DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendments
Receipt and entry of Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/12/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-14 have been amended. Claims 15-21 have been added. Claim 13 has been canceled. Overall, claims 1-14, 15-21 are pending in this application.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 8-11, 20, 21 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1, line 2, “control circuitry to control” is recommended to be revised to: --control circuitry configured to--;
In claim 1, line 4, “a detector to observe…” is recommended to be revised to: --a detector configured to observe…--;
In claim 1, line 8, “parameter estimation circuitry to estimate…” should be revised to: -- parameter estimation circuitry configured to estimate…--;
In claim 1, line 17, “condition change amount determination circuitry to compare…” is recommended to be revised to: --condition change amount determination circuitry configured to compare…--;
In claim 1, line 21, “parameter update circuitry to update the parameter value…” is recommended to be revised to: -- parameter update circuitry configured to update the parameter value…--;
In claim 1, lines 24-26, is recommended to be revised as follows:
--wherein during the laser processing, the detection circuitry, the parameter estimation circuitry, the condition change amount determination circuitry, and the parameter update circuitry are configured to sequentially and repeatedly perform detection of the time-series signal, output of the parameter…--
In claim 2, line 3, “processing state evaluation circuitry to output…” is recommended to be revised to: -- processing state evaluation circuitry configured to output…--;
In claim 2, line 6, “target change amount determination circuitry to…” is recommended to be revised to: -- target change amount determination circuitry configured to…--;
In claim 2, line 10, “target value update circuitry to update…” is recommended to be revised to: -- target value update circuitry configured to update…--;
In claim 4, the last two lines should be revised as follows:
-- wherein the corresponding parameter information is information in which correspondence between the first time-series signal data and the set of the parameter values selected is set. --;
In claim 5, the last two lines should be revised as follows:
-- wherein the corresponding parameter information is information in which correspondence between the first time-series signal data and the set of the parameter values selected is set. --;
In claim 8, line 3, “the parameter estimation circuitry learns” is recommended to be revised to: --the parameter estimation circuitry is configured to learn [[learns]]--;
In claim 9, line 3, “the condition change amount determination circuitry determines” is recommended to be revised to: -- the condition change amount determination circuitry is configured to determine [[determines]]--;
In claim 10, line 3, is recommended to be revised to: --the condition change amount determination circuitry is configured to--, and in lines 4 & 7, “changes” revised to --change--;
In claim 11, line 3, is recommended to be revised to: --the parameter update circuitry is configured to--;
In claim 20, line 2, “the parameter estimation circuitry learns” is recommended to be revised to: --the parameter estimation circuitry is configured to learn [[learns]]--;
In claim 21, line 2, “the parameter estimation circuitry learns” is recommended to be revised to: --the parameter estimation circuitry is configured to learn [[learns]]--;
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:
“control circuitry”, “parameter estimation circuitry”, “condition change amount determination circuitry”, “parameter update circuitry” in claim 1;
“processing state evaluation circuitry”, “target change amount determination circuitry” “target value update circuitry” in claim 2.
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. Review of the instant Specification identifies the “circuitry” as corresponding to “processing circuitry” having hardware including a “processor and memory” and a “computer” (Para. 0071-73).
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-12, 15-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is directed to both an apparatus and the method steps of using the apparatus. These claims are indefinite because it is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system, or when the steps are actually performed. In re Katz, 639 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2011). Also see MPEP § 2173.05. In this case, a “laser processing apparatus” is claimed having “control circuitry”, “parameter estimation circuitry”, “condition change amount determination circuitry”, and “parameter update circuitry”, and method steps of using the apparatus are also claimed for “observing at least one of sound or light” and outputting “a signal corresponding to an observation result”, estimating a parameter value based on “first time-series signal data” and “corresponding parameter information”, comparing “a target parameter value” and the “parameter estimate” to determine “an amount of change for the parameter value”, updating the parameter value on the basis of the amount of change and the processing condition, and “during the laser processing”, using the above mentioned circuitry to sequentially and repeatedly performing the detection of the time-series signal, output of the parameter estimate, determination of the amount of change, and update of the parameter value. It is unclear whether infringement occurs when the laser processing apparatus is constructed, or when the laser processing apparatus is used as described, rendering the claim vague and indefinite.
Claims 2-12, 15-21 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1, and for similarly being directed towards both an apparatus and method steps of using the apparatus (the dependent claims introduce both additional structural features and additional steps of using the apparatus). It is unclear whether infringement occurs when one creates the system, or when the steps are actually performed.
For instance, claim 2 introduces additional structural limitations (e.g. “circuitry”) while also reciting steps of how the limitations are used. Claims 3-7, 15-19 are directed only towards defining the non-structural limitation “corresponding parameter information” and steps of obtaining said “information” by either using elements of the apparatus (i.e. using the recited “circuitry”) or via some other step (e.g. claims 6-7, 17, 18, 19 describe using a “function” to obtain the information, and claims 15-16 recite storing information in a “database”). Claims 8, 20-21 merely claim the “parameter estimation circuitry learns correspondence” between data. Claims 9-11 describes steps of using the “circuitry” elements of the apparatus to determine additional data values. Claim 12 merely defines the “a parameter included in the processing condition” (i.e. non-structural features).
As suggested in the “Claim Objections” above, it is recommended that the recitations of “circuitry” throughout the claims are recited in combination with “configured to” with their recited functional limitations, to recite the circuitry as a specialized structural elements explicitly configured to perform the recited method steps, as opposed to a generic circuitry component merely capable of performing the recited steps.
Claim 3 recites “wherein the corresponding parameter information is information in which correspondence between the first time-series signal data detected by the detector when the laser processing is performed using a plurality of the processing conditions having different values specified for a parameter to be updated and the parameter value used when the first time-series signal data is detected is set”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what the claim is attempting to define as the “corresponding parameter information” (i.e. what is supposed to be meant by “correspondence between the first time-series signal data… and the parameter value used when the first time-series signal data is detected is set”? What is this “correspondence” meant to define in regards to the “information”? is the information a numerical value? a parameter? or a functional relationship?). The claim language is vague and it is unclear what is meant to be encompassed.
Claim 4, line 7, recites “the detection circuitry”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to be referring to the “detector” of claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the step of “selecting the first time-series signal data and a set of parameter values on a basis of the processing result”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what element is performing this step of “selecting”. The claim is directed to a “laser processing apparatus” but is describing a method step of obtaining data without any links to a structural element meant to perform the function.
Claim 5, line 6, recites “the detection circuitry”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if this limitation is meant to be referring to the “detector” of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites the step of “selecting the first time-series signal data and a set of parameter values that yield the processing result determined as being good”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is performing this step of “selecting”. The claim is directed to a “laser processing apparatus” but is describing a method step of obtaining data without any links to a structural element meant to perform the function.
Claim 5 is further indefinite due to the language “result determined as being good”. It is unclear what is meant to be encompassed by “good”, as the term is a relative term and has no frame of reference with which to define what it is meant to encompass (i.e. “good” with respect to what? What falls within the scope of “good”?).
Claim 15 recites steps of “setting a configurable range of the parameter values…storing in a database… and learning a relationship between the parameter value and the first time-series signal data stored”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what element is performing these steps. The claim is directed to a “laser processing apparatus” but is describing method steps of obtaining data without any links to a structural element meant to perform the function.
Claim 16 recites “the target parameter value is a value selected from among the parameter values that yield the processing result that is good among the processing results”. This renders the claim indefinite, as the term “good” is a relative term and has no frame of reference with which to define what it is meant to encompass (i.e. “good” with respect to what? What falls within the scope of “good”?).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1-12, 14-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e. an abstract idea) without significantly more. According to the Supreme Court's Alice/Mayo Subject Matter Eligibility Test (MPEP 2106, III & MPEP 2106.03- 2106.04):
Step 1: Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter?
Claim 1 is directed towards a “laser processing apparatus” and claim 14 is directed to a “laser processing method”. YES: the claims are a machine and process, respectively.
Step 2A, Prong 1: Is the claim directed to a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea?
Claim 1 is directed to various steps and functions of using and obtaining information during a laser processing operation, intended to be carried out by “circuitry” elements. The main body of the claim is directed towards steps of obtaining data (“observing on a time-series basis” and outputting a “time-series signal”), using the data to obtain additional data via mathematical relationships (estimating a “parameter value”), comparison of data (“compare a target parameter value… and the parameter estimate”), determining additional information (“determine an amount of change for the parameter value…on a basis of the comparison result”), and updating data (“update the parameter value…on a basis of the amount of change”), with the steps repeated sequentially. These steps of obtaining, determining, and updating “parameter values” are abstract in nature, as they relate purely to gathering, generation and output of numerical data, and the calculation of numerical data through established mathematical relationships. In other words, the claim is directed towards mathematical calculations (as discussed in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(I)(C)), and towards the observation, judgement and evaluation of numerical data which is grouped under mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). Claim 14 similarly recites the same steps of obtaining data, determining/estimating parameter values, and updating values as claim 1, without the recitation of “circuitry”. YES: the claims are an abstract idea.
Step 2A, Prong 2: does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application?
While the claims are tied to “laser processing”, this recitation is merely providing context to the performed method steps. The claims do not positively recite any elements of a “laser processing” apparatus (e.g. the laser generating device itself), and does not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application, since the claim does not recite any further steps of changing/modifying/imposing any meaningful limitations on the system as a result of practicing the abstract idea (i.e. operating a laser processing apparatus according to the generated information). The claims merely use mathematical relationships and calculations to evaluate information pertaining to the “laser processing”, generate additional information, and updating numerical values on the basis of the numerical analysis, and impart no explicit changes to the “laser processing apparatus”. Claim 14 similarly is directed only to steps of gathering, analyzing, and calculating information pertaining to a “laser processing” being performed, and does not explicitly impart any meaningful changes to the “laser processing”, as the claim only gathers data, runs calculations/comparisons of data, provides results, and updates numerical values. NO: the claims do not integrate the judicial exception to a practical application.
Step 2B: Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception?
Claim 1 does not recite any structural features related to the actual “laser processing apparatus” (i.e. a laser oscillator, optical path, actuators, processing head, etc.) and is directed entirely to “circuitry” meant to carry out the gathering, analysis, and computation of numerical data. The “laser processing apparatus” merely links the abstract idea to a particular technological environment. A “detector” is claimed, but is merely utilized as a generic means to obtaining data for use in an algorithm without indicating any improvement or unexpected result in the technology. Recitation of “circuitry” for performing the recited mathematical algorithm is routine and conventional activity that does not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception, and is merely a means to implementing the abstract idea (i.e. calculating and determining mathematical relationships and outputting numerical results) on a computer/computational device. Claim 14 similarly does not recite any additional elements amounting to significantly more than the judicial exception, as the recitation “laser processing” merely links the abstract idea to a particular technical field. The claim is directed towards steps of gathering, analyzing, calculating, and providing numerical information in a sequential and repeated manner. NO: the additional elements do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception.
Consequently, independent claims 1 & 14 are not patent eligible.
Dependent claims 2-12, 15-21 are dependent on claim 1 and are also not patent eligible, since they are also directed to a process that falls under abstract ideas.
Claim 2 is directed to additional steps of evaluating numerical data (“evaluating the processing state on a basis of second time-series signal data”) and outputting a value, comparing data (“compare the evaluation value and a target evaluation value”) to determine new data (“determine a parameter target change amount…on a basis of a comparison result”), and updating data (“update the target parameter value”). These steps are abstract in nature, as they relate purely to gathering and generation of numerical data, and the calculation of data through mathematical relationships, which can be grouped under mathematical calculations and mental processes. The recitation of “circuitry” does not add significantly more to the judicial exception since use of circuitry/computerized devices to implement an abstract idea (i.e. mathematical calculations) is routine and conventional activity in the art.
Claim 3 is directed to defining what “the corresponding parameter information” is, and fails to add significantly more to the judicial exception. The claim does not appear to recite any additional process steps or structural features, and merely describes the numerical nature of the “information”, and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claims 4-5 is directed to steps of obtaining “the corresponding parameter information”, including obtaining and selecting data (“obtaining the first time-series signal data”, “selecting the first time-series signal data and a set of parameter values”). Recitation of “performing the laser processing using a plurality of processing conditions” merely provides context to how the information is being obtained. Consequently, the claims are directed to the gathering and analysis of data, and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claims 6, 17, 18 are directed to defining “the corresponding parameter information” as being a “function indicating correspondence between the first time-series signal data and the parameter value”, which is merely an abstract mathematical relationship and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claims 7, 19 is directed to defining “function” of claim 6 as being a “regression model” that is “trained by regression learning to output the parameter value” and obtaining an output based on the regression model, and is merely an abstract mathematical relationship and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claims 8, 20, 21 are directed to describing that the “parameter estimation circuitry learns correspondence between the first time-series signal data… and the parameter value”, which falls under abstract mathematical relationships and numerical analysis, and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 9 is directed to determining a value obtained by “multiplying a difference between the target parameter value and the parameter estimate”, which is merely analyzing data using an abstract mathematical relationship, and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 10 is directed to modifying numerical data including changing “over from the amount of change… to an upper limit preset when the amount of change for the processing condition is larger than the upper limit”, and changing “over from the amount of change…to a lower limit preset when the amount of change for the processing condition is smaller than the lower limit”, which is merely analysis and selection of numerical data through mathematical relationships, and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 11 is directed to computing “the parameter value…on the basis of the amount of change and the processing condition” and changing the “parameter value” to an upper or lower limit preset when the value is larger or smaller than the upper or lower limit presets respectively. This is merely analysis and selection of numerical data through mathematical relationships, and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 12 is directed to “a parameter included in the processing condition” including at least one of “at least one of output intensity of a laser light, an output frequency of the laser light, an output duty ratio of the laser light, processing speed, focal position of the laser light relative to a workpiece, pressure of a processing gas, a height where a nozzle is to be as measured from the workpiece, or beam magnification of the laser light”. However, this merely is providing context to what the parameter is meant to represent in the mathematical analysis of claim 1, linking the abstract idea to a technological environment, and does not add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Claim 15 is directed to steps of how the “corresponding parameter information is generated”, including setting “a configurable range of the parameter values” and “storing in a database the first time-series signal and parameter value”, and “learning a relationship between the parameter value and the first time-series signal data stored”. However, this falls under analysis and generation of numerical data using mathematical relationships, and fails to add significantly more to the judicial exception. Note, the recitation of a “database” is not a structural feature, and is also an abstract repository of information that is not linked to any structural element within the claim.
Claim 16 is directed to defining the “database” of claim 15, including steps of storing data and selecting the “target parameter value” from the stored “parameter values” that yield a desired “processing result”. However, this still falls under analysis and generation of numerical data using mathematical relationships, and fails to add significantly more to the judicial exception.
Consequently, dependent claims 2-12, 15-21 are also not patent eligible.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3, 6, 12, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Takigawa (US 2019/0213479 A1).
Regarding independent claim 1, as best understood Takigawa discloses a laser processing apparatus 1 (“fiber laser device”, Fig. 1) comprising:
control circuitry 8 (“control unit”) to control laser processing in accordance with a processing condition (“light output instruction”, “driving conditions”, Para. 0021-22, 0062) for the laser processing (Para. 0057-58);
a detector 6, 7 (“output light detection unit”) to observe, on a time-series basis, at least one of sound or light generated during execution of the laser processing (the detectors are light detection units) as a processing state during execution of the laser processing and output a signal (a “state variable”) corresponding to an observation result as a time-series signal (Para. 0061, “a state quantity observation unit 11 for observing, as a state variable indicating a driving state of the fiber laser device 1, a state quantity of the fiber laser device 1 including time-series data on at least output light detection results detected by the output light detection unit 6 and reflected light detection results detected by the reflected light detection unit 7”);
parameter estimation circuitry 11 (“state quantity observation unit” of machine learning device 10) to estimate, on a basis of first time-series signal data (signal from output light detector 6) and corresponding parameter information (a “boundary condition for failure” related to the detected light, Para. 0060), a parameter value (a “state variable”) corresponding to the first time-series signal data and output the parameter value as a parameter estimate (“light output results detected by the output light detection unit 6”), the first time-series signal data including at least one of the time-series signal or a first feature computed from the time-series signal (the signal from the “output light detection unit 6”), the corresponding parameter information being preset in the parameter estimation circuitry (the “boundary condition” is a learned value used to ascertain failure of the laser device) and being information indicating correspondence between the first time-series signal data and the parameter value included in the processing condition and targeted for update (Para. 0060-61, the boundary condition for failure is related to the detected output light signal from detector 6 and the “light output instruction”/processing condition as a potential failure occurrence parameter, Para. 0068);
condition change amount determination circuitry 12, 14 (“determination data acquisition unit” and an “output unit”) to compare a target parameter value (“light output instruction”) that is a target value for the parameter value and the parameter estimate (“light output results detected by output light detection unit 6”, Para. 0061; Para. 0068, Fig. 2A, “determination data acquisition unit 12 acquires determination data representing a failure occurrence situation in the fiber laser device 1 determined from a difference exceeding an error such as a measurement error between at least light output results detected by the output light detection unit 6 and the light output instruction”; Fig. 2B, step s113) and determine an amount of change for the parameter value of the processing condition (“failure avoidance data”, Fig. 2B, step s114-s117 & s120) to bring the parameter estimate closer to the target parameter value, on a basis of a comparison result (Para. 0061, “an output unit 14 for determining, on the basis of a learning result by the learning unit 13, failure avoidance data to be output to each fiber laser device 1, and outputting the failure avoidance data to each fiber laser device 1…The failure avoidance data to be output to each fiber laser device 1 may be a condition that the driving conditions of the fiber laser device 1 including the light output instruction should be changed in order to avoid a failure in the fiber laser device 1”); and
parameter update circuitry to update the parameter value of the processing condition on a basis of the amount of change and the processing condition (Para. 0061-62, the “failure avoidance data” is output to fiber laser device 1 via the network 9 and control unit 8, hence updating the parameter value to avoid failure; claim 1, part of the output unit’s functioning is “outputting, on the basis of a learning result by the learning unit, at least one of failure avoidance data including information for avoiding a failure caused by reflected light and failure occurrence boundary condition data”; Fig. 2B step s120),
wherein during the laser processing, the detection circuitry, the parameter estimation circuitry, the condition change amount determination circuitry, and the parameter update circuitry sequentially and repeatedly perform detection of the time-series signal, output of the parameter estimate based on the corresponding parameter information that is preset, determination of the amount of change, and update of the parameter value of the processing condition [functional language] (see the flowchart of Fig. 2A-2B, which represents the control loop through which the circuitry tasks are sequentially and repeatedly performed to detect failure states of the laser device, record the failure states, and provide failure avoidance data to the laser device, Para. 0066-80).
Regarding claim 3, as best understood Takigawa discloses the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein the corresponding parameter information (“boundary condition for failure occurrence”) is information in which correspondence between the first time-series signal data detected by the detector when the laser processing is performed using a plurality of the processing conditions having different values (“driving conditions” of the fiber laser device, Para. 0021-22, 0062) specified for a parameter to be updated and the parameter value (“state variable”) used when the first time-series signal data is detected is set (as best understood, Para. 0062, the “boundary condition for failure occurrence caused by reflected light” is information that corresponds to the operation of the laser device 1 under the initial “driving conditions” and the parameter value/“state variable” obtained from the output light detection unit 6 during operation of the laser, and the information relates to the failure avoidance data to be output to the laser device to update the driving conditions to reduce failure likelihood).
Regarding claim 6, as best understood Takigawa discloses the laser processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the corresponding parameter information (“boundary condition for failure”) is a function indicating correspondence between the first time-series signal data (from the detector 6 and “state quantity observation unit 11”) and the parameter value (“state variable”; Para. 0061, “a learning unit 13 for using the state variable and the determination data and associating the state quantity of the fiber laser device 1 with the failure occurrence situation to learn a boundary condition for failure occurrence caused by reflected light in the fiber laser device 1”; the “boundary condition for failure” is learned based on the state variable and determination data associated with the state variable, the determination data based on the time-series signal data from the detector 6).
Regarding claim 12, Takigawa discloses the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a parameter included in the processing condition (“driving conditions”) includes at least one of output intensity of a laser light, an output frequency of the laser light, an output duty ratio of the laser light, processing speed, focal position of the laser light relative to a workpiece, pressure of a processing gas, a height where a nozzle is to be as measured from the workpiece, or beam magnification of the laser light (claim 14, “driving condition of the fiber laser device for avoiding a failure by reflected light when the failure avoidance critical condition is reached includes at least one of a laser light output condition corresponding to the light output instruction, a relative position condition between the machining head and the workpiece, a relative position condition between a focal point of laser light emitted from the machining head and the workpiece, an F-number condition of a condensing optical system of the machining head, and a beam profile condition of a laser beam emitted from the machining head”).
Regarding independent claim 14, as best understood Takigawa discloses a laser processing method for laser processing to be performed (by “fiber laser device 1”, Fig. 1) in accordance with a processing condition (“driving conditions”, Para. 0021-22, 0062) for the laser processing, the laser processing method comprising:
a detection of observing (via “output light detection unit 6” & “reflected light detection unit 7”), on a time-series basis, at least one of sound or light generated during execution of the laser processing (the detectors are light detection units) as a processing state during execution of the laser processing and outputting a signal (a “state variable”) corresponding to an observation result as a time-series signal (Para. 0061, “a state quantity observation unit 11 for observing, as a state variable indicating a driving state of the fiber laser device 1, a state quantity of the fiber laser device 1 including time-series data on at least output light detection results detected by the output light detection unit 6 and reflected light detection results detected by the reflected light detection unit 7”);
a parameter estimation of estimating, on a basis of first time-series signal data (from output light detector 6) and corresponding parameter information (a “boundary condition for failure” related to the detected light, Para. 0060), a parameter value (a “state variable”), a parameter value corresponding to the first time-series signal data and outputting the parameter value as a parameter estimate (“light output results detected by the output light detection unit 6”), the first time-series signal data including at least one of the time-series signal (the signal from the “output light detection unit 6”) or a first feature computed from the time-series signal, the corresponding parameter information being preset and information indicating correspondence between the first time-series signal data and the parameter value included in the processing condition and targeted for update (Para. 0060-61, the boundary condition is related to the detected output light signal from detector 6 and the “light output instruction”/processing condition as a potential failure occurrence parameter, Para. 0068);
a condition change amount determination (via “determination data acquisition unit 12” and an “output unit 14”) of comparing a target parameter value (“light output instruction”) that is a target value for the parameter value and the parameter estimate (“light output results detected by output light detection unit 6”, Para. 0061; Para. 0068, Fig. 2A, “determination data acquisition unit 12 acquires determination data representing a failure occurrence situation in the fiber laser device 1 determined from a difference exceeding an error such as a measurement error between at least light output results detected by the output light detection unit 6 and the light output instruction”) and determining an amount of change for the parameter value of the processing condition (“failure avoidance data”) to bring the parameter estimate closer to the target parameter value, on a basis of a comparison result (Para. 0061, “an output unit 14 for determining, on the basis of a learning result by the learning unit 13, failure avoidance data to be output to each fiber laser device 1, and outputting the failure avoidance data to each fiber laser device 1…The failure avoidance data to be output to each fiber laser device 1 may be a condition that the driving conditions of the fiber laser device 1 including the light output instruction should be changed in order to avoid a failure in the fiber laser device 1”); and
a parameter update of updating the parameter value of the processing condition on a basis of the amount of change and the processing condition (Para. 0061-62, the “failure avoidance data” is output to fiber laser device 1 via the network 9 and control unit 8, hence updating the parameter value to avoid failure; claim 1, part of the output unit’s functioning is “outputting, on the basis of a learning result by the learning unit, at least one of failure avoidance data including information for avoiding a failure caused by reflected light and failure occurrence boundary condition data”),
wherein during the laser processing, detection of the time-series signal, output of the parameter estimate based on the corresponding parameter information that is preset, determination of the amount of change, and update of the parameter value of the processing condition are performed sequentially and repeatedly in the detection, the parameter estimation, the condition change amount determination, and the parameter update (see the flowchart of Fig. 2A-2B, which represents the control loop through which the circuitry tasks are sequentially and repeatedly performed to detect failure states of the laser device, record the failure states, and provide failure avoidance data to the laser device; Para. 0066-80).
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Calefati (US 20110192825 A1, US 8558135 B2) teaches a laser machining process and apparatus including optically observing the laser machining to determine a quality of the laser, and comparing parameters with a plurality of statistic models to identify defective states of the process.
Schwarz (US 20230201956 A1) teaches a laser machining process including acquiring sensor data for the laser machining process and using a transfer function trained by a neural network to determine a value of a physical property of the machining result based on the data.
Tanaka (US 20210354234 A1, US 11351630 B2) teaches a laser processing method including collecting sound data to evaluate a state of the machining using machine learning.
Takigawa (US 10,664,767 B2) is the patent for Takigawa (US 20170270434 A1) cited in the Information Disclosure Statement.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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 on 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 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741