/outlet openings as in the immediate application. The primary difference is the irradiation process applied to the workpiece (ion generation to remove charged particles, not laser surface roughening) and the workpiece is placed in the chamber of device, rather than the other way around.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8 am - 5 pm.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/John Michael Chambers/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
February 19, 2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761