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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 4 and 5 are objected to because of the following informalities:
“in front on” in line 15 of claim 1 should read “in front of.”
“a distance” in line 5 of claim 4 should read “the distance.”
“to front of a traveling route” in lines 9-10 of claim 5 should read “to in front of a traveling route.”
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:
“processing head movement mechanism” in claim 1;
“beam movement mechanism” in claims 1 and 3;
“assist gas supply device” in claims 1 and 5; and
“control device” in claims 1-4.
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.
Regarding the term, “processing head movement mechanism” in claim 1, this limitation recites the generic term “mechanism” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The recited function is moving the processing head relative to the surface of the sheet metal. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification includes the X-axis carriage 22 and the Y-axis carriage 23 functioning as a processing head movement mechanism, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph [0028] and [0034].
Regarding the term “beam movement mechanism” in claim 1, this limitation recites the generic term “mechanism” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The recited function is moving the laser beam emitted from the opening in the opening. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification includes the galvano scanner unit 32, including scan mirrors 321 and 323, and drive units 322 and 324, and equivalents thereof. Paragraph [0038]-[0042]. Claim 3 is also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to its dependency from claim 1.
Regarding the term “assist gas supply device” in claims 1 and 5, this limitation recites the generic term “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited function. The recited function is supplying an assist gas to the processing head when the sheet metal is processed. No specific structure could be found in the disclosure to define the assist gas supply device.
Regarding the term “control device” in claim 1, this limitation recites the generic term “device” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure for performing the recited functions. The recited functions include controlling the beam movement mechanism such that the center of the laser beam moves by a predetermined movement distance from the center of the opening to in front of a traveling route of an irradiation position for the laser beam, and controlling the processing head movement mechanism such that the irradiation position for the laser beam moves along the traveling route. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification includes the NC device 50 executing the control operations described in paragraph [0029], [0039], [0047], [0055]-[0068], and equivalents thereof. Claims 2-4 are also interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) due to their dependency from claim 1.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1 and 5 recite an “assist gas supply device.” The limitation corresponds to the function of supplying an assist gas to the processing head when sheet metal is processed. However, the specification does not reasonably convey to one of ordinary skill in the art that the inventor had position of an assist gas supply device having sufficient corresponding structure for performing the recited function. Although the specification refers to an assist gas supply device (70), the specification does not adequately describe the structure of the assist gas supply device or otherwise disclose sufficient structure associated with performing the recited function. Accordingly, the specification fails to provide adequate written description support for the claimed “assist gas supply device.” Claims 2-4 are also rejected for the same reason because they are dependent claims of claim 1.
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 1-5 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites “from a center of the opening to in front on a traveling route of an irradiation position for the laser beam” in lines 14-16. This limitation renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is not reasonably certain what spatial relationship is intended by “to in front on.” In particular, it is unclear whether the claim requires movement of the center of the laser beam to a position in front of the traveling route, to a position on the traveling rout, or to another location relative to the traveling route. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the limitation “to in front on” as meaning “to a position in front of.” Claims 2-4 are also rejected for the same reason because they are dependent claims of claim 1.
Claim 5 recites ““from a center of the opening to front of a traveling route of an irradiation position for the laser beam” in lines 9-10. This limitation renders the scope of the claim unclear because it is not reasonably certain what spatial relationship is intended by “to front of.” In particular, it is unclear whether the claim requires movement of the center of the laser beam to a position in front of the traveling route, to a position on the traveling route, or to another position relative to the traveling route. Accordingly, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention. For the purpose of examination, the examiner interprets the phrase “to front of” as meaning “to a position in front of.”
Claims 1 and 5 recite an “assist gas supply device.” The limitation corresponds to the function of supplying an assist gas to the processing head when sheet metal is processed. However, the specification fails to disclose sufficient corresponding structure for performing the recited function. Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the claimed invention with certainty, rendering the claims indefinite. Claims 2-4 are also rejected because they are dependent claims of claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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 1-2 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (WO 2020246354), in view of Sugiyama et al. (JP H11788) hereinafter Sugiyama. For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20220226933, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to WO 2020246354.
Regarding claim 1, Murakami teaches, Fig. 2,
a laser processing machine (Fig. 1: 100, “laser processing machine”) comprising:
a processing head (35, “processing head”) in which a nozzle (36, “nozzle”) for emitting a laser beam from an opening (36a, “opening”) is attached to a tip end of the processing head (35) (Fig. 2; paragraph [0052]: “A nozzle 36 including a circular opening 36a at a tip end portion is attached to the processing head 35, the nozzle 36 being for emitting a laser beam from the opening 36a”);
a focusing lens (34, “focusing lens”) that is provided in the processing head (35) (Fig. 2 shows the configuration) and configured to form a beam spot on a surface of a sheet metal (Fig. 1: W, “sheet metal”) by focusing the laser beam (Fig. 2; paragraph [0053]: “The processing head 35 includes a focusing lens 34 for focusing a laser beam reflected by the bend mirror 33, and for irradiating the sheet metal W with the focused laser beam”);
a processing head movement mechanism (Fig. 1: 22, “X-axis carriage” and 23, “Y-axis carriage”) configured to move the processing head (35) relative to the surface of the sheet metal (W) (paragraph [0050]: “The X-axis carriage 22 and the Y-axis carriage 23 function as a moving mechanism for moving the processing head 35 along a surface of the sheet metal W, in the X-axis direction, the Y-axis direction, or any combination direction along the X-axis and the Y-axis”; paragraph [0051]: “It suffices if the laser processing machine 100 includes a moving mechanism for moving the processing head 35 relative to the surface of the sheet metal W”);
a beam movement mechanism (32, “Galvano scanner unit”) (paragraph [0054]: “The galvano scanner unit 32 functions as a beam displacement mechanism for displacing the position, inside the opening 36a, of the laser beam”) configured to move the laser beam emitted from the opening (36a), in the opening (36a) (paragraph [0054]: “The galvano scanner unit 32 functions as a beam displacement mechanism for displacing the position, inside the opening 36a, of the laser beam”);
an assist gas supply device (Fig. 1: 80, “assist gas supply device”) configured to supply an assist gas to be sprayed onto the sheet metal (W) from the opening (36a), to the processing head (35) when the sheet metal (W) is processed (paragraph [0061]: “Assist gas AG supplied to the processing head 35 by the assist gas supply device 80 passes through the opening 36a to be blown onto the sheet metal W”); and
a control device (Fig. 1: 50, “NC device”) configured to control the beam movement mechanism (32) (paragraph [0047]: “The NC device 50 is … a control device for controlling each part of the laser processing machine 100”) such that a center of the laser beam that is emitted from the opening (36a) (paragraph [0052]: “the nozzle 36 being for emitting a laser beam from the opening 36a”) moves by a predetermined movement distance from a center of the opening (36a) (Fig. 6; paragraph [0071]: “the distance Δs is calculated by EFL×sin θ”; paragraph [0120]: “the NC device 50 displaces the laser beam by the distance that is set in the processing condition”).
Regarding claim 1, Murakami does not explicitly teach the predetermined movement distance is from a center of the opening to in front of a traveling route of an irradiation position for the laser beam that is based on a processing program for marking a marking-off line with a predetermined shape on the sheet metal, and
to perform control for the marking-off line with the predetermined shape to be marked on the sheet metal by controlling the processing head movement mechanism in such a way as to move the irradiation position for the laser beam along the traveling route.
However, Sugiyama teaches, in Fig. 1, a laser processing head (3) equipped with a nozzle (1) of a laser processing machine (p. 5, ln. 21), wherein
a predetermined movement distance (annotated Fig. 2: J’ is annotated as a movement distance) is from a center (annotated Fig. 2: C’ is annotated as a center of a hole 17) of the opening (Fig. 2: 17, “hole”; Sugiyama (translation), p. 5, ln. 29: “a circular hole 17 provided at the tip 15 of the nozzle 1”) to in front of a traveling route (Fig. 4: TR, “cutting path”) (Fig. 4 & annotated Fig. 2 of Sugiyama show the movement distance J’ is from the center of hole C’ in the cutting direction along with the cutting path TR) of an irradiation position for the laser beam (Fig. 4: LB, “laser beam”) that is based on a processing program (Sugiyama (translation), p. 3, lns. 16-17: “laser processing [which can] be controlled by the rotation / indexing mechanism,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the “processing program”) for marking a marking-off line (Sugiyama (translation), p. 4, ln. 22: “marking”; “the application of the marking by the laser beam LB”) with a predetermined shape on the sheet metal (Fig. 1: W, “workpiece”) (Sugiyama (translation), p. 6, lns. 7-11: “[w]hen V-groove machining is performed … the sputter is blown off in the traveling direction … the nozzle 1 is rotated … so that the small-diameter portion SR of the hole 17 comes to the front side in the traveling direction of the laser beam LB … the clean V groove 19 [c]an be formed”; Fig. 6; Sugiyama teaches controlling the positional relationship between the nozzle opening 17 and the laser beam LB in accordance with a cutting path while performing marking or groove-forming processing on a workpiece W), and
to perform control for the marking-off line (“marking”) with the predetermined shape to be marked on the sheet metal (W) by controlling the processing head movement mechanism in such a way as to move the irradiation position for the laser beam (LB) along the traveling route (TR) (Sugiyama (translation), p. 6, ln. 1: “Referring to FIG. 4, consider the case where the direction of the cutting path TR changes”; p. 6, lns. 7-11: “[w]hen V-groove machining is performed … the sputter is blown off in the traveling direction … the nozzle 1 is rotated … so that the small-diameter portion SR of the hole 17 comes to the front side in the traveling direction of the laser beam LB … the clean V groove 19 [c]an be formed”; Fig. 6 shows processing performed while the laser beam LB travels along the cutting path TR).
Murakami and Sugiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing machines and methods for adjusting a positional relationship between a nozzle hole and a laser beam during laser processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser processing machine of Murakami to control the positional relationship between the laser beam and the nozzle opening in accordance with a travel direction of a marking operation as taught by Sugiyama, for the purpose of directing molten metal and sputter away from a processed line during marking processing and groove formation (Sugiyama (translation), p. 4, lns. 22-23: “when the output is increased from the time of the marking and the V-groove 107 is to be processed, the sputter SP returns to the upper surface”; p. 4, lns. 25-26: “to improve the stability … of cutting by moving molten metal”; p. 6, lns. 7-11: “the sputter is blown off in the traveling direction, … the clean V groove 19 [c]an be formed”), thereby preventing molten metal from adhering to the marked line or processed surface, and improving the quality and stability of the laser processing operation.
PNG
media_image1.png
497
716
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Murakami
PNG
media_image2.png
618
576
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Murakami
PNG
media_image3.png
476
449
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Sugiyama
PNG
media_image4.png
239
527
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Sugiyama
PNG
media_image5.png
180
436
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Sugiyama
PNG
media_image6.png
198
416
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Sugiyama
Regarding claim 2, Murakami in view of Sugiyama teaches, in Fig. 2 of Murakami, the laser processing machine (Murakami: 100) according to claim 1, wherein
the beam movement mechanism (32) is provided at a stage prior to the processing head (35) (Fig. 2 shows the galvano scanner unit 32 positioned upstream of the processing head 35 in the optical path), and includes a scan mirror (321 & 323, “scanning mirror”) for reflecting an incident laser beam, and a drive unit (322 & 324, “driver”) for setting the scan mirror (321, 323) at a predetermined angle (paragraph [0056]: “The galvano scanner unit 32 includes [] scanning mirrors 321 [and 323] for reflecting the laser beam emitted …, and driver[s] 322 [and 324] for rotating the scanning mirror[s] 321 [and 323] to [] predetermined angle[s]”), and
the control device (Murakami, Fig. 1: 50) controls the drive unit (322, 324) in such a way as to move the irradiation position for the laser beam to a predetermined position by setting the scan mirror (321, 323) at a predetermined angle (paragraph [0056]; paragraph [0069]: “When the laser beam reflected by the bend mirror 33 is inclined at an angle θ, the irradiation position of the laser beam on the sheet metal W is displaced by a distance Δs”; paragraph [0071]: “The NC device 50 may simply tilt the optical axis of the laser beam by the angle θ by the galvano scanner unit 32 such that the laser beam is displaced by the distance Δs that is set in advance”; paragraph [0119]: “ the NC device 50 reads the auxiliary code, and controls the galvano scanner unit 32 such that the laser beam is displaced, within the opening 36a of the nozzle 36, in the angle direction indicated by the auxiliary code”).
Regarding claim 5, Murakami teaches, in Fig. 1,
a laser processing method (paragraph [0001]: “a laser processing method”) comprising:
when sheet metal (W, “sheet metal”) is processed, by means of a laser processing machine (100, “laser processing machine”) provided with an assist gas supply device (80, “assist gas supply device”) for supplying an assist gas to be sprayed onto sheet metal (W) to a processing head (paragraph [0061]: “Assist gas AG supplied to the processing head 35 by the assist gas supply device 80 passes through the opening 36a to be blown onto the sheet metal W”) in which a nozzle (36, “nozzle”) for emitting a laser beam from an opening (36a, “opening”) is attached to a tip end of the processing head (35, “processing head”) (Fig. 2; paragraph [0052]: “A nozzle 36 including a circular opening 36a at a tip end portion is attached to the processing head 35, the nozzle 36 being for emitting a laser beam from the opening 36a”),
irradiating a surface of the sheet metal (W) with the laser beam that is focused, from the opening (36a) of the nozzle (36) (Fig. 2; paragraph [0052]: “A nozzle 36 including a circular opening 36a at a tip end portion is attached to the processing head 35, the nozzle 36 being for emitting a laser beam from the opening 36a”); and
moving a center of the laser beam that is emitted from the opening (36a) (paragraph [0052]: “the nozzle 36 being for emitting a laser beam from the opening 36a”) by a predetermined movement distance, from a center of the opening (36a) (Fig. 6; paragraph [0071]: “the distance Δs is calculated by EFL×sin θ”; paragraph [0120]: “the NC device 50 displaces the laser beam by the distance that is set in the processing condition”).
Regarding claim 5, Murakami does not explicitly teach a predetermined distance is from a center of the opening to in front of a traveling route of an irradiation position for the laser beam that is based on a processing program for marking a marking-off line with a predetermined shape on the sheet metal.
moving the irradiation position for the laser beam along the traveling route based on the processing program, thereby marking the marking-off line with the predetermined shape on the sheet metal.
However, Sugiyama teaches, in Fig. 1, a laser processing head (3) equipped with a nozzle (1) of a laser processing machine (Sugiyama (translation), p. 5, ln. 21), wherein
a predetermined distance (annotated Fig. 2: J’ is annotated as a movement distance) is from a center (annotated Fig. 2: C’ is annotated as a center of a hole 17) of the opening (Fig. 2: 17, “hole”; Sugiyama (translation), p. 5, ln. 29: “a circular hole 17 provided at the tip 15 of the nozzle 1”) to in front of a traveling route (Fig. 4: TR, “cutting path”) (Fig. 4 & annotated Fig. 2 of Sugiyama show the movement distance J’ is from the center of hole C’ in the cutting direction along with the cutting path TR) of an irradiation position for the laser beam (Fig. 4: LB, “laser beam”) that is based on a processing program (Sugiyama (translation), p. 3, lns. 16-17: “laser processing [which can] be controlled by the rotation / indexing mechanism,” which the examiner interprets as corresponding to the “processing program”) for marking a marking-off line (Sugiyama (translation), p. 4, ln. 22: “marking”; “the application of the marking by the laser beam LB”) with a predetermined shape on the sheet metal (Fig. 1: W, “workpiece”) (Sugiyama (translation), p. 6, lns. 7-11: “[w]hen V-groove machining is performed … the sputter is blown off in the traveling direction … the nozzle 1 is rotated … so that the small-diameter portion SR of the hole 17 comes to the front side in the traveling direction of the laser beam LB … the clean V groove 19 [c]an be formed”; Fig. 6; Sugiyama teaches controlling the positional relationship between the nozzle opening 17 and the laser beam LB in accordance with a cutting path while performing marking or groove-forming processing on a workpiece W), and
moving the irradiation position for the laser beam (LB) along the traveling route (TR) based on the processing program (Sugiyama (translation), p. 3, lns. 16-17), thereby marking the marking-off line (“marking”) with the predetermined shape on the sheet metal (W) (Sugiyama (translation), p. 6, ln. 1: “Referring to FIG. 4, consider the case where the direction of the cutting path TR changes”; Fig. 6 shows processing performed while the laser beam LB travels along the cutting path TR).
Murakami and Sugiyama are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing machines and methods for adjusting a positional relationship between a nozzle hole and a laser beam during laser processing. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the laser processing machine of Murakami to control the positional relationship between the laser beam and the nozzle opening in accordance with a travel direction of a marking operation as taught by Sugiyama, for the purpose of directing molten metal and sputter away from a processed line during marking processing and groove formation (Sugiyama (translation), p. 4, lns. 22-23: “when the output is increased from the time of the marking and the V-groove 107 is to be processed, the sputter SP returns to the upper surface”; p. 4, lns. 25-26: “to improve the stability … of cutting by moving molten metal”; p. 6, lns. 7-11: “the sputter is blown off in the traveling direction, … the clean V groove 19 [c]an be formed”), thereby preventing molten metal from adhering to the marked line or processed surface, and improving the quality and stability of the laser processing operation.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (WO 2020246354), in view of Sugiyama et al. (JP H11788) hereinafter Sugiyama, and further in view of Rumsby (US 20110266264). For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20220226933, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to WO 2020246354.
Regarding claim 3, Murakami and Sugiyama teaches, in Fig. 1 of Murakami,
the laser processing machine (100) according to claim 1, wherein
a processing program database (Murakami, Fig. 1: 60, “processing program database”) stores the processing program (Murakami, paragraph [0064]: “The processing program is stored in the processing program database 60”), and a processing condition database (70) stores information on a movement distance of an irradiation position for a laser beam, which is set in advance (Murakami, paragraph [0120]: “the distance by which the laser beam is to be displaced … is set in various processing conditions stored in the processing condition database 70”), and
the control device (50) reads out, from the processing program database (60), the information on the movement distance of the irradiation position for the laser beam (Murakami, paragraph [0065]: “The NC device 50 reads out the processing program from the processing program database 60”; [0120]: “the distance by which the laser beam is to be displaced … is set in various processing conditions stored in the processing condition database 70”), and emits the laser beam from the opening (36a) (Murakami, [0052]: “A nozzle 36 including a circular opening 36a … for emitting a laser beam from the opening 36a”), and controls the beam movement mechanism (32) (Murakami, [0054]: “The galvano scanner unit 32 functions as a beam displacement mechanism”; [0119]: “ the NC device 50 reads the auxiliary code, and controls the galvano scanner unit 32 such that the laser beam is displaced, within the opening 36a of the nozzle 36”; [0120]: “the NC device 50 displaces the laser beam by the distance that is set in the processing condition”) so as to move the center of the laser beam that is emitted from the center of the opening (36a) (Murakami, [0054]: “In a standard state, the laser beam is emitted from the center of the opening 36a”) by the movement distance that is read out (Murakami, paragraph [0120]).
Murakami and Sugiyama does not explicitly teach, information on a movement distance of an irradiation position for a laser beam corresponding to a depth of a marking-off line is set in advance, and when acquiring information that specifies a depth of a marking-off line to be marked, the control device reads out the information on the movement distance of the irradiation position for the laser beam corresponding to the depth of the specified marking-off line, and emits the laser beam with output energy corresponding to the depth.
However, Rumsby teaches an apparatus for forming grooves (title) using a direct write laser vaporization process (paragraph [0005]), wherein information on a movement distance of an irradiation position for a laser beam (paragraph [0010]: “a … control system for regulating … the writing process … to form grooves of desired lengths”) corresponding to a depth of a marking-off line (paragraph [0010]: “grooves having a desired depth”) is set in advance (Fig. 4; paragraph [0052]: “A controller unit 47 co-ordinates the motion of the scanner unit 44 in order to move the beam over the substrate surface … in the required trajectory and … regulate the laser power such that grooves of the required shape, length and depth are formed,” Rumsby discloses a controller unit that coordinates movement of the laser beam along a required trajectory and regulates laser power such that grooves having a required depth are formed, which the examiner interprets as teaching stored or preset processing instructions/parameters including movement of the irradiation position/focal spot and a desired groove depth for forming a laser-processing line/groove), and
when acquiring information that specifies a depth of a marking-off line to be marked (paragraph [0010]), the control device reads out (paragraph [0052], which the examiner interprets as further teaching the controller unit 47 “moves the beam over the substrate surface” by reading and applying the stored or preset processing instructions/parameters including a desired groove depth for forming a laser processing line/groove) the information on the movement distance of the irradiation position for the laser beam corresponding to the depth of the specified marking-off line (paragraph [0052]), and emits the laser beam (paragraph [0052]) with output energy corresponding to the depth (paragraph [0028]: “the depth of groove formed varies with laser power”).
Murakami, Sugiyama and Rumsby are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing systems with laser beam operation control based on processing parameters. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device of the laser processing machine taught by Murakami and Sugiyama to utilize predetermined beam-movement and laser-output parameters corresponding to a desired marking-off line depth as taught by Rumsby, in order to achieve the desired result of “the high speed formation of grooves of complex shape … and controlled depth and width.” Rumsby, paragraph [0018].
PNG
media_image7.png
236
434
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Rumsby
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Murakami (WO 2020246354), in view of Sugiyama et al. (JP H11788) hereinafter Sugiyama, and further in view of Sbetti (CN 107584205). For the purpose of examination, the examiner refers to US 20220226933, which is the U.S. published application corresponding to WO 2020246354.
Regarding claim 4, Murakami and Sugiyama teaches, in Fig. 1 of Murakami,
the laser processing machine (100) according to claim 1, wherein
the control device (50) controls a distance that the center of the laser beam moves from the center of the opening (36a) (Fig. 6; paragraph [0071]: “the distance Δs is calculated by EFL×sin θ”; paragraph [0120]: “the NC device 50 displaces the laser beam by the distance that is set in the processing condition”) when marking a bent or linear marking-off line (Sugiyama (translation), p. 4, ln. 22: “marking”; “the application of the marking by the laser beam LB”; Fig. 4 shows a cutting path TR including linear and bent portions) based on the processing program (Murakami: paragraph [0065]: “processing program”).
Murakami and Sugiyama does not explicitly teach, the control device increases a distance that the center of the laser beam moves from the center of the opening when marking a bent marking-off line, to be more than the distance when marking a linear marking-off line.
However, Sbetti teaches a laser processing machine (Sbetti (translation), p. 5, lns. 5-6), wherein
the control device (Fig. 8: ECU, “electronic control system” increases a distance that the center of the laser beam (Fig. 9: S1-4, “incidence point” of the laser beam) moves from the center of the opening (Sbetti (translation), p. 3, lns. 7-9: “a mechanical adjustment mechanism 38 coupled to the lens frame unit 36, the mechanical adjusting mechanism for transverse to the propagation direction of the light beam (X-Y axis) and location for correcting the lens on the beam propagation direction (Z axis),” which the examiner interprets as teaching the laser beam adjustment inside the working head 14 corresponding to movement of the center of the laser beam relative to the center of the opening) when marking a bent marking-off line (Fig. 9: T, “operating path”), to be more than the distance when marking a linear marking-off line (T) (Sbetti discloses, in Fig. 9a-9e, the position of the optical propagation axis of the laser beam is adjusted according to the current position and/or the current direction of translation of the axis of the secondary gas flow. Sbetti further discloses the offset between the center N of auxiliary gas transmission region and the incident point S1-4 representing the center of the laser beam is changing where the offset is greater when the operating path T is bent in Fig. 9c than when the path T is linear as shown in Figs. 9a, b and d. Therefore, the examiner interprets Sbetti as teaching increasing the distance that the center of the laser beam moves from the center of the opening when marking a bent marking-off line to be greater than the distance used when marking a linear marking-off line).
Murakami, Sugiyama and Sbetti are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing machines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the control device of Murakami and Sugiyama to increase the displacement distance of the laser beam from the center of the opening when marking a bent marking-off line relative to a linear marking-off line as taught by Sbetti, in order to control, in real time, the mutual position between the propagation axis of the laser radiation and the transmission axis of the auxiliary gas flow “in radial distance and angular orientation” so as to allow pursuit of “a predetermined working path requiring a sudden change in direction or speed,” thereby reducing the need for highly dynamic mechanical movement or the working head. Sbetti (translation), p. 9, lns. 23-29.
PNG
media_image8.png
406
476
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 8 of Sbetti
PNG
media_image9.png
287
987
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 9 of Sbetti
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Qiao et al. (US 20210053160), Seguchi et al. (JP 2003305584).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
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 F. Landrum can be reached at 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, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights