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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 08/10/2023.The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Response to Election/Restriction requirement
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-13) in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 14-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL
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) 1-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Brand (US 20140005804 A1)
Regarding claim 1, Brand discloses
A method for optimizing a machining time of a laser machining process (see abstract, claims 7,9 and 11), comprising:
specifying a machining path (trajectory, see fig.7B) of the laser machining process on a workpiece (700, see fig.7B and claims 1, 11), said machining path (trajectory, see fig,7B) comprising a plurality of machining path sections (701 to 709, See fig.7B and para.0069); (see fig.7B),
specifying at least one boundary condition (boundary of no-fly-zone, see para.0076) for at least one of the machining path sections (701, 704, 706 or 709, see fig.7B-C and para.0076); and
determining control data for said machining path (trajectory) of the laser machining process (see claims 1 and 11 and fig.3) taking into account the at least one boundary condition (boundary of no-fly-zone, see para.0076) such that the machining time of the laser machining process is minimal (See claims 6-7: “the tour minimizes the time of the operation.”).
Regarding claim 2, Brand further discloses the control data include a machining sequence and/or a machining direction of the machining path sections (701 to 709) of said machining path (trajectory, se fig.7B and fig.3) to be machined.
Regarding claim 3, Brand further discloses the control data comprises control commands for at least one deflection unit (113/113’) of a laser machining system (entire system shown in fig.1B) performing the laser machining process and/or for a laser source (110) of said laser machining system (entire system shown in fig.1B).
Regarding claim 4, Brand further discloses the at least one boundary condition (boundary of no-fly-zone, see para.0076) comprises a specified value, a specified range and/or a specified curve for a parameter (See fig.7B).
Regarding claim 5, Brand further discloses a specified value or range of a first parameter (706, see fig.7B) is dependent on a specified value or range of a second parameter (704, see fig.7B and para.0076: “then from the point of view of that point 704, again selecting the leftmost visible point 706 on the boundary of the no-fly-zone”).
Regarding claim 6, Brand further discloses when determining control data, a value of the parameter (712, see fig.7C and para.0076) is determined within the range specified by the boundary condition (boundary of no-fly-zone, see para.0076).
Regarding claim 7, Brand further discloses the at least one boundary condition (boundary of no-fly-zone, see para.0076) for the at least one machining path section (704 or 706, see fig.7B-C and para.0076) comprises at least one of the following boundary conditions: a starting point (701, see fig.7B) and/or an end point (709, see fig.7B) for the laser machining process and/or for at least one of the machining path sections (701, 704, 706 or 709, see fig.7B-C and para.0076).
Regarding claim 8, Brand further discloses the at least one boundary condition (boundary of no-fly-zone, see para.0076) defines a range on the workpiece surface (700, see fig.7B-C) for the position of the at least one machining path section (701, 704, 706 or 709, see fig.7B-C), and wherein, when determining the control data, an adjusted position of the machining path section is determined within the range so as to minimize the machining time (See fig.7b-C and claim 7: “ each cost represents a time of the operation along the trajectory, and the tour minimizes the time of the operation”).
Regarding claim 9, Brand further discloses determining control data for the laser machining process is performed using an optimization algorithm, a linear optimization algorithm, a non-linear optimization algorithm, a simplex algorithm, a traveling salesman algorithm, and/or a Newton-Raphson algorithm (See para.0049: “. TSP solvers include branch-and-bound algorithm, cutting-plane method, Lin-Kernighan method, simulated annealing, genetic algorithm, Tabu search, Boltzmann machine and other solvers”).
Regarding claim 10, Brand further discloses dividing a surface of said workpiece (700, see fig.7B) into a plurality of partial areas (areas correspond to 703-709, see fig.7B) and dividing said machining path (trajectory, (see fig.7B) into a plurality of partial paths (703-709, see fig.7B) corresponding to the partial areas (areas correspond to 703-709, see fig.7B);
performing the steps separately for each of the plurality of partial paths (See fig.7B-C)
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 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.
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.
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 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand in view of Bangalore (US 20160259309 A1)
Regarding claim 11, Brand discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said machining path and/or the at least one boundary condition is entered via a user interface.
Bangalore discloses an irrigation system is contained at a particular site, comprising:
the at least one boundary condition is entered via a user interface (see para.0045: “interface 310 of FIG. 3 is an example, and the scope of embodiments is not limited to any particular graphical user interface for entering boundary condition”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Brand to have “the at least one boundary condition is entered via a user interface” as taught by Bangalore in order to ensure safe operation, prevent mechanical damage, and guarantee accurate processing.
Claims 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Brand in view of Hiejima (US20150017817A1)
Regarding claim 12, Brand discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except determining the control data for minimizing the machining time is further performed taking into account at least one machine parameter of the laser machining system performing the laser machining, said at least one machine parameter comprising one of: a delay time of a laser source, a delay time of a deflection unit, and a Rayleigh length of the laser beam.
Hiejima discloses a laser processing method, comprising:
determining the control data for minimizing the machining time (see para.0016: “the processing time can be shortened”) is further performed taking into account at least one machine parameter of the laser machining system (see system shown in fig.1) performing the laser machining, said at least one machine parameter comprising: a delay time of a laser source (See para.0039: “… the second pulse laser beam delayed by a predetermined time …”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Brand to have “determining the control data for minimizing the machining time is further performed taking into account at least one machine parameter of the laser machining system performing the laser machining, said at least one machine parameter comprising: a delay time of a laser source” as taught by Hiejima. The modification helps to “shorten the time of the processing while reducing the damage of the substrate surface by the laser beam for the processing” (See para.0013 of Hiejima).
Regarding claim 13, Brand discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except determining at least one machine parameter of said laser machining system performing the laser machining process, said at least one machine parameter comprising one of: a delay time of a laser source, a delay time of a deflection unit, and a Rayleigh length of the laser beam.
Hiejima discloses a laser processing method, comprising:
determining at least one machine parameter of said laser machining system (see system shown in fig.1) performing the laser machining process (see title), said at least one machine parameter comprising: a delay time of a laser source (See para.0039: “… the second pulse laser beam delayed by a predetermined time …”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified the invention of Brand to have “determining at least one machine parameter of said laser machining system performing the laser machining process, said at least one machine parameter comprising one of: a delay time of a laser source” as taught by Hiejima. The modification helps to “shorten the time of the processing while reducing the damage of the substrate surface by the laser beam for the processing” (See para.0013 of Hiejima).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 20200070282 A1 discloses teaching device for a laser machining system which performs laser machining on a workpiece while moving an irradiation position of laser light using a robot includes a graphical user interface processing unit which displays machining periods.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. 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 or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights