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
The claim to priority as a 371 filing of PCT/JP2022/019878, filed on May 11, 2022, which claims benefit to JP 2021-090382, filed on May 28, 2021 is acknowledged in the instant application.
Information Disclosure Statement
The Information Disclosure Statement filed on November 14, 2023 has been considered by the Examiner.
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 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.
Claim(s) 1 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US Pub. 2021/0057873) (cited by applicant) in view of Jean-Francois (JP2012-027241) (new cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sakamoto discloses a fiber laser device, production method for fiber laser device, and setting method having a laser processing system (FLS, Fig. 4) that processes a workpiece (W, Fig. 4) made of metal material, comprising: a plurality of fiber laser engines (FLU1-FLU3, Fig. 4); a feeding fiber cable (via fiber cable after output combiner OC, Fig. 4) that collectively extracts laser light generated by each of the plurality of fiber laser engines (FLU1-FLU3); a processing head (H, Fig. 4) that converges and emits laser light to the workpiece (W); and a process fiber (DF, Fig. 4) that transmits the laser light extracted by the feeding fiber cable to the processing head (H); the plurality of fiber laser engines (FLU1-FLU3) each having a filter (RF1-RF3, Fig. 4) that reduces a value of Raman scattered light in laser light (Fig. 4-5; Par. 78-106). Sakamoto does not disclose a core diameter of the feeding fiber cable and a core diameter of the process fiber cable being equal and 50 µm. Jean-Francois discloses a core diameter of the feeding fiber cable (8) being equal 50 µm and a core diameter of the process fiber cable is from 100 – 200 µm (Par. 45). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to utilize in Sakamoto, a core diameter of the feeding fiber cable being equal 50 µm, as taught by Jean-Francois, for the purpose of suitable to the user application for selecting a core diameter of the feeding fiber cable to certain brightness of the laser. With respect of a core diameter of the process fiber cable being equal 50 µm, Sakamoto and Jean-Francois discloses the a core diameter of the process fiber cable is from 100 – 200 µm (Jean-Francois, Par. 45) compare to a core diameter of the process fiber cable being equal and 50 µm, and having a specific size of the core diameter of the process fiber cable the is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the size of the core diameter of the process fiber cable is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, having the core diameter of the process fiber cable to control the certain brightness of the laser light in order to achieve a process of the material, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. With respect to the workpiece made of metal material. It is an intended use limitation.
Claim(s) 2-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US Pub. 2021/0057873) in view of Jean-Francois (JP2012-027241) and further view of Kawada (WO 2020/189716) (cited by applicant).
Regarding claim 2, Sakamoto/Jean-Francois disclose substantially all features of the claims invention as set forth above including from Sakamoto, the filter (RF1-RF3, Fig. 4) except the filter has a configuration that causes Raman scattered light to leak out of a core of a fiber cable. Kawada discloses the filter (filter device F) has a configuration that causes Raman scattered light to leak out of a core of a fiber cable (Par. 65). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to utilize in Sakamoto/Jean-Francois, the filter has a configuration that causes Raman scattered light to leak out of a core of a fiber cable, as taught by Kawada, for the purpose of predetermined wavelength band is the cutoff wavelength band of the filter device, and can be appropriately designed according to the wavelength of scattered light.
Regarding claim 3, Kawada discloses a controller that limits an oscillation output at each of the plurality of fiber laser engines, based on a length of the process fiber cable, to allow Raman scattered light to have a value of −30 dB or less at a processing point of the workpiece (W) (Par. 66, 92-99, 109 and 111).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sakamoto (US Pub. 2021/0057873) in view of Jean-Francois (JP2012-027241) and of Kawada (WO 2020/189716).
Regarding claim 5, Sakamoto discloses a fiber laser device, production method for fiber laser device, and setting method having a laser processing method for processing a workpiece (W, Fig. 4) made of a metal material using a laser processing apparatus (FLS, Fig. 4) comprising: a plurality of fiber laser engines (FLU1-FLU3, Fig. 4); a feeding fiber cable (via fiber cable after output combiner OC, Fig. 4) that collectively extracts laser light generated by each of the plurality of fiber laser engines (FLU1-FLU3); a processing head (H, Fig. 4) that converges and emits laser light to the workpiece (W); and a process fiber (DF, Fig. 4) that transmits the laser light extracted by the feeding fiber cable to the processing head (H); the plurality of fiber laser engines (FLU1-FLU3) each having a filter (RF1-RF3, Fig. 4) that reduces a value of Raman scattered light in laser light. Sakamoto does not disclose a core diameter of the feeding fiber cable and a core diameter of the process fiber cable being equal and 50 µm; the laser processing method comprising: causing the laser light to have a wavelength of a 1 μm band; selecting an inert gas as an assist gas; and selecting a spot diameter at a processing point of the workpiece to be 60 μm or more and 150 μm or less. Jean-Francois discloses a core diameter of the feeding fiber cable (8) being equal 50 µm and a core diameter of the process fiber cable is from 100 – 200 µm (Par. 45). Kawada discloses the laser processing method comprising: causing the laser light to have a wavelength of a 1 μm band (Par. 33 and 61); selecting an inert gas as an assist gas (Par. 41-42 and 50); selecting a spot diameter at a processing point of the workpiece (W) can be narrowed to approximately the core diameter of the output delivery fiber (ODF; Fig. 1; Par. 87). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to utilize in Sakamoto, a core diameter of the feeding fiber cable being equal 50 µm, as taught by Jean-Francois, for the purpose of suitable to the user application for selecting a core diameter of the feeding fiber cable to certain brightness of the laser. With respect of a core diameter of the process fiber cable being equal 50 µm, Sakamoto and Jean-Francois disclose the a core diameter of the process fiber cable is from 100 – 200 µm (Jean-Francois, Par. 45) compare to a core diameter of the process fiber cable being equal and 50 µm, and having a specific size of the core diameter of the process fiber cable the is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the size of the core diameter of the process fiber cable is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, having the core diameter of the process fiber cable being equal and 50 µm to control the certain brightness of the laser light in order to achieve a process of the material, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. With respect to the workpiece made of metal material. With respect to the step of selecting a spot diameter at a processing point of the workpiece to be 60 μm or more and 150 μm or less, Sakamoto and Kawada disclose the step of a spot diameter at a processing point of the workpiece (W) can be narrowed to approximately the core diameter of the output delivery fiber (ODF; Fig. 1; Par. 87) compare to a spot diameter at a processing point of the workpiece to be 60 μm or more and 150 μm or less, and having a specific a spot diameter at a processing point of the workpiece to be 60 μm or more and 150 μm or less is not inventive according to the courts. Varying the size of a spot diameter at a processing point of the workpiece to be 60 μm or more and 150 μm or less is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. In this case, having the spot diameter at a processing point of the workpiece to be 60 μm or more and 150 μm or less to control the working distance between the laser head and the workpiece surface in order to achieve a process of the material, is recognized in the art to be a result effective variable. With respect to the workpiece made of metal material. It is an intended use limitation.
Regarding claim 6, Sakamoto/Jean Francois/Kawada disclose substantially all features of the claimed invention as set forth above including from Kawada, the focal length and a focal point of the condensing lens (CL, Fig. 5) of the laser light at a surface of the workpiece (W) except a focal point of the laser light is set at a position between a surface of the workpiece and a center in thickness of the workpiece. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claim invention to utilize in Sakamoto/Jean Francois/Kawada, a focal point of the laser light is set at a position between a surface of the workpiece and a center in thickness of the workpiece, since it is merely design matter that could be set, as appropriate, by a person skill in the art while taking various condition into account.
Regarding claim 7, Kawada discloses Raman scattered light at a processing point of the workpiece (W) has a value of −30 dB or less (Par. 66, 92-99, 109 and 111).
Regarding claim 8, Kawada discloses an oscillation output at each of the plurality of fiber laser engines is limited, based on a length of the process fiber cable, to allow Raman scattered light to have a value of −30 dB or less at a processing point of the workpiece (W) (Par. 66, 92-99, 109 and 111).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4 and 9 are 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNG D NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-7828. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9AM - 9PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached 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.
/HUNG D NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
HUNG D. NGUYEN
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights