FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 06/19/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-21 remain pending in the application.
Terminal Disclaimer
The terminal disclaimer filed on 06/19/2026 disclaiming the terminal portion of any patent granted on this application which would extend beyond the expiration date of copending U.S. Patent application 18/368,000 has been reviewed and is accepted. The terminal disclaimer has been recorded.
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GERMANY on 09/29/2022. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2022 125 123.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 09/14/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. None of the foreign patent documents in the IDS filed on 09/14/2023 have been provided.
The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the foreign patent document information referred to therein has not been considered unless otherwise stated in the Office Action.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the features canceled from the claims:
In claim 1, “the outcoupled portion of the laser radiation propagates in a direction toward a laser source connected to the entrance opening” is not shown in any of the Figures. The outcoupled portion 6 is only depicted propagating in a direction towards a sensor 8, which is a direction perpendicular to and away from a direction toward a laser source/optical fiber 1 (see Fig. 1-4).
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claim 15 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6, line 4, “the beam axis of the laser radiation” should be revised to:
--a [[the]] beam axis of the laser radiation--;
Claim 10, line 2, “the beam axis of the laser radiation” should be revised to:
--a [[the]] beam axis of the laser radiation--;
Claim 15, line 3, “the beam source direction” should be revised to:
--a [[the]]beam source direction--;
Claim 15, line 4, “the outcoupled portion” should be revised to: --an [[the]] outcoupled portion--;
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:
“a first displacement member” and “a second displacement member” in claim 6;
“a third displacement device” in claim 7.
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.
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 1-14 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.
Claim 1 lines 15-16, recites “the outcoupled portion of the laser radiation propagates in a direction toward a laser source connected to the entrance opening”. This limitation is not described or shown in the instant disclosure, therefore constituting NEW MATTER. The Specification only discusses that the outcoupled portion 6 of the laser radiation is directed to a second lens 7 and then to a sensor 8 behind the second lens (Para. 0021-23). There is no discussion of the outcoupled portion 6 propagating “in a direction toward a laser source connected to the entrance opening”. The Specification states an optical fiber 1 is connected to a “laser beam source” that is not shown (Para. 0020), with no indication or suggestion that the sensor 8 is anywhere near or aligned with the laser beam source. The Drawings also do not depict the claimed limitation, as the depicted outcoupled portion 6 is shown propagating towards the sensor 8 and not in a direction toward “a laser source” that would be at the optical fiber 1. Applicant has not discussed where in the instant disclosure support for the limitation added in the amendment can be found. If applicant believes that there is support for the limitation in the disclosure, they are invited to cite where the support can be found.
Claims 2-14 are rejected by virtue of dependence on 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 1-21 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1, line 15-16, recites “the outcoupled portion of the laser radiation propagates in a direction toward a laser source connected to the entrance opening”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear how the outcoupled portion of the laser radiation is meant to both impinge on the sensor arranged on the beam path and also propagate in a direction back to a laser source at the entrance opening.
Claim 15, line 8, recites “an x-direction and a y-direction”. This renders the claim indefinite, as there is no frame of reference with which one skilled in the art can ascertain what is meant by “x and y direction”. Coordinate axes are imaginary frames of reference that could be provided in any direction or orientation. What the claim is attempting to encompass by “an x-direction and a y-direction” is therefore unclear. Note, this issue was present in the original claim 21, and has now been replicated here in the amendment.
Claims 2-14 , 16-21 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claim 1.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Claim 21 appears to recite the same subject matter that is already recited in claim 15, lines 7-10, regarding the “at least one property comprising one or more of a laser beam position… a laser beam diameter, an energy distribution in the laser beam, a center of the laser beam, and a wavefront of the laser beam”. Consequently the claim fails to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim, amend the claim to place the claim in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim complies with the statutory requirements.
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 1-5, 9, 10, 13-16, 18, 20 & 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi (US 2023/0057548 A1, previously cited) in view of Reitmeyer (US 2010/0276403 A1, previously cited).
Regarding independent claim 1, Sambi discloses a system (Fig. 3) for monitoring the state of optical elements of a laser material processing device 1, comprising:
an entrance opening 51 for the laser radiation (from an “optical transmission means 4”, Fig. 3, Para. 0034);
a first deflection mirror 10 (“adaptive optical device 10”) arranged in the beam path (Fig. 3) of the entered laser radiation for reflecting the laser radiation (Fig. 3, Para. 0068-0070);
a first lens 6 or lens group 5 (focusing group 5 with at least one focusing lens 6) arranged in the beam path (along the beam path L shown in Fig. 3; Para. 0029-0032, 0065-66);
a mirror 8 (optical element) arranged in the beam path L for coupling out a portion of the laser radiation (couples out a portion L1 and a portion L2 as shown, Para. 0065-67, “the optical element which receives the focused laser beam L, reflects the focused first portion L1 and transmits the focused second portion L2”; Para. 0031);
a second lens 19 (“collimating optical system 19”) disposed in a beam path of the outcoupled portion L1 of the laser radiation (Fig. 3, from the mirror 8 to the optical sensor 9); and
a sensor 9 (“wavefront sensor”) arranged in the beam path L (Fig. 3) of the outcoupled portion of the laser radiation, the outcoupled portion of the laser radiation impinging on the sensor 9 (Fig. 3, Para. 0038, “The wavefront sensor 9, which in the illustrated embodiment is positioned outside the casing means 15, is adapted to receive the focused first portion L1 of the laser beam L”), wherein
the outcoupled portion of the laser radiation propagates in a direction toward a laser source 4 (“optical transmission means”) connected to the entrance opening 51 (Fig. 3, the propagation direction P1 of the outcoupled portion L1 has at least a directional component that is generally towards the laser source, i.e. towards the upper right side of the Figure 3; see 112(b) rejection above),
the sensor 9 is configured to determine at least one property that comprises one or more of a laser beam position in an x-direction and a y- direction, a laser beam diameter, an energy distribution in the laser beam, a center of the laser beam, and a wavefront of the laser beam (Para. 0038-39, 0061, the sensor 9 is a “wavefront sensor”), and
contamination of one or more optical elements is detected based on the determined at least one property [functional language] (Para. 0039-44, the electronic processor 12 compares the wavefront received from the sensor 9 and compares it to a reference wavefront to determine “one or more optical aberrations”; Para. 0061, “Thanks to the wavefront sensor 9 connected to the electronic processor 12, it is in fact possible to measure a plurality of optical aberrations, including, for example, the shift of the focus due to the “thermal focus shift”, spherical aberration, coma and astigmatism, affecting the laser beam L exiting the cutting head, in particular when the machine tool is used for a long time and with extremely high laser powers, causing an increase in temperature of all the optical elements and causing a change in both the refractive index of the lenses and their shape, with consequent shift of the focal point F.”).
It has been held that “While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function.” In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); MPEP 2114. In this case, the system of Sambi is capable of performing the recited function of detecting contamination of one or more optical elements, as the system of Sambi uses the wavefront data from the sensor to determine “optical aberrations” which could be indicative of contamination of optical elements in the system. The claim does not recite any controller or electronic processor that is configured to utilize the “determined at least one property” to detect contamination of one or more optical elements. The claim is only describing how the data from the sensor is intended to be used.
Sambi fails to explicitly disclose the mirror is a dichromatic mirror. Sambi does teach the optical element 8 can be a mirror element that reflects one portion L1 of the laser radiation, and transmits/is transparent to another portion L2 of the laser radiation (Para. 0031, “The optical element 8 is for example a beam separator, in particular chosen among a cubic beam splitter (CBS), an optical prism and a semi-transparent mirror”; Para. 0065-66).
Reitmeyer teaches a laser material processing device having a dichromatic (“dichroic”) mirror 3 that couples out a part of the laser radiation from a laser source 7, into a machining beam portion 9, and a measuring beam portion 10 that is received in a sensor 13 (Fig. 1, Para. 0046). A dichromatic/dichroic mirror is known in the art of laser processing as a mirror that transmits some light wavelengths while reflecting other wavelengths.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Sambi such that the mirror is a dichromatic/dichroic mirror, as taught by Reitmeyer, in order to provide a well-known mirror/beam splitter that can transmit the useful wavelengths of the laser radiation for the material processing while reflecting a “measuring” wavelength of the laser for use in the formation of measurement signals at a sensor (Reitmeyer Para. 0004, 0046).
Regarding claim 2, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein the laser radiation entry port 51 is a laser light cable connected to a laser source (Para. 0028, “the optical transmission means 4 comprise a fiber optic cable for transporting a laser beam L generated by the emitting apparatus to the laser cutting head 1”).
Regarding claim 3, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein the first lens 6 or lens group 5 focuses the laser radiation (Para. 0029, “a focusing group 5 which includes at least one focusing lens 6 for focusing in the focal point F the laser beam L”).
Regarding claim 4, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second lens 19 or lens group focuses the coupled-out portion L1 of the laser radiation onto the sensor 9 (Fig. 3, Para. 0038, the lens 19 is a collimating lens that focuses/collimates the laser onto the sensor 9 as shown).
Regarding claim 5, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1 thus far, but fails to teach wherein the first and/or second lens or lens group is a tunable lens, or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens, wherein the optical properties of a tunable lens are changeable by external excitation.
Sambi teaches in separate embodiments (Fig. 1 & 2) that the first lens group 5 with focusing lens 6 is tunable via the moving means 7, 71 controlled by an “external excitation” from controller 12 (Para. 0030, “Supporting and moving means 7 support and move along an adjustment direction X at least one between the collimating group 2 and the focusing group 5, for example only the latter in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, in order to change the focal point F of the laser beam L”; Para. 0043-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, such that the first lens/lens group is a tunable lens, as taught in the embodiment of Sambi Fig. 1 & 2, in order to provide the ability of the device to change the focal point of the laser radiation, and permit adjustments to reduce optical aberrations of the laser beam (Sambi Para. 0030, 0043-44).
Regarding claims 9-10, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein an aperture 53 (an opening for a transparent optical window 11, Para. 0034) is disposed between the dichromatic mirror 8 and the second lens 19 (Fig. 3); wherein a hole 53 of the aperture is offset from the beam axis of the laser radiation (Fig. 3, the aperture is offset from the axis of the beam L as shown).
Regarding claim 13, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein a beam shaping element 16 is additionally arranged in the beam path (Para. 0069, “piezoelectric or electromagnetic or electromechanical actuators, not visible in the figure, connected to the adaptive optical element 16 and the electronic processor 12 to model the shape of at least one deformable surface 17 of the adaptive optical element 16”; the elements are integrated into the first deflection mirror 10).
Regarding claim 14, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first mirror is a tip-tilt mirror or deformable mirror (Para. 0069, “piezoelectric or electromagnetic or electromechanical actuators, not visible in the figure, connected to the adaptive optical element 16 and the electronic processor 12 to model the shape of at least one deformable surface 17 of the adaptive optical element 16… the electronic processor 12 is capable of adjusting the shape of the adaptive optical device 10 by controlling the piezoelectric or electromagnetic actuators that support the adaptive optical element 16”; the elements are integrated into the first deflection mirror 10).
Regarding independent claim 15, Sambi teaches a method for monitoring the condition of optical elements of a laser material processing device, comprising:
receiving with a sensor 9 (Fig. 3, Para. 0038, “The wavefront sensor 9, which in the illustrated embodiment is positioned outside the casing means 15, is adapted to receive the focused first portion L1 of the laser beam L”) in the beam source direction of a laser beam source (interpreted as the general path of the laser L from the opening 51 to the workpiece 100, Fig. 3) the outcoupled portion L1 of a high-power laser beam L or laser radiation (“optical transmission means 4”, Fig. 3, Para. 0034; Para. 0028, “the emitting apparatus is a solid-state fiber laser stimulated emission apparatus, for example with high power, and the optical transmission means 4 comprise a fiber optic cable for transporting a laser beam L generated by the emitting apparatus to the laser cutting head 1”), the outcoupled portion of the high power laser beam or laser radiation being outcoupled by a mirror 8 (Para. 0065-67, “the optical element which receives the focused laser beam L, reflects the focused first portion L1 and transmits the focused second portion L2”);
determining, using the sensor 9, at least one property comprising one or more of a laser beam position in an x-direction and a v-direction, a laser beam diameter, an energy distribution in the laser beam, a center of the laser beam, and a wavefront of the laser beam (Para. 0038-39, the sensor 9 is a “wavefront sensor”); and
monitoring a condition of one or more optical elements of the laser material processing device based on the determined at least one property (the optical elements are monitored for aberrations based on the wavefront data from the sensor, Para. 0038-44, “The electronic processor 12 is then configured to perform a comparison between the reconstructed wavefront obtained by the wavefront sensor 9 and a reference wavefront and, consequently, determine on the basis of such a comparison one or more optical aberrations which the focused first portion L1 of the laser beam L is subjected to”; Para. 0061, “Thanks to the wavefront sensor 9 connected to the electronic processor 12, it is in fact possible to measure a plurality of optical aberrations, including, for example, the shift of the focus due to the “thermal focus shift”, spherical aberration, coma and astigmatism, affecting the laser beam L exiting the cutting head, in particular when the machine tool is used for a long time and with extremely high laser powers, causing an increase in temperature of all the optical elements and causing a change in both the refractive index of the lenses and their shape, with consequent shift of the focal point F.”, aberrations in the optical components could be broadly construed as a “condition of one or more optical elements”; the claim does not specify what the “condition” is, and consequently the limitation could be very broadly construed).
Sambi fails to disclose the mirror is a dichromatic mirror. Sambi does teach the optical element 8 can be a mirror element that reflects one portion L1 of the laser radiation, and transmits/is transparent to another portion L2 of the laser radiation (Para. 0031, “The optical element 8 is for example a beam separator, in particular chosen among a cubic beam splitter (CBS), an optical prism and a semi-transparent mirror”; Para. 0065-66).
Reitmeyer teaches a laser material processing device having a dichromatic (“dichroic”) mirror 3 that couples out a part of the laser radiation from a laser source 7, into a machining beam portion 9, and a measuring beam portion 10 that is received in a sensor 13 (Fig. 1, Para. 0046). A dichromatic/dichroic mirror is known in the art of laser processing as a mirror that transmits some light wavelengths while reflecting other wavelengths.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Sambi such that the mirror is a dichromatic/dichroic mirror, as taught by Reitmeyer, in order to provide a well-known mirror/beam splitter that can transmit the useful wavelengths of the laser radiation for the material processing while reflecting a “measuring” wavelength of the laser for use in the formation of measurement signals at a sensor (Reitmeyer Para. 0004, 0046).
Regarding claim 16, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches wherein the high-power laser beam or laser radiation is formed by a first lens or lens group (Para. 0029, “a focusing group 5 which includes at least one focusing lens 6 for focusing in the focal point F the laser beam L”) upstream of the dichromatic mirror 8 with respect to a propagation direction of the laser radiation (Fig. 3).
Sambi in view of Reitmeyer fails to teach wherein the first lens is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens.
Sambi teaches in separate embodiments (Fig. 1 & 2) that the first lens group 5 with focusing lens 6 is tunable via the moving means 7, 71 (Para. 0030, “Supporting and moving means 7 support and move along an adjustment direction X at least one between the collimating group 2 and the focusing group 5, for example only the latter in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, in order to change the focal point F of the laser beam L”; Para. 0043-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, such that the first lens/lens group is a tunable lens, as taught in the embodiment of Sambi Fig. 1 & 2, in order to provide the ability of the device to change the focal point of the laser radiation, and permit adjustments to reduce optical aberrations of the laser beam (Sambi Para. 0030, 0043-44).
Regarding claim 18, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches wherein the high power laser beam L or laser radiation is deflected by a deflection mirror 10 in front of the first lens 6 or lens group 5 toward the first lens or lens group (Fig. 3, the “adaptive optical device 10” acts as a mirror as shown, reflecting the laser towards the first lens 6/group 5, Para. 0070).
Regarding claim 20, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches wherein the high power laser beam L or laser radiation passes through an aperture 53 (an opening for a transparent optical window 11, Para. 0034) offset from the beam axis (Fig. 3, the aperture is offset from an axis of the beam L from the mirror 10 to the workpiece 100 as shown) upstream of the second lens 19 or lens group with respect to a propagation direction of the outcoupled portion L1 of the laser radiation (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 21, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches comprising the step of determining at least one property selected from the group comprising the laser beam position in a laser beam position in orthogonal transverse direction relative to a propagation direction of the laser beam, the laser beam diameter, the energy distribution in the laser beam, the center of the laser beam, and the wavefront of the laser beam (Para. 0071, the sensor 9 is a “wavefront sensor 9 adapted to receive the focused first portion L1 of the laser beam L, perform a phase measurement of a wavefront of the focused first portion L1, obtain on the basis of this phase measurement a reconstructed wavefront and send the reconstructed wavefront to the electronic processor 12”).
Claims 6, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, further in view of Blázquez Sánchez (US 2022/0196468 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein the first lens 6 or lens group 5 is connected to a first displacement member 71 (“linear guide means”, Fig. 3, Para. 0030) for displacing the respective lens or lens group on the beam axis of the laser radiation (Para. 0030, providing slidable support to adjust/change the focal point of the laser).
Sambi in view of Reitmeyer fails to teach the second lens or lens group is connected to a second displacement member for displacing the respective lens or lens group on the beam axis.
Blázquez Sánchez teaches a laser processing device including an optical decoupling element 814 that decouples a laser beam into a first portion 102 and a second portion 51 (Fig. 1A, 1B, Para. 0069-72), the second portion/decoupled partial beam 51 being directed towards a sensor 811 through a second lens 812 that is connected to a second displacement member 813 to allow variable focal length (Para. 0072-76, 0078-80).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, the second lens/lens group connected to a second displacement member for displacing the respective lens on the beam axis, as taught by Blázquez Sánchez, in order to allow for the decoupled beam from the dichromatic mirror to have its focal length/position adjusted, to accommodate variations in focal position (Blázquez Sánchez Para. 0072-76, 0078-80). Permitting the second lens/lens group to be tunable in general would allow for adjustments to the beam prior to its reception by the sensor.
Regarding claim 17, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches wherein the high-power laser beam L or laser radiation is formed by a second lens 19 or lens group between dichromatic mirror 8 and sensor 9 (Fig. 3, Para. 0038, “collimating optical system 19”),
Sambi in view of Reitmeyer fails to teach wherein the second lens is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens.
Blázquez Sánchez teaches a laser processing device including an optical decoupling element 814 that decouples a laser beam into a first portion 102 and a second portion 51 (Fig. 1A, 1B, Para. 0069-72), the second portion/decoupled partial beam 51 being directed towards a sensor 811 through a second lens 812 that is connected to a second displacement member 813 to allow variable focal length (Para. 0072-76, 0078-80).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the method of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, the second lens/lens group connected to a second displacement member for displacing the respective lens on the beam axis, as taught by Blázquez Sánchez, in order to allow for the decoupled beam from the dichromatic mirror to have its focal length/position adjusted, to accommodate variations in focal position (Blázquez Sánchez Para. 0072-76, 0078-80). Permitting the second lens/lens group to be tunable in general would allow for adjustments to the beam prior to its reception by the sensor.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, further in view of Blázquez-Sánchez (US 2021/003445 A1, henceforth Blázquez-Sánchez 2021, previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the sensor is connected to a third displacement device for displacement thereof along the beam axis.
Blázquez-Sánchez 2021 teaches a laser processing system (Fig. 6) having a sensor 40 receiving an uncoupled portion 30 of a laser beam 14, the sensor connected to a displacement device for displacement along a beam axis (Fig. 6, Para. 0056, “As indicated in FIG. 6 by a double arrow 48, the spatially resolving sensor or detector 40 is arranged perpendicular to the beam propagation direction 44 and is displaceable therealong”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer such that the sensor is connected to a third displacement device for displacement along the beam axis, as taught by Blázquez-Sánchez 2021, in order to allow the sensor to be adjusted to measure the beam diameter of the uncoupled beam portion at a variety of positions to further evaluate the portion of the laser beam directed to the workpiece (Blázquez-Sánchez 2021 Para. 0057).
Claim 8 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, further in view of Funami (US 2022/0143745 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an optical filter is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the sensor.
Funami teaches a laser material processing device including a dichromatic mirror 23 (Para. 0039, “dichroic mirror 23”) and a sensor 31 (“photometer”), further including an optical filter 34 (“bandpass filter”) between the dichromatic mirror and sensor (Fig. 1, Para. 0042-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the device of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, an optical filter between the dichromatic mirror and the sensor, as taught by Funami, in order to provide a filter that only allows a desired predetermined wavelength band of the laser light to pass through to the sensor (Funami Para. 0042-44). Such optical filters are well-known in the art for removing unwanted wavelengths of light from a laser beam prior to being received by a sensor to reduce interference.
Regarding claim 19, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the high power laser beam or laser radiation passes through a filter upstream of the sensor.
Funami teaches a laser material processing device including a dichromatic mirror 23 (Para. 0039, “dichroic mirror 23”) and a sensor 31 (“photometer”), further including a filter 34 (“bandpass filter”) between the dichromatic mirror and sensor (Fig. 1, Para. 0042-44).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the method of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, having the laser beam/radiation pass through a filter upstream of the sensor, as taught by Funami, in order to provide a filter that only allows a desired predetermined wavelength band of the laser light to pass through to the sensor (Funami Para. 0042-44). Such optical filters are well-known in the art for removing unwanted wavelengths of light from a laser beam prior to being received by a sensor to reduce interference.
Claims 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, further in view of Blázquez-Sánchez (US 2020/0254561 A1, henceforth Blázquez-Sánchez 2020, previously cited).
Regarding claim 11, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches a third lens 3 or lens group 2 (“collimating lens 3” and “collimating group 2”, Para. 0029, Fig. 3).
Sambi in view of Reitmeyer fails to teach a protective glass disposed downstream of an optical fiber with respect to a propagation direction of the laser radiation, and a third lens or lens group is disposed downstream of the protective glass.
Blázquez-Sánchez 2020 teaches a laser processing system having a laser beam source that is an optical fiber 110 (Para. 0037), a protective glass 140 downstream of an optical fiber (Fig. 1, Para. 0037, “an optional optical device 140, which may be a protective glass in front of the collimator optics”), and a third lens 115 (collimator optics) downstream the protective glass (Fig. 1, Para. 0037).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, the protective glass between the tip of the optical fiber and the third lens/lens group, as taught by Blázquez-Sánchez 2020, in order to provide a protective glass in front of the third lens group and protect other optical elements in the system (Blázquez-Sánchez 2020 Para. 0037).
Regarding claim 12, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer & Blázquez-Sánchez 2020 teaches the system of claim 11, but fails to teach wherein the third lens is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens.
Reitmeyer teaches a third lens 2 (“collimating lens”) downstream of the laser beam source 7, the third lens being a tunable lens (via displacement device 16, Para. 0040, “collimating lens 2 is displaced with displacement device 16 along its optical axis to readjust the focus position regulation…. Such displacement devices are known from prior art”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer & Blázquez-Sánchez 2020, the third lens being tunable, as taught in Reitmeyer, in order to allow the focal position of the lens to be adjusted (Reitmeyer Para. 0040). Allowing lenses to be displaceable to permit adjustments in focal length are well-known in the art.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-21 have been considered but are moot in view of the new grounds of rejection that was necessitated by Applicant’s amendment.
However, to the extent possible, Applicant’s arguments have been addressed in the body of the rejections, at the appropriate locations.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Izumi (US 2019/0160599 A1) teaches a laser machining device having a sensor receiving an outcoupled portion of a laser beam, the device capable of detecting contamination of an optical element.
Nomura (US 2021/0146482 A1) teaches a laser processing apparatus with a wavefront sensor receiving an outcoupled portion of a laser beam.
Matsumoto (US 2023/0278144 A1) teaches a laser processing device with a laser intensity sensor receiving an outcoupled portion of a laser beam.
Contact Information
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 ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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, Devon Kramer can be reached at 571 272 7118. 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.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights