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 .
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 1-2 and 6-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0218321).
Regarding claim 1.
Miyamoto discloses:
A laser processing machine(100), comprising:
a laser processing unit(3) configured to irradiate a workpiece(W) with a laser beam(L) to carry out laser processing on the workpiece(W);
a control unit(1) configured to control the laser processing unit(3) in accordance with a processing condition under which the workpiece is processed;
a beam detection unit(10) configured to detect a beam from a processing portion(Re) of the workpiece(w) irradiated with the laser beam(L); and
a processing determination unit(14) connected to the beam detection unit(10), wherein
the control unit controls(1) the laser processing unit (3)in a product processing mode(“product machining”) for carrying out product processing of the workpiece(W) and in a preliminary processing mode([0043]) for carrying out preliminary processing of the workpiece prior to the product processing,
the beam detection unit(10) is capable of detecting a light intensity distribution of the beam in a predetermined wavelength band(reflected-light-intensity specified range [0007] [0010] [0023]), and
the processing determination unit(14) is configured to determine a processing possibility of the workpiece based on the light intensity distribution detected by the beam detection unit during the preliminary processing. ([0043])
Miyamoto does no discloses that the control unit includes separate modes for each of the processing mode and a preliminary processing mode. However, Miyamoto discloses that the controller performs the recited functions and it would have been obvious include a mode in the controller as a mere rearrangement of parts as an obvious design choice. Miyamoto discloses the recited functions and it would have been obvious to include separate modes for each of the functions as a mere design choice with no undue experimentation, or unexpected results. See MPEP 2144.04.(VI)(C)
Regarding claim 2.
Miyamoto discloses:
The laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the processing determination unit determines the processing possibility of the workpiece based on time-series data of the light intensity distribution of the beam detected by the beam detection unit. (See Fig. 4)
Regarding claim 6.
Miyamoto discloses:
The laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the preliminary processing is marking and/or piercing.(See [0025])
Regarding claim 7.
Miyamoto discloses:
The laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the laser processing unit carries out the preliminary processing on a portion of the workpiece, the portion being not to be used as a product. ([0027])
Regarding claim 9.
Miyamoto discloses:
The laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the beam detected by the beam detection unit includes a beam emitted from the processing portion of the workpiece, and the processing determination unit determines the processing possibility of the workpiece based on the beam emitted from the processing portion. ([0025])
Regarding claim 10.
Miyamoto discloses:
The laser processing machine according to claim 9, wherein the beam emitted from the processing portion includes a beam of high-temperature luminescence due to heat radiation of the workpiece heated by the laser beam, and a beam of plasma emission due to laser-induced plasma, and the processing determination unit determines the processing possibility of the workpiece based on the beam of the high-temperature luminescence due to the heat radiation of the workpiece heated by the laser beam, and the beam of the plasma emission due to the laser-induced plasma. ([0006]-[0007] Fig. 2, [0014], fig. 1, [0019]).
Miyamoto discloses the recited features of controlling the laser of the work piece based on the detected results. As such, the recited features are met by Miyamoto, because Miyamoto determines the processing based on all of the detected factors. Thus, the features of claim 10 would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0218321) in view of Kubo (U.S. Patent No. 10,532,432).
Regarding claims 3-5.
Miyamoto discloses all of the features of claim 1
Miyamoto does not disclose:
claim 3 The laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the processing determination unit includes a learning unit capable of learning a relation between the light intensity distribution detected by the beam detection unit and the processing possibility of the workpiece.
claim 4. The laser processing machine according to claim 3, wherein the processing determination unit causes the learning unit to learn in advance the relation between the light intensity distribution detected by the beam detection unit and the processing possibility of the workpiece.
claim 5. The laser processing machine according to claim 3, wherein the processing determination unit inputs the light intensity distribution detected by the beam detection unit to the learning unit so as to determine the processing possibility of the workpiece.
In related art Kubo discloses:
claim 3The laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein the processing determination unit includes a learning unit capable of learning a relation between the light intensity distribution detected by the beam detection unit and the processing possibility of the workpiece. (See Figs. 7 and 8 and S16 and col. 12, line 36-col. 14, line 5)
claim 4. The laser processing machine according to claim 3, wherein the processing determination unit causes the learning unit to learn in advance the relation between the light intensity distribution detected by the beam detection unit and the processing possibility of the workpiece. (See Figs. 7 and 8 and S16 and col. 12, line 36-col. 14, line 5)
claim 5. The laser processing machine according to claim 3, wherein the processing determination unit inputs the light intensity distribution detected by the beam detection unit to the learning unit so as to determine the processing possibility of the workpiece. (See Figs. 7 and 8 and S16 and col. 12, line 36-col. 14, line 5)
Kubo discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of allowing a quality of a laser beam to be improved for improved processing using the laser. As such, it would have bene obvious to modify the device of Miyamoto in view of the teachings of Kubo to obtain the desired improved laser performance, and the features of claim 3-5 would have been obvious.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyamoto (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2013/0218321) in view of Izumi (U.S. Patent Application Publication No. 2017/0291258).
Regarding claim 8.
Miyamoto discloses all of the features of claim 1.
Miyamoto does not disclose:
The laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein during the preliminary processing, the laser processing unit irradiates the workpiece with a laser beam of a power lower than a power used during the product processing.
In related art Kubo discloses:
The laser processing machine according to claim 1, wherein during the preliminary processing, the laser processing unit irradiates the workpiece with a laser beam of a power lower than a power used during the product processing. (See [0034]-[0048], especially [0046]). Kubo discloses that the recited features provide the benefit of providing enhanced laser processing and based on enhanced process conditions being selected. As such, it would have been obvious to modify the device of Miyamoto in view of the teachings of Kubo for the obvious benefit of obtaining enhanced laser process selection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ROBERT G BACHNER whose telephone number is (571)270-3888. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday, 10-6 EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Leonard Chang can be reached at (571) 270-3691. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ROBERT G BACHNER/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2898
Prosecution Insights