Notice of 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.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed on June 17, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2 and 4-14 remain pending. The amended drawings overcome each and every objection previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed April 20, 2026, and thus withdrawn
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see Applicant Remarks pg. 2, filed June 17, 2026, with respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 8 has been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed June 17, 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant provides a summary of the invention (pgs. 8-9) and then argues that Sepp, Masuda and Kanoka do not suggest cooling the workpiece in a region of the material web using a cutting gas.
This is not persuasive. Sepp discloses a laser cutting process where a workpiece part is cut with 2 different parameters (a processing and finishing beam) in sections where a residual grid (10) is cut out after a change in laser parameters. [Paras. 88-90, 112] Sepp further teaches the material web remaining can be a micro joint, where, “the cutting free of a partially cut out workpiece part from the workpiece can be carried out by the processing beam.” [Paras. 18-19] Sepp then discloses that the laser beam is stopped between cutting operations, where a non-cutting finishing operation is performed through the end portion of the workpiece, and then subsequently cut free by the cutting operation. [Paras. 91, 109-112, 126]. From this disclosure, one having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to use the teaching of Masuda to provide exact cutting parameters to create a micro joint in the end portion of the cutting path from Sepp. [Paras. 18, 20, 48] Finally, from these combined teachings, Kanoaka provides a method for reducing cutting faults from changing cutting parameters by providing cooling with an inert gas for a predetermined period of time. [Col. 6 L 50-59] Kanoaka teaches cooling a region where laser parameters have been changed, which would be the region of the micro joint in this method. [Col. 7 L 51-60] Together, they can be understood to disclose a laser cutting method according to Sepp wherein the finishing operation employs the laser parameters of Masuda to create a micro joint, and then performs the cooling operation disclosed in Kanaoka before performing the final cutting operation. Accordingly, the combined teachings of Sepp, Masuda and Kanoaka disclose cooling the workpiece in a region of the material web, and thus this argument is not persuasive.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-2, 4-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sepp et al. (US 2022/0152744), and further in view of Masuda (JP 2005014009), and Kanoaka et al. (US 5,585,018)
With respect to claim 1, Sepp discloses:
A laser cutting method for cutting [Figs. 1-15] out a workpiece part [Fig. 1 (11)] from a metallic and plate-shaped workpiece [Figs. 1(10), para. 16], (Examiner Note: The preamble is a statement of intended use, and thus not considered limiting with regards to claim scope. [MPEP 2114-II]) the method comprising:
cutting, using a laser beam [Fig. 2 (16), paras. 82-3] and a cutting gas [para. 84] with predefined cutting parameters [para. 112] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses all process parameters are pre-programmed in a control device and therefore, the parameters are predetermined.), the workpiece [(9)] along a predefined cutting path [Fig. 14 (A-E), paras. 13, 94] (Examiner Note: The path parameters are pre-programmed into a control device and thus necessarily predetermined.)
changing the cutting parameters [paras. 110, 116] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses that the laser beam density can change throughout the entire cutting path, and thus discloses changing of cutting parameters.) in an end portion (Fig. 13 (E)) of the cutting path [Fig. 14 (14-5), paras. 109-10, 116] (Examiner Note: End portion of the cutting path will be understood to mean an area near the end of the cutting path but not fully closing the contour. In Sepp, the laser changes cutting parameters at a point E shortly before the end of the cutting path A (i.e. closing the contour), and thus, reads onto this limitation.)
cooling the workpiece [(9), para. 84] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses a working gas jet is impinged during the entire operation of the laser, which provides cooling, and therefore reads onto this limitation.) in a region of the material web [para. 13, Fig. 14] (Examiner Note: As Sepp discloses the workpiece is impinged during the entire operation of the laser, it will necessarily cool the region of the material web when processing that section of the cut path.) using the cutting gas and/or a cooling fluid [para. 84] (Examiner Note: The claimed limitation is defined in the alternative, so only one of the conditions need to be met. Sepp discloses the use of an inert gas, and therefore reads onto this limitation.); and
after the cooling, cutting the workpiece part [Fig. 15 (11)] out of the remaining workpiece [(10), paras. 78, 116] by separating the material web using the laser beam [Fig. 2 (6)] and the cutting gas [Fig. 15 (15-5), paras. 36, 110] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses that the final step of the processing is closing the cutting gap (15) so “the workpiece part 11 is cut free from the remaining grid 10”, and thus reads onto this limitation.)
Sepp does not disclose that the changing the cutting parameters so that a material web remains between the workpiece part and a remaining workpiece of the workpiece, wherein the material web fixes the workpiece part in the remaining workpiece,” (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses that the processing beam power can be varied throughout the cutting path, but does not explicitly disclose using the changed process parameters to create a micro joint. [Sepp: Para. 13]) and wherein the cooling comprises, after the material web has been generated, switching off the laser beam for a predetermined period of time and impinging the region of the material web with the cutting gas and/or the cooling fluid while the laser beam is switched off, and after cooling, cutting the workpiece part. (Examiner Note: While Sepp discloses cooling by switching off the laser, it does not specifically disclose cooling the workpiece by impinging with a cooling gas.)
However, Masuda explicitly teaches changing the cutting parameters so that a material web remains between the workpiece part and a remaining workpiece of the workpiece. [Masuda: Fig. 5a (J), paras. 18, 20, 48] (Examiner Note: Masuda teaches a laser cutting method where the cutting conditions are changed, “so as not to penetrate to the lower surface 32 of the workpiece W [to make] a connecting piece J between the workpiece W and the product S,” wherein the microjoint has a preset height (H, where H is less than workpiece thickness) and length (M). [Masuda Fig. 5a (J), paras. 18, 48] Specifically, Masuda discloses that the cutting speed is increased while the laser output is reduced to allow the creation of the microjoint of a predetermined cross section at a predetermined position. [Masuda para. 20] In other words, the process parameters are changed so that a material web remains between the workpiece part and the sheet skeleton (i.e. remaining workpiece), and therefore reads onto the immediate limitation.)
Masuda in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to laser processing of workpiece parts, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sepp with the changed cutting parameters disclosed in Masuda in order to increase the quality of the microjoint and processing efficiency. More specifically, it would be obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to use the method of Sepp such that the changing of cutting parameters at an end portion incorporates the parameters taught by Masuda, to create and then separate a material web. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Sepp could be combined with Masuda with a reasonable expectation of success as they are both directed to methods for sheet plate laser processing, in particular, for microjoint processing. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Masuda with Sepp because Masuda discloses that the changed process parameters reduce the amount of irradiation to the microjoint, and thus improves the quality of the microjoint and increases the overall processing efficiency of the laser cutter by reducing the number of passes required to form the microjoint. [Masuda para. 19]
Sepp in view of Masuda does not disclose wherein the cooling comprises, after the material web has been generated, switching off the laser beam for a predetermined period of time and impinging the region of the material web with the cutting gas and/or the cooling fluid while the laser beam is switched off, and after cooling, cutting the workpiece part.
However, Kanoaka teaches wherein the cooling comprises, after the material web has been generated, switching off the laser beam for a predetermined period of time and impinging the region of the material web with the cutting gas and/or the cooling fluid while the laser beam is switched off, and after cooling, cutting the workpiece part. [Kanaoka: Fig. 19 (S10), Col. 6 L 50-59, Col. 7 L 51-60] (Examiner Note: Kanaoka discloses, “[t]he liquid or gas is injected from the nozzle 10 at the cutting stop position to cool the cut portion, and cutting is then resumed.” Furthermore, Kanaoka teaches that increasing cutting stop time is, “effective for the reduction of cutting faults,” [Kanaoka, Col. 6 L 50-51], but inversely affects the processing efficiency. Noting the Response to Arguments above, Kanoka teaches impinging of the region of the material web as that material web is at the cutting stop position where cooling occurs.)
Kanoaka in the same field of invention as the application because they both relate to laser processing of workpiece parts, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to combine modified Sepp with the cooling step disclosed in Kanaoka in order to improve the quality of laser cuts. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that Sepp in view of Masuda could be combined with Kanoaka because they are both related to laser cutting processes for metal sheets. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to combine Sepp in view of Masuda with Kanoaka in order to improve cooling of the impinged region and reduce the fault ratio, improving the overall cut quality. [Col. 6 L 33-5, 50-3]. Accordingly, claim 1 is rejected as obvious over Sepp modified by Masuda, further in view of Kanaoka. (hereinafter modified Sepp)
With respect to claim 2, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the cutting gas is inert [Sepp: Para. 84]. (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses “[t]he inert working gas can be, for example, helium, argon, or nitrogen,” and thus reads onto this limitation)
Regarding claim 4, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the predetermined time is less than 5 seconds. [Kanaoka: Col. 10 L 15-20] (Examiner Note: If the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range, the prior art anticipates the claim. (MPEP 2131.03-I) Kanaoka discloses a predetermined stop time of 10 seconds or less, and therefore meets the immediate limitation.)
Regarding claim 5, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein a cutting gas pressure during the cooling is higher than or equal to a cutting gas pressure during the cutting of the workpiece. [Sepp: Para. 84] (Examiner Note: The claimed limitation is defined in the alternative, so only one of the conditions need to be met. Sepp discloses that the entire workpiece is impinged at a predetermined gas pressure, and thus, during cooler the cooling gas pressure is equal to cutting gas pressure, reading onto this limitation).
With respect to claim 6, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the material web has a predetermined minimum cross section [Masuda: Fig. 5a (J), para. 48] (Examiner Note: Masuda discloses that the processing parameters for creating the microjoint as such that it has a preset height H and present length M, and thus provides a predetermined minimum cross section for the microjoint, reading onto this limitation.) such that the workpiece part is fixed in an original position in the remaining workpiece during the cooling [Sepp: Para. 19] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses the creation of a microjoint which necessarily secures a workpiece to its original position, and thus, reads onto this limitation).
With respect to claim 7, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the changing of the cutting parameters comprises: switching off the laser beam [Sepp: Fig. 2 (6)] before an end of the cutting path [Sepp: Fig. 14 (E)] is reached when cutting the workpiece [Sepp: Fig. 14 (9), paras. 91, 109] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses that the laser is turned off at a point E shortly before the end of the cutting path, and then changes cutting parameters and thus, reads onto this limitation.)
With respect to claim 8, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses changing the cutting parameters so that the workpiece [Masuda: Fig. 4a (W)] is fused down to a depth that is less than the workpiece thickness; [Masuda: Fig. 4a (J) para. 48] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Masuda discloses increasing the cutting speed and decreasing laser power at the predetermined microjoint position such that a microjoint with a depth less than workpiece thickness is created, and thus, reads onto this limitation.) and
cutting the workpiece [Sepp: Fig. 14 (9)] to an end of the cutting path [Sepp: Fig. 14 (14-5), para. 116] while using the changed cutting parameters [Sepp: Para. 116] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses cutting parameters are changed and laser processing is performed through the end of the cut path along the path 14-5 before separating the workpiece from the web, and therefore, cuts to an end path with changed cutting parameters.) such that the material web has a height that is less than the workpiece thickness. [Masuda: Para. 48]
With respect to claim 9, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses switching on the laser beam; [Sepp: Fig. 15, paras. 110, 116] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses the laser beam is turned off shortly before the end of the cutting path, and then separates the workpiece via laser, and thus, necessarily is switched on when cutting the workpiece part out.) and
cutting the workpiece part [Sepp: Fig. 15 (11)] out of the remaining workpiece [Sepp (10)] by separating the material web using the laser beam and the cutting gas [Sepp: Fig. 15 (15-5), paras. 110, 116] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses the laser cuts up to the starting position A, and cuts free the workpiece from the remaining grid.), while the cutting parameters are adjusted so that less energy is coupled into the workpiece than while cutting the workpiece along the predefined cutting path. [Sepp: para. 13; Masuda: para 20] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses that the final separation step can be at a lower power density than the other cutting operations, and thus, with the changed cutting parameters taught by Masuda (discussion in claim 1) discloses a final separation where less energy is coupled to the workpiece.)
With respect to claim 10, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9, and modified Sepp further discloses wherein the cutting parameters while cutting the workpiece part [Sepp: Fig. 15 (11)] are adjusted so that a laser output is reduced. [Masuda: Para. 43] (Examiner Note: Masuda teaches that the cutting parameters are changed to a lower output to reduce energy coupled to the workpiece, and thus reads onto this limitation.)
With respect to claim 11, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9, and further discloses wherein the cutting parameters while cutting the workpiece part [Sepp: Fig. 15 (11)] are adjusted so that a cutting rate is increased. [Masuda: para. 57] (Examiner Note: Masuda teaches that the cutting parameters are changed to a higher cutting rate to reduce energy coupled to the workpiece, and thus reads onto this limitation.)
With respect to claim 12, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 9, and further discloses wherein the cutting parameters while cutting the workpiece part [Sepp: Fig. 15 (11)] are adjusted so that a focal position and/or of a focal diameter of the laser beam are varied. [Sepp: Para. 57] (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses the power density can be changed by “changing the beam focus, changing the distance of the beam head from the workpiece surface,” to reduce energy coupled to the workpiece and thus reads onto this limitation.)
With respect to claim 13, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the workpiece [Sepp: Fig. 15 (9)] has a thickness of at least 4 mm. (Examiner Note: Sepp discloses thickness range of .5mm to 30 mm which is within the claimed range, and therefore teaches the immediate claim. [MPEP 2131.03-I])
With respect to claim 14, modified Sepp discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses a laser cutting machine [Sepp: Fig. 1 (1), paras. 81-86] for cutting metallic and plate-shaped workpieces [Sepp: Fig. 1 (9)], wherein the laser cutting machine [Sepp: Fig. 1 (1)] is configured to carry out the laser cutting method as claimed in claim 1 [Sepp: Paras. 92-110, 116]. (Examiner Note: Modified Sepp discloses a laser apparatus capable of performing the method of claim 1, and therefore teaches this claim.)
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights