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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 3 and 7-9 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on January 22nd, 2026.
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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (WO 2022085632) in view of Takechi (US 20210053149).
Regarding claim 1;
Matsumoto discloses a laser processing device that emits laser light to a predetermined processing point on a surface of a workpiece, the processing point including a first processing point (21a) and a second processing point (22a) separated from the first processing point, the laser processing device comprising: a laser oscillator (device 110 includes laser oscillator) that oscillates the laser light; a first branching unit (125) that branches the laser light into first laser light (B1) emitted to the first processing point and second laser light (B2) emitted to the second processing point; a lens (122) that condenses the laser light and the measurement light; a first mirror (126) that changes incident positions of the laser light and the measurement light on the lens, and a measurement processing section (sensor 150 configured as OCT sensor with controller 200) that derives a depth of a keyhole (recess) generated at the processing point based on the optical interference signal.
Matsumoto fails to teach an optical interferometer that emits measurement light having a wavelength different from a wavelength of the laser light, and generates an optical interference signal based on the measurement light reflected by the processing point, a second mirror that changes an incident position of the measurement light on the first mirror, and a controller that controls an operation of the second mirror such that the measurement light is emitted to the processing point.
Takechi teaches a laser processing device with OCT-based keyhole depth measurement with an optical interferometer that emits measurement light having a wavelength different from a wavelength of the laser light and generates an optical interference signal based on the measurement light reflected by the processing point (optical interferometer 3 with measurement light 15 and different wavelength by dichroic mirror 12), a second mirror that changes an incident position of the measurement light on the first mirror (17; paragraph 142), and a controller that controls an operation of the second mirror such that the measurement light is emitted to the processing point (controller 6; paragraph 143).
Matsumoto and Takechi are directed to laser welding devices with optical measurement systems; Matsumoto welds motor stator coil end portions while Takechi teaches OCT keyhole depth measurement during laser welding and both utilize galvano scanners and focusing optics. Matsumoto utilizes the scanner to steer the laser light and measurement light together, and Takechi provides a dedictated beam-steering mechanism that independently directs measurement light onto the first mirror and through the shared optics to any desired processing point, thus decoupling the measurement light positioning from the laser positioning, enabling OCT depth measurement at any processing point regardless of where the beams are directed. Thus, 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 device of Matsumoto such that an optical interferometer that emits measurement light having a wavelength different from a wavelength of the laser light, and generates an optical interference signal based on the measurement light reflected by the processing point, a second mirror that changes an incident position of the measurement light on the first mirror, and a controller that controls an operation of the second mirror such that the measurement light is emitted to the processing point as taught by Takechi for the purposes of enabling the OCT measurement system to independently direct measurement light to any of the multiple processing points created by the DOE beam splitter, thereby permitting selective keyhole depth monitoring at each weld location without moving the processing laser beams.
Regarding claim 2, Matsumoto in view of Takechi teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1 above. Matsumoto as modified by Takechi further teaches the controller controls the operation of the second mirror such that a first measurement operation (directing measurement light to end portion 21a) of emitting the measurement light to the first processing point and a second measurement operation (directing measurement light to end portion 22a) of emitting the measurement light to the second processing point are performed (Matsumoto provides two separated processing points and Takechi provides independent measurement light steering via controller through a second driver (Paragraph 143), the combination of one of the processing points would render the second processing points as obvious from the original combination).
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (WO 2022085632) in view of Takechi (US 20210053149), and further in view of Stebel (US 10578428).
Matsumoto in view of Takechi teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1 above. Matsumoto as modified further teaches two separated processing points (Matsumoto, 21a, 22a) and independent light steering with a controller operating stage (Takechi, controller 6 and stage 17).
Matsumoto as modified fails to teach the controller controls the operation of the second mirror such that the measurement light is continuously emitted between the first processing point and the second processing point, and the measurement processing section further drives a height of the surface of the workpiece based on the optical interference signal.
Strebel teaches optically measuring weld penetration depth utilizing OCT during laser processing, including continuously scanning the measurement light spot over the workpiece surface (deflection unit 48 for measuring light beam 28; Col. 8, Lines 33-53). The deflection unit (48) continuously guides the OCT measurement light spot along the paths of the surface, scanning over and beyond the vapor capillary thereby providing continuous spatial coverage (Col. 5, Lines 27-37; Col. 9, Lines 18-32). Strebel further teaches deriving the surface height from the optical interference signal (abstract).
Matsumoto, Takechi, and Strebel are all directed to laser welding with OCT depth measurement. Matsumoto in view of Takechi teaches the combination of the second mirror/stage which directs measurement light to one processing point at a time, alternating between points; switching between the points, there is discontinuity in the measurement data with measurement between the two processing points. Strebel teaches continuously scanning the OCT measurement light spot across the surface and yields a surface profile from which the capillary relative to the laser beam incidence point can be determined. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Matsumoto as modified by Takechi such that the controller controls the operation of the second mirror such that the measurement light is continuously emitted between the first processing point and the second processing point, and the measurement processing section further drives a height of the surface of the workpiece based on the optical interference signal as taught by Strebel for the purposes of obtaining continuous OCT measurement data along the path between the locations and capturing the surface profile, allowing for accurate positioning of the measuring light beam on the position of the keyholes and reliable measurement of the welding depth in the laser processing.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto (WO 2022085632) in view of Takechi (US 20210053149), and further in view of Schönleber (US 20160202045).
Matsumoto in view of Takechi teaches the laser processing device according to claim 1 above. Matsumoto as modified by Takechi teaches a first branching unit (Matsumoto, 125) that splits the processing laser into multiple beams directed at separated processing points through condenser lens (Matsumoto, Paragraphs 61-62).
Matsumoto as modified by Takechi fails to teach second branching unit that branches the measurement light into first measurement light emitted to the first processing point and second measurement light emitted to the second processing point.
Schönleber teaches an OCT-based measurement system for laser processing including splitting the OCT measurement light into two separate beams directed through shared focusing optics, including second branching unit for measurement light (wedge plate 60, first measuring beam 70a and second measuring beam 70b; Paragraphs 54-57).
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 device of Matsumoto such that second branching unit that branches the measurement light into first measurement light emitted to the first processing point and second measurement light emitted to the second processing point as taught by Schönleber for the purposes of enabling simultaneous depth measurement at both processing points without mirror switching or sequential scanning.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JUSTIN D SEABE whose telephone number is (571)272-4961. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9:00-5:30.
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, Nathaniel Wiehe 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.
/JUSTIN D SEABE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights