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 Amendment
The amendment and/or arguments submitted on 07/06/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 8-21 are pending:
Claims 1-7 are canceled
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments and/or amendments, with respect to 35 USC 103 art rejections of record by Ohno (US 10,780,634), Miyagi (US 2014/0186549), Kaga (JP 2 998 517), and JPS62 (JP S62-77689) have been fully considered.
Applicant substantially discusses/recaps the rejection of record in pages 6-9.
Applicant asserts, page 8, that one of ordinary skill in the art “would not have had any reason or motivation to combine Ohno in view of Miyagi and Kaga” as applied in the rejection of record.
The office respectfully disagrees.
In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case:
In order to actually practice the operation of the arrangement of Ohno, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to select fluid flow velocities for the inner flow, feed flow, and outer flow of Ohno and such selection implicitly include the relative velocities between selections. As the lack of such a selection would result in the base structure of Ohno either not having any/sufficient fluid to perform the functions of Ohno, or excessive fluid flow which would damage the structure of Ohno due to internal pressure issues. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art has the motivation and reason to look to the prior art for such guidance.
Applicant “First” asserts, page 10, that the mapping of the feed path 43 of Ohno as the “intermediate shielding gas ejection path” is “unreasonable and constitutes clear error”, as the feed path the carrier gas of the feed path is not “able to provide any ‘shielding’ effect”.
The office respectfully disagrees.
First, the claim is an apparatus claim, not a method claim, thus the BRI of the “shielding gas” recitations is at best an intended use / functional language recitation. Therefore, as long as the structure disclosed in the reference anticipates the claimed structure, the structure disclosed is capable of performing the recited function, see MPEP 2114.I,II. In the instant case, the mapped feed path 43 meets all claimed structural recitations of the claim language.
Second, the carrier gas of the feed path 43 of Ohno does provide a shielding effect implicitly due to the carrier gas being directed/arranged in a surrounding manner about inner path 41. Applicant’s assertion is not commensurate in scope to the presented claim language, as the claims do not require the intermediate shielding gas ejection path (or any of the shielding gases) to produce a perfect or complete gas shield. At best, applicant claims a shielding function as a result of the claimed relative flow velocities – which the rejection of record as a whole renders obvious.
Applicant “Second” asserts, page 10-11, that Kaga teaches away from applicant’s claimed invention with citation to Para5/7/16 of Kaga relating to turbulent flow, as opposed to applicant’s reduced turbulence disclosed in Applicant’s Spec Para3/13.
The office respectfully disagrees.
First, the office would like to note that applicant’s assertions are not commensurate in scope with applicant’s claimed invention. The terms: turbulent, turbulence, laminar, separation; are not recited in applicant’s claim language. The presented claim language is the controlling/limiting recitations, not the specification.
Second, applicant’s Para3/13 do not provide any disclosure/guidance/teaching/discussion regarding turbulent/laminar flow and/or the desired reduction or amount of either fluid flow type. This is in contrast to applicant’s assertions. Further, applicant’s specification as a whole does not include any term that includes the letters “turb” adjacent to each other by itself or as a root to any word such as turbulent, turbulence, etc. Therefore it is impossible for Kaga to “teach away” from applicant’s teaching of a “reduced turbulence”, as applicant fails to disclose such a teaching.
Third, the office would like to note that applicant’s assertions directed towards Kaga did not respond or provide any arguments against the actually cited portions of Kaga as applied in the rejection of record, beyond a mere assertion of insufficiency.
Applicant “Third” asserts, page 11-12, that the teachings of Myiagi and Kaga are “incompatible with the fundamental operation” of Ohno.
The office respectfully disagrees.
The fundamental operation of Ohno is not changed, as in order to actually practice the operation of the arrangement of Ohno, one of ordinary skill in the art would have to select fluid flow velocities for the inner flow, feed flow, and outer flow of Ohno and such selection implicitly include the relative velocities between selections. As the lack of such a selection would result in the base structure of Ohno either not having any/sufficient fluid to perform the functions of Ohno, or excessive fluid flow which would damage the structure of Ohno due to internal pressure issues. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art has the motivation and reason to look to the prior art for such guidance.
Further, teachings applied to Ohno boil down to selecting the relative fluid flow between three fluid flow paths. There are only six possible permutations for a set of three, therefore one of ordinary skill in art would immediately be able to envision the relative fluid flow selection in the order as claimed. The teachings of Myiagi and Kaga would direct one of ordinary skill in the art that such a relative fluid flow velocity selection is a possible selection that works in the real word, with further motivation to try such a combination due to the advantages of such a selection as indicated in the rejection of record.
Even if accepting that such a relative fluid selection is based upon a fluid flow arrangement that has been optimized for a different function; one of ordinary skill in the art would still be motivated to make such a selection due to at least the possibility that the advantages would ‘hold true’ in a similar function arrangement, and due to the very limited (only six possible permutation selections) flow permutation design space.
Applicant asserts, page 12-13, repeats that, now in the context of Claim 9, the mapping of carrier gas to the intermediate shielding gas is improper.
The office respectfully disagrees, and respectfully repeats the response above from the “First” assertions above from the context of Claim 8.
Applicant asserts, page 12-13, that Ohno fails to disclose that the outer/intermediate gas paths are “in a direction located increasingly closer to the axis from an upstream side towards a downstream side”.
The office respectfully disagrees. Please see annotated Fig2 of Ohno below, for further clarity of the basis of the rejection of record, beside a cropped view of Applicant’s Fig1 included for ease of comparison. The general direction of the outer/intermediate gas flow paths are annotated by solid arrow lines, the axis Ax is overlaid with a more visually apparent dashed line, while the upstream side is annotated with U, and the downstream side is annotated with D.
In the axial direction from the upstream side to the downstream side (down in the drawing) the direction of the fluid flow for both the outer/intermediate flow paths travel increasingly closer (inwards towards axis Ax). This is seen by the radial (left-right) spacing between axis Ax and each of the outer/intermediate flow paths to be greater upstream (top) than in a downstream (bottom) location along the axis (up-down)
PNG
media_image1.png
566
404
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
426
588
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant asserts, page 13-14, JPS62 fails to teach the claimed subject matter of claims 8/9.
The office respectfully notes that this is not the basis of the rejection of record, as JPS62 is only applied to Claims 14/15. The office finds such an argument to be non-persuasive due to not corresponding to the rejection of record.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) is/are:
“machining assembly” in claim 18
Corresponding structure
Laser irradiation device, as informed by Para12
Welding nozzle, as informed by Para12
Or equivalents
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 8-11, 16-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno (US 10,780,634) in view of Miyagi (US 2014/0186549) and Kaga (JP 2 998 517).
Note: Claims discussed in claim dependency order.
Claim 8
Ohno discloses:
“A shielding gas ejecting device (Fig1-5, nozzle 34) comprising:
a nozzle body (body 71/72; C9L49-55) extending along an axis (central axis Ax);
an inner shielding gas ejection (C5L5-11 / best seen Fig1/2, purge gas of feeder 33a flows through tube 37 to inner path 41 to be ejected with laser beam L out opening 41a) path (inner path 41) provided inside the nozzle body (path 41 inside body 71/72) and opened (opening 41a) on the axis (best seen Fig2/4/5, opening 41a on axis Ax);
an outer shielding gas ejection (C5L34-41 / best seen Fig1/2, shielding gas G of feeder 32a flows through tube 36 to outer path 42 to be ejected out opening 42a) path (outer path 42) surrounding the inner shielding gas ejection path from a periphery (best seen Fig2/4/5, outer path 42 radially surrounds inner path 41); and
an intermediate shielding gas ejection (C5L53-59 / best seen Fig1/2, powder 3 with carrier gas of feeder 31b flows through tube 35 to feed path 43 to be ejected out opening 43a) path (feed path 43) provided between the inner shielding gas ejection path and the outer shielding gas ejection path (best seen Fig2/4/5, feed path 43 radially located between outer path 42 and inner path 41); wherein
…”
Ohno further discloses (C15L34-41) that shielding gas G surrounds working location 2c to prevent external air reacting with molten region 2c.
Ohno is silent to the particular/relative flow velocities of the gas in the inner path, feed path, and outer path.
Miyagi teaches (Fig2; Para20/21/2) that a high powder flow velocity (including carrier gas to transport the powder) results in lowered quality of the cladding 200 due to surrounding air 100 oxidizing cladding 200. Therefore (Para21), the flow velocity of the guide gas 91 is set to a higher velocity that that of powder flow 4
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art for guidance on the relative flow velocities for the inner flow, feed flow, and outer flow of the arrangement of Ohno, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Ohno, and Miyagi teaches that it is known to set the feed flow to a lower velocity relative to an outer guide gas flow in order to gain the benefit of avoiding lowered quality of the working part due to surrounding air oxidizing the working part, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Ohno with a working and known relative velocity selection of having a slower feed path flow relative to the flow velocity of an outer guide gas flow as taught by Miyagi.
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi is silent to the particular/relative flow velocities of the gas in the inner path relative to either of the feed path or outer path.
Kaga teaches (SpecQuote1/2 below, Para44; Fig1/4/2, main ejection port 1a, main assist gas nozzle 1b, laser beam passes through nozzle 1b, auxiliary gas port 2c, auxiliary gas duct 2b, auxiliary gas outlet 2a) that it is known in the art to select a faster gas flow rate for the inner gas passage 1/1b/1a relative to the outer auxiliary gas passage 2/2b/2a, as best shown by Fig4 relative flow velocity corresponding to arrangement location. Kaga teaches that such a selection of relative flow velocities provides the advantage of on flow separation between the inner and out fluid flows, a reduction in turbulence, which results in high speed and quality laser processing.
SpecQuote1: “FIG. 4 is an explanatory view showing an outline of the flow velocity distribution on the surface of the cutting plate, and the vertical axis represents the jet gas flow velocity u (m / s). Corresponding to the assist gas outlet. According to the present embodiment, as shown in FIG. 2 and FIG. 4, the distribution of the ejection gas pressure and the ejection gas flow velocity at the assist gas ejection port is higher at the center of the nozzle and changes continuously, thereby achieving Since there is no separation between the assist gas flow and each auxiliary assist gas flow and at the boundary with the surrounding air, the air shutoff effect of the auxiliary assist gas is reduced, and the purity (oxygen purity) of the main assist gas is reduced. Is also solved.”
SpecQuote2: “SUMMARY OF THE INVENTION The present invention has been made to solve the above problems. For example, it is possible to achieve a reduction in roughness of a cut surface and a suppression of self-burning, a high purity with a small amount of ambient air entrainment, and a turbulence. The purpose of this processing head is to obtain a processing head of a laser processing apparatus capable of supplying an assist gas (oxygen gas) having a large diameter to a processing surface, promoting an oxidation reaction, and stably performing high speed and high quality processing. It is an object of the present invention to obtain a laser processing apparatus that can stably and accurately process laser light.”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art for guidance on the relative flow velocities for the inner flow relative to the feed flow and/or outer flow of the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi, and Kaga teaches that it is known in the art to select a faster gas flow rate for the inner gas passage relative to the outer auxiliary gas passage, and that such a selection of relative flow velocities provides the advantage of on flow separation between the inner and out fluid flows, a reduction in turbulence, which results in high speed and quality laser processing, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi with a working and known relative velocity selection of having the fastest fluid flow path be the inner gas passage relative to the outer auxiliary gas flow as taught by Kaga, and
thus the resulting modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga results in the inner gas flow in inner path 41 having the greatest velocity, as taught by Kaga as discussed above, then having the outer gas flow in outer path 42 having the next greatest velocity, as relatively taught by Kaga as discussed above, and then having the feed gas flow of feed path 43 having the smallest velocity, as relatively taught by Miyagi as discussed above.
Claim 9
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “The shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 8, wherein the intermediate shielding gas ejection path (Ohno: feed path 43) and the outer shielding gas ejection path (Ohno: outer path 42) are configured to eject the intermediate shielding gas (Ohno: powder 3 and carrier gas of feeder 31b) and the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G of feeder 32a) in a direction located increasingly closer to the axis (Ohno: Fig2/4/5, gas flow G from outlet 42a is radially outside of flow of powder 3 with carrier gas from outlet 43a) from an upstream side toward a downstream side (Ohno: Fig2/4/5, relative radial arrangement of outer path 42 and feed path 43 are maintained along the axial direction from the upstream side, ie vertically top of view, to the downstream side near work part 2).”
Claim 11
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “The shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 9, wherein the outer shielding gas ejection path (Ohno: outer path 42) causes the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G of feeder 32a) to be ejected so as to circle about the axis (C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax, see flow arrows G encircle axis Ax when view is revolved).”
Claim 17
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “The shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 11, wherein the outer shielding gas ejection path (Ohno: outer path 42) extends from one side in a circumferential direction to another side in the circumferential direction (C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax) from an upstream side toward a downstream side (Ohno: Fig2/4/5, vertically top to down in view) to cause the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G of feeder 32a) to be ejected so as to circle about the axis (C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax, see flow arrows G encircle axis Ax when view is revolved).”
Claim 21
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “A machining device comprising: the shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 11 (see claim 11); and a machining assembly (best seen Fig1, optical device 15, light source 45, cable 47 containing output laser beam L to nozzle 34) to perform machining on a workpiece (best seen Fig1/2/5, object 2) via the inner shielding gas ejection path (best seen Fig2/5, laser beam L within inner beam output path 41).”
Claim 19
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “A machining device comprising: the shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 9 (see claim 9); and a machining assembly (best seen Fig1, optical device 15, light source 45, cable 47 containing output laser beam L to nozzle 34) to perform machining on a workpiece (best seen Fig1/2/5, object 2) via the inner shielding gas ejection path (best seen Fig2/5, laser beam L within inner beam output path 41).”
Claim 10
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “The shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 8, wherein the outer shielding gas ejection path (Ohno: outer path 42) causes the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G of feeder 32a) to be ejected so as to circle about the axis (C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax, see flow arrows G encircle axis Ax when view is revolved).”
Claim 16
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “The shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 10, wherein the outer shielding gas ejection path (Ohno: outer path 42) extends from one side in a circumferential direction to another side in the circumferential direction (C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax) from an upstream side toward a downstream side (Ohno: Fig2/4/5, vertically top to down in view) to cause the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G of feeder 32a) to be ejected so as to circle about the axis (C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax, see flow arrows G encircle axis Ax when view is revolved)”
Claim 20
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “A machining device comprising: the shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 10 (see claim 10); and a machining assembly (best seen Fig1, optical device 15, light source 45, cable 47 containing output laser beam L to nozzle 34) to perform machining on a workpiece (best seen Fig1/2/5, object 2) via the inner shielding gas ejection path (best seen Fig2/5, laser beam L within inner beam output path 41).”
Claim 18
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “A machining device comprising: the shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 8 (see claim 8); and a machining assembly (best seen Fig1, optical device 15, light source 45, cable 47 containing output laser beam L to nozzle 34) to perform machining on a workpiece (best seen Fig1/2/5, object 2) via the inner shielding gas ejection path (best seen Fig2/5, laser beam L within inner beam output path 41).”
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno (US 10,780,634) in view of Miyagi (US 2014/0186549) and Kaga (JP 2 998 517), and in further view of Kaga (JP 2 998 517)
Claim 12
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses the arrangement of claim 10.
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga as applied to claim 10 is silent to the application of vanes in the outer flow path as instantly claimed.
Kaga further teaches (Fig31/32, partition wall 31 in outer flow path 2/2b/2a, formed small room 32 by walls 31; Corresponding Spec discussion of “Embodiment 16” shown by Fig31/32) that: “… a plurality of vanes (wall vanes 31) provided in a middle of the outer shielding gas ejection path (Fig31/32, vanes 31 are in the middle of flow path 2/2b/2a) and arrayed in a circumferential direction of the axis (Fig31/32, vanes 31 are arranged circumferentially about central axis); wherein the plurality of vanes extend from one side in the circumferential direction to another side in the circumferential direction (Fig31/32, vanes 31 are three dimensional components and thus extend in any defined coordinate plane direction, vanes 31 are arranged circumferentially about central axis across the radial direction) from an upstream side toward a downstream side (Fig31/32, vanes 31 have a vertically axial direction extension) to cause the outer shielding gas to be ejected so as to circle about the axis (SpecQuote, vanes 31 cause outer gas flow to leave the nozzle in a uniform manner around the circumferential direction.).”
SpecQuote: “The inside is divided by a plurality of partition walls 31 to form a small room 32. After the assist gas flows into the auxiliary assist gas nozzle 2 from the assist gas supply port 30, the partition wall 31 While reducing energy by the resistance of each small room 32 Distributed to Therefore, the flow velocity distribution in the circumferential direction at the auxiliary assist gas nozzle outlet is uniform, and it is possible to prevent the flow rate imbalance at the auxiliary assist gas outlet due to the uneven distribution of the assist gas supply port”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga as applied in Claim 10, to add vanes within the outer gas flow path as taught by Kaga Embodiment 16 of Fig31/32, as Kaga Embodiment 16 of Fig31/32 teaches that such a modification provides the advantage of ensuring that the outer gas output flow to leave the nozzle in a uniform manner around the circumferential direction and to avoid flow rate imbalance of the outer gas flow, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga as applied in Claim 10 with a working and known improvement to the outer gas output flow in the circumferential direction by the application of vanes within the outer gas flow path as taught by Kaga Embodiment 16 of Fig31/32.
Claim 13
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses the arrangement of claim 11.
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga as applied to claim 11 is silent to the application of vanes in the outer flow path as instantly claimed.
Kaga further teaches (Fig31/32, partition wall 31 in outer flow path 2/2b/2a, formed small room 32 by walls 31; Corresponding Spec discussion of “Embodiment 16” shown by Fig31/32) that: “… a plurality of vanes (wall vanes 31) provided in a middle of the outer shielding gas ejection path (Fig31/32, vanes 31 are in the middle of flow path 2/2b/2a) and arrayed in a circumferential direction of the axis (Fig31/32, vanes 31 are arranged circumferentially about central axis); wherein the plurality of vanes extend from one side in the circumferential direction to another side in the circumferential direction (Fig31/32, vanes 31 are three dimensional components and thus extend in any defined coordinate plane direction, vanes 31 are arranged circumferentially about central axis across the radial direction) from an upstream side toward a downstream side (Fig31/32, vanes 31 have a vertically axial direction extension) to cause the outer shielding gas to be ejected so as to circle about the axis (SpecQuote, vanes 31 cause outer gas flow to leave the nozzle in a uniform manner around the circumferential direction.).”
SpecQuote: “The inside is divided by a plurality of partition walls 31 to form a small room 32. After the assist gas flows into the auxiliary assist gas nozzle 2 from the assist gas supply port 30, the partition wall 31 While reducing energy by the resistance of each small room 32 Distributed to Therefore, the flow velocity distribution in the circumferential direction at the auxiliary assist gas nozzle outlet is uniform, and it is possible to prevent the flow rate imbalance at the auxiliary assist gas outlet due to the uneven distribution of the assist gas supply port”
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga as applied in Claim 11, to add vanes within the outer gas flow path as taught by Kaga Embodiment 16 of Fig31/32, as Kaga Embodiment 16 of Fig31/32 teaches that such a modification provides the advantage of ensuring that the outer gas output flow to leave the nozzle in a uniform manner around the circumferential direction and to avoid flow rate imbalance of the outer gas flow, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga as applied in Claim 11 with a working and known improvement to the outer gas output flow in the circumferential direction by the application of vanes within the outer gas flow path as taught by Kaga Embodiment 16 of Fig31/32.
Claim(s) 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohno (US 10,780,634) in view of Miyagi (US 2014/0186549) and Kaga (JP 2 998 517), and in further view of JPS62 (JP S62-77689)
Claim 14
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “The shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 10, further comprising: … in the nozzle body (Ohno: nozzle 34 body 71/72) and into which the outer shielding gas is introduced (C5L34-41 / best seen Fig1/2, shielding gas G of feeder 32a flows through tube 36 to outer path 42 to be ejected out opening 42a); and a supply flow path (Ohno: Fig1/2/4/5, tube 36 to outer path 42) through which the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G) is supplied to …; wherein the supply flow path (Ohno: Fig2/4/5, outer path 42, tube 36) extends in a direction including a circumferential component with respect to the axis (Ohno: C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax, see flow arrows G encircle axis Ax when view is revolved) to cause the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G of feeder 32a) to be ejected so as to circle about the axis (C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax, see flow arrows G encircle axis Ax when view is revolved).”
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga does not explicitly disclose “a chamber” within the nozzle body for the outer gas G beyond the outer path 42 as discussed above.
JPS62 teaches (Fig1, laser beam 1, inner gas 6, middle gas flow 9 of gas mixture 7, outer shielding gas 8 flowing through perimeter nozzle 5) that it is known in the art of a laser beam head with an inner/middle/outer gas flow nozzle to form the outer gas flow structure in the arrangement of a wrap-around circumferential perimeter nozzle with an inner chamber where outer shielding gas 8 is introduced.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a more particular structural arrangement for the interface between outer shielding gas tube 36 to outer path 42 arrangement of the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga due to the highly schematic form of the interface disclosed, and JPS62 teaches that it is known in the art of a laser beam head with an inner/middle/outer gas flow nozzle to form the outer gas flow structure in the arrangement of a wrap-around circumferential perimeter nozzle with an inner chamber where outer shielding gas is introduced, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga with a working and known more particular structural arrangement for the interface between outer shielding gas tube 36 to outer path 42 arrangement of the wrap-around circumferential perimeter nozzle with an inner chamber where outer shielding gas is introduced arrangement as taught by JPS62
Claim 15
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga discloses: “The shielding gas ejecting device according to claim 11, further comprising: … in the nozzle body (Ohno: nozzle 34 body 71/72) and into which the outer shielding gas is introduced (C5L34-41 / best seen Fig1/2, shielding gas G of feeder 32a flows through tube 36 to outer path 42 to be ejected out opening 42a); and a supply flow path (Ohno: Fig1/2/4/5, tube 36 to outer path 42) through which the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G) is supplied to …; wherein the supply flow path (Ohno: Fig2/4/5, outer path 42, tube 36) extends in a direction including a circumferential component with respect to the axis (Ohno: C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax, see flow arrows G encircle axis Ax when view is revolved) to cause the outer shielding gas (Ohno: shielding gas G of feeder 32a) to be ejected so as to circle about the axis (C5L12-14, outer path 42 and feed path 43 have a circular cross-section; Fig2/4/5, section views are revolved about central axis Ax, see flow arrows G encircle axis Ax when view is revolved).”
The modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga does not explicitly disclose “a chamber” within the nozzle body for the outer gas G beyond the outer path 42 as discussed above.
JPS62 teaches (Fig1, laser beam 1, inner gas 6, middle gas flow 9 of gas mixture 7, outer shielding gas 8 flowing through perimeter nozzle 5) that it is known in the art of a laser beam head with an inner/middle/outer gas flow nozzle to form the outer gas flow structure in the arrangement of a wrap-around circumferential perimeter nozzle with an inner chamber where outer shielding gas 8 is introduced.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a more particular structural arrangement for the interface between outer shielding gas tube 36 to outer path 42 arrangement of the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga due to the highly schematic form of the interface disclosed, and JPS62 teaches that it is known in the art of a laser beam head with an inner/middle/outer gas flow nozzle to form the outer gas flow structure in the arrangement of a wrap-around circumferential perimeter nozzle with an inner chamber where outer shielding gas is introduced, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the modified arrangement of Ohno by the teachings of Miyagi and Kaga with a working and known more particular structural arrangement for the interface between outer shielding gas tube 36 to outer path 42 arrangement of the wrap-around circumferential perimeter nozzle with an inner chamber where outer shielding gas is introduced arrangement as taught by JPS62
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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 S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights