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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 2-6 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2: “the side surface of the laser” should be “a side surface of the laser”
Claims 3 and 4: “the outer peripheral surface” should be “an outer peripheral surface”
Claim 5: “the bottom surface” should be “a bottom surface”
Claim 6: “the lower side” and “the upper side” should be “a lower side” and “an upper side,” respectively.
Claim 6: “the cutting area” should be “the cutting region” to be consistent with claim 1.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-7 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 inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 1 requires that the steel material is heated by the laser “to a temperature that causes progression of self-burning of the steel material,” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear what is meant by “self-burning.” The specification states, in paragraph 0019, that:
The self-burning phenomenon in the laser cutting of steel material is that the steel material and the assist gas (oxygen) react excessively, and the kerf grows not only in the laser irradiation area but also in the area where the assist gas (oxygen) is sprayed, which is a phenomenon in which the roughness of the cut surface is significantly reduced. On the other hand, the “self-burning” in the method for cutting concrete member of the present invention does not essentially require the use of the assist gas, and broadly includes the phenomenon of the heat generation by the reaction between the steel material and oxygen due to the temperature rise caused by the laser irradiation. That is, in order to promote the self-burning phenomenon, it is preferable to use an assist gas containing oxygen, but even when the assist gas containing oxygen is not used, the self-burning phenomenon may be proceeded, for example by the oxygen in air.
The above is considered to be the most relevant passage detailing what the Applicant intends self-burning to mean.
The term “self-burning” does not appear to have an explicit definition in the specification nor does it appear to have an art recognized meaning.
US 2017/0232558 to Kano relates to a laser machining method and uses the term “self-burning” which states that self-burning is “caused by the high power laser beam” (para. 0033) and that the “probability of the occurrence of self-burning varies depending on the individual difference of the composition of the workpiece, the individual difference in the state of the surface oxide film on the workpiece, and the state of residual heat in the workpiece W” (para. 0059).
US2006/0044981 to Egawa relates to a laser cutting system and states “ the pressure of the supplied oxygen gas is increased to increase the amount of supply, the flow rate of the assist gas is excessively increased so that an anomalous combustion (or a self-burning phenomenon) takes place at the front surface of the steel plate” (para. 0012).
Based on the disclosure it appears that “self-burning” may be used to refer to the autoignition temperature of the steel material. However, it is not reasonably clear if this is the case. Since the specification refers to “self-burning phenomenon” it is not reasonably clear if the intention is for the steel to be heated to its ignition temperature (which is an intrinsic material property) or if a different meaning is intended. For the purposes of examination, the Examiner will understand the claim to refer to the ignition temperature of the steel material.
Claims 2-7 inherit the above as a result of their respective dependency from the same.
Additionally, claim 4 recites that the side surface of the laser is brought into contact with the outer peripheral surface of the concrete member at the start position of the cutting and “the position of the laser is fixed until the molten region of the concrete is formed…” renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “the position of the laser beam” refers to the “start position of the cutting” or to another position of the laser beam.
Additionally, claim 6 recites “wherein the laser is scanned from the lower side of the concrete member in the direction of gravity toward the upper side in the direction of gravity to form the cutting area” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if “the direction of gravity” refers to the orientation of the lower side and upper side or the direction in which the laser beam is scanned.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Crouse (US2006/0032843).
Regarding claim 1, Crouse teaches a method for cutting concrete member (para. 0001) (Fig. 7) through irradiation of the concrete member with a laser (laser source 18, beam 20), the method being characterized in that: the concrete member (12) includes a steel material (para. 0034; steel bars running through the concrete) (para. 0057); the concrete is melted by scanning (para. 0051-0052) the laser thereon to form a cutting region (Fig. 6 and para. 0053; beam impinges at 24 to cause the concrete to melt and leave behind cutting region 40); the steel material is heated by means of the laser to a temperature that causes progression of self-burning of the steel material (para. 0034; “Concrete structures are frequently reinforced with metal bars such as steel bars running through the concrete. When such concrete structures are being broken down it is necessary also to cut through the steel bars. In this regard it is advantageous to employ a laser device which has a reserve of power over that required to cut the concrete according to the method of the present invention due to the higher energy density required for cutting the metal, caused by its greater thermal conductivity…Desirably, there should be an oxygen supply able to provide a super-stoichiometric oxygen atmosphere to make full use of the enthalpy of reaction for the oxidation of steel…Apparatus for carrying out the method of the present invention should desirably include a conduit for supplying oxygen and having an outlet which is positionable as closely as possible to the area of impingement of the laser beam. The aforementioned minimum kerf width makes this readily achievable. Because of the higher thermal conductivity of steel, a higher energy density is required to keep the oxygen-steel reaction above its ignition temperature. This value is typically above 1500 Wcm.sup.-2 for a 15 mm OD steel bar depending on traverse speed. If a lower-power laser is used this can easily be achieved by adjustment of the position of the focal plane. If reinforced concrete is to be cut using a raw laser beam, the energy density of the said beam will have to exceed this value, or a value scaled to the diameter of the steel bars in question.”) [Here, Crouse teaches using the laser to cut the steel bars in the concrete to a temperature above its ignition temperature]; and the melting of the concrete is accelerated by heat generation from the self-burning (This is understood to refer to the result of the heating of the steel member to its ignition temperature. As the steel bars are heated to such temperature, the heat generated is conducted to the surrounding concrete, which would naturally increase the heating of the concrete).
Regarding claim 2 Crouse teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the cutting region is formed by using the side surface of the laser (see Figure 6; a side surface of the laser beam is used during cutting).
Regarding claim 3 Crouse teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 1, and further teaches wherein the cutting is started from the outer peripheral surface of the concrete member (See Figs. 2a/b and 5 which show the cut formation relative to the laser direction on the concrete member).
Regarding claim 7 Crouse teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 2, and further teaches wherein the wherein the scanning direction of the laser is substantially vertical (see Fig. 6).
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(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse in view of Saito (US2014/0102146).
Regarding claim 4 Crouse teaches substantially the claimed method, as applied to claim 2, and further teaches wherein the side surface of the laser is brought into contact with the outer peripheral surface of the concrete member at the start position of the cutting (See Figs. 2a/b and 5 which show the cut formation relative to the laser direction on the concrete member).
Crouse does not explicitly state that the position of the laser is fixed until the molten region of the concrete is formed around the entire circumference of the laser.
However, Crouse does state, in paragraph 0028, that “[d]uring treatment both melting and vaporization take place” and that “both the vapour-to-melt ratio and the depth of cut per pass decrease as power density decreases, and as traverse speed increases.” Crouse continues in that the “chosen regime is thus a trade-off between the amount of vapour the user is prepared to contend with, and the minimum cutting speed desired.” Crouse also teaches varying beam travel speeds in paragraph 0029. So while Crouse teaches moving the beam during the cutting, Crouse also acknowledges that the travel speed relates to the melting of the concrete for a given depth.
Saito relates to a method for cutting glass using a laser beam (Abstract) and teaches using a laser beam (22) to cut the plate (10) such that the position of the laser is fixed until a crack (30) forms (para. 0059) after which the laser is traversed (para. 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Crouse with Saito, by replacing the position of the laser beam relative to the cut starting point of Crouse, with fixed position taught by Saito, for in doing so would provide an alternative arrangement for starting a cut within a brittle object (i.e., continuously moving the laser beam vs. starting the beam at a fixed position for a time sufficient to cause local heating/melting). In this case, starting the cutting process with the beam at a fixed position would ensure that the material surrounding the beam spot is heated to the desired temperature to cause melting and cutting to begin.
Regarding claim 5, the combination teaches the claimed method, as applied to claim 4, and further teaches wherein at least part of the bottom surface of the concrete member is included in the start position of the cutting (see 2a/b, 5, and Fig. 6 of Crouse).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Crouse in view of Beresford (US3617683), as evidenced by Millman (US2011/0139759).
Regarding claim 6 Crouse teaches substantially the claimed method, as applied to claim 1, except for wherein the laser is scanned from the lower side of the concrete member in the direction of gravity toward the upper side in the direction of gravity to form the cutting area, and the molten concrete is discharged from the cutting area by gravity.
Beresford relates to systems and methods for processing a workpiece using a laser (abstract; Figs. 2 or 3) in which the laser is scanned from the lower side of the workpiece in the direction of gravity toward the upper side in the direction of gravity to form the processing area (See Figs. 2 or 3; workpiece 10 is processed using beam 20 that impinges the workpiece from its bottom surface upward toward its top surface).
Beresford, therefore, teaches an alternative arrangement for processing a workpiece in that the workpiece is processed, using the laser, from the bottom surface whereas the arrangement in Crouse shows the workpiece being processed from the top surface. Those of ordinary skill in the art would be apprised of the different manner in which a workpiece can be cut. For instance, the workpiece can be cut from the top surface (as in the case of Crouse or, alternatively, in the case of a miter saw), from the bottom surface (as in the case of Crouse or, alternatively, in the case of a table saw), or from the side (as in the case of a band saw). Millman relates to processing workpieces and teaches processing a workpiece (Fig. 3a, 30) using lasers (12, 14, 16) in which the lasers are scanned onto the workpiece from the top surface, the side surface, and the bottom surface (as shown in Figure 3a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Crouse with Beresford, by positioning the laser of Crouse, so that it is scanned from the lower side of the workpiece as taught in Beresford, for in doing so would amount to merely using an alternative cutting position for cutting the concrete member. Furthermore, as detailed above, scanning the laser on the lower side of the concrete member would have been an obvious alternative to those of ordinary skill in the art and such person of ordinary skill has good reason to pursue the known options within his or her technical grasp. In this case, at the time of the instant invention, there was a recognized problem or need in the art, such as, safely cutting a concrete member using a laser. As detailed above, there were a finite number of identified, predictable solutions to this problem (i.e., cutting from the top, the bottom, or the side. Based on the evidence, one of ordinary skill in the art could have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success. See MPEP 2143-I-E.
The combination, as detailed above, teaches the claimed invention. As detailed, the proposed combination seeks to rearrange the position of the laser relative to the concrete member so that the laser is scanned from the bottom surface upward. This arrangement, as a result, would cause the molten concrete to be discharged from the cutting area by gravity.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 1:00-9:00 PM (ET).
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761