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 for Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 23-37) in the reply filed on 04/17/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected Group II (claims 38-40) and Group III (claims 41-42) are withdrawn from consideration. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 06/12/2023 and 03/15/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claims 28 and 34-35 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 28: the term: “…substantially…” should be removed.
In claim 34: the terms: “…and/or…” should be changed to --or--; and
In claim 35: the term: “…comprises or is connected or connectable to …” should be changed to --having--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 23-33 and 36-37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahoshi et al. (US 201901600592 A1) in view of Kautz (US 5015818) and further in view of Nedderman (US 3213281).
Regarding claim 23, Akahoshi discloses
A laser module structure (laser processing device 10, figs.1-2) for a laser module, comprising:
a housing (laser scanner 18, figs.1-2) configured for receiving a laser deflection system (mirror 30, figs.1-2), wherein the housing (laser scanner 18) comprises a laser-transparent window (protective glass 32, figs.1-2) allowing laser light to pass therethrough from and/or into the housing (laser scanner 18).
However, Akahoshi does not disclose a magnetic trap structure comprising: a frame structure arranged or arrangeable on an outer side of the housing around a window area overlapping the laser-transparent window such that the laser-transparent window is exposed through the frame structure, and one or more magnets for generating a magnetic field; wherein the frame structure comprises a soft magnetic material and extends between the one or more magnets and an interior of the housing, and wherein the one or more magnets are configured such that the magnetic field is inhomogeneous at least in the window area.
Kautz discloses a laser module structure (laser welder 12, figs.1a-b), comprising:
a magnetic trap structure (magnetic collector 10, figs.1a-b) comprising:
a frame structure (steel collar 18, figs.1a-b) arranged or arrangeable on an outer side of a housing (cylindrical housing 11, figs.1a-b) around a window area (fitting 14, figs.1a-b) overlapping the window (nozzle 16, figs.1a-b) such that the window (nozzle 16) is exposed through the frame structure (steel collar 18), and
one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) for generating a magnetic field (magnetic field, figs.2a-b);
wherein the frame structure (steel collar 18) comprises a soft magnetic material (steel collar 18, is a soft magnetic material) and extends between the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34) and an interior of the housing (cylindrical housing 11).
Nedderman discloses a magnetic is configured such that the magnetic field is inhomogeneous [tittle cited: “…inhomogeneous magnetic field…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify a laser module structure of Akahoshi, with a magnetic trap structure comprising: a frame structure arranged or arrangeable on an outer side of the housing around a window area overlapping the laser-transparent window such that the laser-transparent window is exposed through the frame structure, and one or more magnets for generating a magnetic field; wherein the frame structure comprises a soft magnetic material and extends between the one or more magnets and an interior of the housing, as taught by Kautz, in order to provide a magnetic field at the window area.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify one or more magnets of Kautz, are configured such that the magnetic field is inhomogeneous, as taught by Nedderman, in order to control the laser device (Nedderman, tittle).
Regarding claim 24, Kautz discloses
the frame structure (steel collar 18, figs.1a-b) overlaps a side of the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) facing the interior of the housing (cylindrical housing 11, figs.1a-b).
Regarding claim 25, Kautz discloses
the frame structure (steel collar 18, figs.1a-b) overlaps a side of the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) facing away from the window area (fitting 14, figs.1a-b), such that the window area (fitting 14) is separated from a coplanar surrounding area not overlapping window (nozzle 16, figs.1a-b) by the frame structure (steel collar 18).
Regarding claim 26, Kautz discloses
the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) are exposed to the window area (fitting 14, figs.1a-b) by the frame structure (steel collar 18, figs.1a-b).
Regarding claim 27, Kautz discloses
the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) are received in the frame structure (steel collar 18, figs.1a-b).
Regarding claim 28, Kautz discloses
at least some of the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) have a magnetic dipole moment in a direction substantially parallel to a plane defined by the window (nozzle 16, figs.1a-b).
Regarding claim 29, Kautz discloses
at least some of the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) are permanent magnets [magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b, are permanent magnets].
Regarding claim 30, Kautz discloses
at least some of the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) comprise or are made of a rare-earth magnetic material, a rare-earth metal, or an alloy of a rare-earth metal [magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b, are rare-earth magnetic material].
Regarding claim 31, Kautz discloses
the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) are configured to generate the magnetic field in the window area (nozzle 16, figs.1a-b).
However, Kautz does not disclose the magnetic field having a magnetic flux density of at least 0.1 Tesla (T).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify one or more magnets of Kautz, having a magnetic flux density of at least 0.1 Tesla (T), as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order to improve the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 32, Kautz discloses
the frame structure (steel collar 18, figs.1a-b) encloses the window area (fitting 14, figs.1a-b) completely, such that the frame structure (steel collar 18) is closed around the window area (fitting 14).
Regarding claim 33, Kautz does not disclose
the soft magnetic material is or comprises a ferromagnetic material or one or more of an iron-silicon alloy, a nickel-iron alloy, μ-metal, Permalloy, Supermalloy, a soft ferrite, or an amorphous polycrystalline or nanocrystalline alloy of iron, nickel, or cobalt.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify soft magnetic material of Kautz, comprises a ferromagnetic material or one or more of an iron-silicon alloy, a nickel-iron alloy, μ-metal, Permalloy, Supermalloy, a soft ferrite, or an amorphous polycrystalline or nanocrystalline alloy of iron, nickel, or cobalt, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order to improve the magnetic field.
Regarding claim 36, Kautz discloses
at least two of the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34, figs.1a-b) are arranged on opposite sides of the laser-transparent window (nozzle 16, figs.1a-b), such that a separation between the at least two of the one or more magnets (magnets 24, 26, 28, 34) substantially corresponds to an aperture (outlet of nozzle 16) of the laser-transparent window (nozzle 16).
Regarding claim 37, Akahoshi discloses
the laser-transparent window (protective glass 32, figs.1-2) is a protection window (protective glass 32, figs.1-2, is a protection window) or an external surface of an f-theta-lens.
Claims 34-35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akahoshi et al. (US 201901600592 A1) in view of Kautz (US 5015818), in view of Nedderman (US 3213281) and further in view of Tanimoto et al. (US 5597590).
Regarding claim 34, Kautz disclose substantially all the features as set forth above but does not disclose one or more removable protection elements for covering exterior surfaces of the one or more magnets and/or of the frame structure, the exterior surfaces exposed to the window area and/or to an area below the window area.
Tanimoto discloses one or more removable protection elements [Col.17, line 62 cited: “…a protective transparent flat sheet …”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify one or more magnets and/or of the frame structure of Kautz, with one or more removable protection elements, as taught by Tanimoto, in order to cover exterior surfaces of the one or more magnets and/or of the frame structure, such that the exterior surfaces exposed to the window area and/or to an area below the window area.
Regarding claim 35, Tanimoto discloses
the one or more removable protection elements [Col.17, line 62 cited: “…a protective transparent flat sheet …”] connected or connectable to a sensor module [Col.17, lines 62-64 cited: “…a protective transparent flat sheet is disposed between the alignment sensors and the light irradiation unit so that if any contamination is caused…”].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at before the effective filling date of the invention to modify one or more magnets and/or of the frame structure of Kautz, with the one or more removable protection elements connected or connectable to a sensor module, as taught by Tanimoto, in order to provide a measurement of a contamination level of the one or more removable protection elements.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Richter (US 20200331100 A1) is relevant prior art in field of a laser processing machining, but does not specific disclose the housing comprises a laser-transparent window; and a magnetic trap structure comprising: a frame structure arranged or arrangeable on an outer side of the housing around a window area overlapping the laser-transparent window such that the laser-transparent window is exposed through the frame structure
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
05/03/2026
Prosecution Insights