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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Objections
Claims 1–3 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1 on line 3, “machine head” should be amended to recite “processing head” to conform with the presentation of the limitation on line 2.
Claims 2 and 3 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Comment: The “control device” of claim 1, and the “assist gas supply device” of claim 2, are formulated as limitations to be interpreted under § 112(f), but they are not. One of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the “control device” to be a computer or the like, and the structure attributed to a “assist gas supply device” is extremely well-known in the art. See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
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.
The factual inquiries 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.
Claims 1 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita et al. (JP 2000-015395 A, cited, and translation provided by, Applicant) in view of Yamanashi et al. (WO 2019/176149 A1, cited by the Office).
Claim 1: Tomita discloses discloses a laser processing machine (20, inter alia) comprising:
a moving mechanism (23, 25) configured to move a relative position of a laser beam (L) with respect to a surface of a sheet metal (Tomita does not disclose any sheet metal, but this element is not positively recited (MPEP § 2115), and Tomita’s machine is capable of working on a sheet metal);
a beam vibration mechanism (24, 26) configured to vibrate the laser beam and vibrate the beam spot on the surface of the sheet metal (evident from “vibration frequency F”; see also fig. 3); and
a control device (21) configured to mark a marking-off line (see fig. 3) on the sheet metal by reading, from a processing program database (62), a processing program (“The individual casting condition data for each main mold 9 in which the core 1 having the core identification number engraved therein is input to the host computer 61 by the casting condition input means 60n”) for marking the marking-off line on the surface of the sheet metal and information on a vibration range of the laser beam corresponding to a set thickness of the marking-off line (“the marking amplitude C,” see fig. 3), and controlling the moving mechanism to move a relative position of the laser beam and advance an irradiation position of the laser beam in a predetermined direction (see fig. 3) while controlling the beam vibration mechanism to vibrate the beam spot on the surface of the sheet metal at the vibration range having been read (ibid.).
Tomita does not disclose a processing head having a nozzle attached to a tip end of the machine head, the nozzle being configured to emit a laser beam from an opening; a converging lens provided in the processing head and configured to converge the laser beam to form a beam spot on a surface of a sheet metal; or its moving mechanism configured to move a relative position of the processing head.
However, such elements are conventional in the art. Yamanashi discloses a processing head (35) having a nozzle (36) attached to a tip end of the machine head (see fig. 2), the nozzle being configured to emit a laser beam (via 10, 12) from an opening (36a); a converging lens (34) provided in the processing head (see fig. 2) and configured to converge the laser beam to form a beam spot on a surface of a sheet metal (ascertainable from fig. 3); and a moving mechanism (22, 23) configured to move a relative position of the processing head.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to merge the laser processing machine of Tomita with the processing head of Yamanashi to provide a protective means for the laser, to focus the laser appropriately for processing certain materials, and to move the laser around to a wider array of areas for processing a workpiece.
Claim 4: Tomita discloses a laser processing method comprising
irradiating a surface of a workpiece (1) with a laser beam converged, from an opening of a nozzle; and
advancing an irradiation position of the laser beam (via 23, 24, 25, 26) in a predetermined direction (evident from fig. 3), while vibrating a beam spot formed on the surface of the workpiece with a predetermined amplitude (“the marking amplitude C,” see fig. 3) by vibrating the laser beam to mark a marking-off line on the sheet metal (see fig. 3).
Tomita does not disclose irradiating a surface of a sheet metal. Instead, Tomita is directed to marking molds.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to use Tomita to mark surfaces of other objects, including sheet metal, for common purposes, e.g. effective labeling.
Tomita does not disclose that its laser beam is converged from an opening of a nozzle, nor advancing an irradiation position of the laser beam emitted from the opening in a predetermined direction by moving a relative position of the nozzle with respect to the surface of the sheet metal.
However, such techniques are conventional in the art. Yamanashi discloses a laser beam (via 10, 12) that is converged (via 34) from an opening (36a) of a nozzle (36), and advancing an irradiation position of the laser beam emitted from the opening by moving a relative position of the nozzle (via 22, 23) with respect to a surface of a sheet metal (W).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to merge the laser processing machine of Tomita with the processing head of Yamanashi to provide a protective means for the laser, to focus the laser appropriately for processing certain materials, and to move the laser around to a wider array of areas for processing a workpiece.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tomita in view of Yamanashi as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (JP 2001-219289 A, cited by, and translation provided by, Applicant).
Tomita discloses that the beam vibration mechanism vibrates the laser beam in a direction perpendicular to an advancing direction of an irradiation position of the laser beam advanced by the moving mechanism (evident from fig. 3).
Tomita modified by Yamanashi does not disclose an assist gas supply device configured to supply the processing head with an assist gas, the assist gas being blown onto the sheet metal from the opening during marking of a marking-off line on the sheet metal.
However, Takahashi discloses a similar apparatus (title, “Laser Marker”) comprising an assist gas supply device (7, 8, 9) configured to supply a processing head (4) with an assist gas (“oxygen gas”), the assist gas being blown onto the workpiece from the opening during marking of a marking-off line on the workpiece (fairly suggested at least by fig. 1).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to implement the assist gas supply in the processing head of Tomita modified by Yamanashi to, as taught by Takahashi, prevent the formation of soot. Although Takahashi concerns the processing of semiconductor packages, one of ordinary skill in the art would have understood that, because of the heat, soot is likely to form on other workpieces as well, including a sheet metal.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 3 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
The prior art does not fairly show having a position of a beam spot located forward of a center of a blowing position of the assist gas in an advancing direction of the laser beam for a marking machine.
Yamanashi et al. (WO 2019/176292 A1, cited by the Office) is highly relevant prior art for disclosing exactly this arrangement (see at least fig. 10), but Yamanashi is a laser cutting apparatus, and its assist gas blowing position is specifically configured to discharge molten metal through a laser cut hole. One of ordinary skill in the art would not readily see why such a design would be implemented in a laser marking apparatus because a laser marking apparatus would not produce a hole through which molten metal could be discharged.
Yamanashi et al. (JP 6538911 B1), Yamanashi et al. (WO 2019/176431 A1, cited by the Office), and Tanaka et al. (JP 6643444 B1, cited by the Office) are also highly relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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 J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights