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
Claim 1, line 6 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the lens” should be - -a lens of the at least one lens- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 1, line 9-10; claim 7, line 6, 9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “to scans” should be - -to scan- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 8, line 2-9 is objected to because of the following informalities: “wherein the coordinates are coordinates for three dimensions and include coordinates for two dimensions to control the scanning unit and a coordinate for one dimension to control the lens movement unit, when irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the coordinates for two dimensions and the coordinate for one dimension, and when irradiating the workpiece with the visible light beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the coordinates for two dimensions and the correction data without using the coordinate for one dimension” should be - - wherein the coordinates are first coordinates for three dimensions and include second coordinates for two dimensions to control the scanning unit and a third coordinate for one dimension to control the lens movement unit, when irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the second coordinates for the two dimensions and the third coordinate for the one dimension, and when irradiating the workpiece with the visible light beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the second coordinates for the two dimensions and the correction data without using the third coordinate for the one dimension- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
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: “a scanning unit” in claim 1 and “a movement mechanism” in claim 1.
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
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehashi et al (US 20200209523) in view of Nakamura et al (US 20180299260).
Regarding claim 1, Nehashi discloses a laser processing device (Figure 3A), comprising:
a laser beam source (Figure 3A; 21a) that emits a laser beam (The laser from Figure 3A; 21a, Paragraph 0138) for processing a workpiece (Figure 3A; W);
a visible light source (Figure 3A; 36) that emits a visible light beam (The light from Figure 3A; 36, Paragraph 0144);
a scanning unit (Figure 3A; 4) that scans the laser beam and the visible light beam;
a lens movement unit (Figure 3A; 33) including at least one lens (Figure 3A; 33a, 33b, 33c) that transmits the laser beam and the visible light beam and a movement mechanism (Figure 3A; 33d) that moves a lens (Figure 3A; 33a) of the at least one lens in a direction of a path of the laser beam (The direction of a path of the laser beam) and the visible light beam (Paragraph 0168); and
a controller (Figure 2; 101, Paragraph 0100, 0266) that controls the lens movement unit and the scanning unit, wherein
when the laser beam passes through the lens, the controller controls the scanning unit to scan the laser beam and controls the lens movement unit to move the lens and change a focal position (Figure 19; S104, Paragraph 0147) of the laser beam (Paragraph 0266).
Nehashi does not disclose when the visible light beam passes through the lens, the controller controls the scanning unit to scan the visible light beam without moving the lens from a fixed position.
However, Nakamura teaches a laser processing device (Figure 2; 20 and Figure 9; 104, 106), comprising:
a laser beam source (Figure 2; 22) that emits a laser beam (Figure 2; L) for processing a workpiece (Figure 2; W);
a visible light source (Figure 2; 24) that emits a visible light beam (The light beam from Figure 2; 24);
a scanning unit (Figure 2; 28) that scans the laser beam and the visible light beam;
a lens movement unit (Figure 2; 30) including at least one lens (The lenses of lens of Figure 2; 30, Paragraph 0026) that transmits the laser beam and the visible light beam and a movement mechanism that moves the lens in a direction of a path of the laser beam and the visible light beam (The direction of the path of the laser beam and light beam, Paragraph 0026); and
a controller (Figure 9; 104, 106) that controls the lens movement unit and the scanning unit, wherein
when the visible light beam passes through a lens (One lens of Figure 2; 30, Paragraph 0026), the controller controls a scanning unit (Figure 2; 28) to scan the visible light beam without moving the lens from a fixed position (The fixed position of the lens, Paragraph 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nehashi wherein when the visible light beam passes through the lens, the controller controls the scanning unit to scan the visible light beam without moving the lens from a fixed position as taught by and suggested by Nakamura in order to check the workpiece before or after using the laser (Paragraph 0002, 0022, the modification adds an illumination light that passes through 3 and 4 of Nehashi. In the combined invention of Nehashi in view of Nakamura, the visible light beam of Nakamura is the visible light beam recited in the claims).
Regarding claim 2, Nehashi in view of Nakamura teaches the invention as claimed.
Nehashi further discloses wherein the lens movement unit includes a first lens (Figure 3; 33a) that the laser beam enters and a second lens (Figure 3; 33c) that the laser beam passed through the first lens enter, the lens being at least one of the first lens and the second lens, and
the scanning unit scans the laser beam passed through the second lens.
Nehashi does not disclose the lens movement unit includes a first lens that the visible light beam enters and a second lens that the visible light beam passed through the first lens enter, and
the scanning unit scans the visible light beam passed through the second lens.
However, Nakamura teaches the lens movement unit includes a first lens (A lens of Figure 2; 30, Paragraph 0026, where the visible light first enters) that the visible light beam enters and a second lens (A lens of Figure 2; 30, Paragraph 0026, where the visible light enters after passing through the first lens) that the visible light beam passed through the first lens enter, and
the scanning unit scans the visible light beam passed through the second lens (Paragraph 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nehashi wherein when the lens movement unit includes a first lens that the visible light beam enters and a second lens that the visible light beam passed through the first lens enter, and the scanning unit scans the visible light beam passed through the second lens as taught by and suggested by Nakamura in order to check the workpiece before or after using the laser (Paragraph 0002, 0022, this is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Nehashi in view of Nakamura teaches the invention as claimed.
Nehashi further discloses wherein the movement mechanism is configured to change an inter-lens distance (The distance between the first and second lens) between the first lens and the second lens (Functional Language, Paragraph 0168), and
when the laser beam passes through the first lens and the second lens, the controller changes the inter-lens distance to adjust the focal position of the laser beam (Paragraph 0168).
Nehashi does not disclose when the visible light beam passes through the first lens and the second lens, the controller does not change the inter-lens distance.
However, Nakamura teaches when the visible light beam passes through the first lens and the second lens, the controller does not change the inter-lens distance (Paragraph 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nehashi wherein when the visible light beam passes through the first lens and the second lens, the controller does not change the inter-lens distance as taught by and suggested by Nakamura in order to check the workpiece before or after using the laser (Paragraph 0002, 0022, this is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 5, Nehashi in view of Nakamura teaches the invention as claimed.
Nehashi further discloses wherein in an adjustment range (The range of movement of Figure 3A; 33A) in which the focal position of the laser beam is changed by moving the lens with the lens movement unit (Paragraph 0172, 0173).
Nehashi does not disclose the fixed position is set to a position at which the visible light beam passed through the lens becomes a parallel light.
However, Nakamura teaches the fixed position is set to a position (The position of the fixed position) at which the visible light beam passed through the lens becomes a parallel light (Paragraph 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nehashi wherein the fixed position is set to a position at which the visible light beam passed through the lens becomes a parallel light as taught by and suggested by Nakamura in order to check the workpiece before or after using the laser (Paragraph 0002, 0022, this is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 6, Nehashi in view of Nakamura teaches the invention as claimed.
Nehashi further discloses wherein the controller controls the lens movement unit.
Nehashi does not disclose wherein the controller sets the fixed position to a position where the lens is located in a display mode that scans the visible light beam, and the controller holds the lens at the fixed position.
However, Nakamura teaches wherein a controller (The controller of that controls the lenses of Figure 2; 30, Paragraph 0026) sets the fixed position to a position where the lens is located in a display mode (The display mode of the visible light) that scans the visible light beam, and the controller holds the lens at the fixed position (Paragraph 0060).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nehashi wherein the controller sets the fixed position to a position where the lens is located in a display mode that scans the visible light beam, and the controller holds the lens at the fixed position as taught by and suggested by Nakamura in order to check the workpiece before or after using the laser (Paragraph 0002, 0022, this is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 7, Nehashi in view of Nakamura teaches the invention as claimed.
Nehashi does not disclose wherein the controller stores processing information including coordinates onto which the laser beam is irradiated and correction data for the coordinates,
when irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam, the controller controls the scanning unit and the lens movement unit in accordance with the coordinates to scan the laser beam and adjust the focal position of the laser beam, and
when irradiating the workpiece with the visible light beam, the controller controls the scanning unit in accordance with the coordinates and the correction data to scan the visible light beam.
However, Nakamura teaches wherein the controller stores processing information (The position and operation command of Paragraph 0067) including coordinates (The three-dimensional coordinates of Paragraph 0067) onto which the laser beam is irradiated and correction data (The correction to change the position command) for the coordinates,
when irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam (Paragraph 0070), the controller controls the scanning unit and the lens movement unit in accordance with the coordinates to scan the laser beam and adjust the focal position of the laser beam (Paragraph 0026, 0067), and
when irradiating the workpiece with the visible light beam (Paragraph 0070), the controller controls the scanning unit in accordance with the coordinates and the correction data to scan the visible light beam (Paragraph 0060, 0067).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nehashi wherein the controller stores processing information including coordinates onto which the laser beam is irradiated and correction data for the coordinates, when irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam, the controller controls the scanning unit and the lens movement unit in accordance with the coordinates to scan the laser beam and adjust the focal position of the laser beam, and when irradiating the workpiece with the visible light beam, the controller controls the scanning unit in accordance with the coordinates and the correction data to scan the visible light beam as taught by and suggested by Nakamura in order to improve processing accuracy and improve processing quality (Paragraph 0050, the modification uses correction data for the laser and visible light beam).
Regarding claim 8, Nehashi in view of Nakamura teaches the invention as claimed.
Nehashi does not disclose wherein the coordinates are first coordinates for three dimensions and include second coordinates for two dimensions to control the scanning unit and a third coordinate for one dimension to control the lens movement unit,
when irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the second coordinates for the two dimensions and the third coordinate for the one dimension, and
when irradiating the workpiece with the visible light beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the second coordinates for the two dimensions and the correction data without using the third coordinate for the one dimension.
However, Nakamura teaches wherein the coordinates are first coordinates for three dimensions and include second coordinates for two dimensions (The coordinates for 2 dimensions when moving Figure 2; 28, Paragraph 0026) to control the scanning unit and a third coordinate for one dimension (The coordinate for 1 dimension when moving Figure 2; 30, Paragraph 0026) to control the lens movement unit,
when irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the second coordinates for the two dimensions and the third coordinate for the one dimension (Paragraph 0067, 0070), and
when irradiating the workpiece with the visible light beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the second coordinates for the two dimensions and the correction data without using the third coordinate for the one dimension (Paragraph 0026, 0060, 0067, 0070. The illumination light only uses Figure 2; 28, so that only the second coordinates are used and the third coordinate is not used).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nehashi wherein the coordinates are first coordinates for three dimensions and include second coordinates for two dimensions to control the scanning unit and a third coordinate for one dimension to control the lens movement unit, when irradiating the workpiece with the laser beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the second coordinates for the two dimensions and the third coordinate for the one dimension, and when irradiating the workpiece with the visible light beam, the controller controls the scanning unit with the second coordinates for the two dimensions and the correction data without using the third coordinate for the one dimension as taught by and suggested by Nakamura in order to improve processing accuracy and improve processing quality (Paragraph 0050, This is the same modification as claim 7).
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nehashi in view of Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Miyazono et al (US 20170108683)
Regarding claim 4, Nehashi in view of Nakamura teaches the invention as claimed.
Nehashi further discloses wherein in an adjustment range (The adjustment range of the focal position, Paragraph 0168) in which the focal position of the laser beam is changed by moving the lens with the lens movement unit (Paragraph 0168).
Nehashi in view of Nakamura does not teach the fixed position is set to a position for setting a middle position of the adjustment range as the focal position.
However, Miyazono teaches a visible light source (Figure 6; 1) that emits a visible light beam (The visible light beam from Figure 6; 1, Paragraph 0034);
a scanning unit (Figure 6; 4) that scans the visible light beam
a fixed position (The fixed position of Figure 6; 6a, Paragraph 0059) is set to a position (The position of the fixed position) for setting a middle position of an adjustment range (The center of the variation range of Paragraph 0059) as a focal position (The middle position is the focal position).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Nehashi in view of Nakamura wherein the fixed position is set to a position for setting a middle position of the adjustment range as the focal position as taught by and suggested by Nakamura in order to make the variable ranges in a positive and negative direction uniform (Paragraph 0059, The modification makes the fixed position a middle position of the adjustment range).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Saito et al (US 20120182376) shows in Figure 2 that a laser processing device can have both guide light and illumination light.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 PM EST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights