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
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. JP2021-163016, filed on 02/20/2024.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 01/24/2024, 02/03/2025, and 02/10/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
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 combiner unit in claim 1
a focus shifter unit in claim 1
Three Prong Test:
Prong I: a combiner unit (Generic place holder)
Prong II: configured to superimpose a plurality of laser beams (Function)
Prong III: No structure
Prong I: a focus shifter (Generic place holder)
Prong II: configured to adjust a focal length of the laser beams (Function)
Prong III: No structure
Regarding the combiner unit, the specification recites “ As shown in FIG. 1, the combiner unit 3 includes, for example, lenses (collimation lenses or the like) 31 and 32 for collimating the laser beams L1 and L2 supplied from the light sources 1 and 2, respectively, and mirrors (including a beam splitter, a half mirror, a combiner, or the like) 33 and 34 necessary for aligning optical axes of the laser beams L1 and L2 passing through the lenses 31 and 32. Of course, the combiner unit 3 may include optical elements, optical fibers, and the like other than those described above. The wavelengths of the laser beams L1 and L2 supplied from the light sources 1 and 2 are not particularly limited. Instead of the blue laser beam L1, a green laser beam may be adopted, or a near-infrared laser beam having a wavelength (for example, about 808 nm) different from that of the laser beam L2 may be adopted. In addition, three or more types of laser beams having different wavelengths may be superimposed in the combiner unit 3.” In ¶0022. The examiner interprets the claim language as any optical elements that can superimpose two or more laser beams.
Regarding the focus shift, the specification recites “The focus shifter unit includes a lens that moves forward and backward along the optical axis of the laser beams to adjust a focal length of the laser beams. If the combiner unit is disposed downstream of the lens of the focus shifter unit, the plurality of laser beams are superimposed by the combiner unit after the focal length is adjusted by the lens. Accordingly, a problem of the chromatic aberration occurring in the lens can be reliably avoided.” In ¶0011. The examiner interprets this claim language as any lens that are movable and adjust any parameter of the laser beam.
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 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.
Claim 3 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 3, the limitation of “wherein the combiner unit is disposed downstream of the lens of the focus shifter unit.” seems unclear. Claim 3 is dependent on claim 1, the structure of the focus shifter in claim 1 is located downstream from the combiner unit evident of “a focus shifter unit configured to adjust a focal length of the laser beams superimposed by the combiner unit”, this is the opposite in claim 3. If it is the intention of claiming different species of this invention, as seen in Figure 1 vs Figures 4-5, than the its need to be made clear by amending claim 1 to not have the location of the shifting unit relative to the combiner and such language in the separate claims that depend from a generic claim 1. therefore, in its current state the claim 3 is unclear due to the contradictory structures of the focus shifter.
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.
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014024105 A – Nagashima in view of US 20120200829 A1 – Bronstein.
Regarding claim 1, Nagashima is directed towards an laser processing system. Nagashima does teach a combiner unit configured to superimpose a plurality of laser beams having different wavelengths on the same optical axis (Figure 1 and [0028] a dichroic mirror (superposition optical system) 20 for coaxially superimposing the first laser beam LB1 emitted from the first focusing optical system 16 and the second laser beam LB2 emitted from the second focusing optical system 18); a Galvano scanner unit located downstream of the focus shifter unit and configured to change a direction of the optical axis of the laser beams traveling toward a processing object (Figure 1 and [0038] The galvanometer scanner 22 includes a galvanometer mirror 44 for scanning a first laser beam LB1 and a second laser beam LB2 superimposed on a dichroic mirror 20 along the X-axis direction (length direction of the workpiece W),); a focus shifter unit configured to adjust a focal length of the laser beams ([0055] According to this embodiment, a first focusing optical system 16, which focuses the first laser beam LB1 and is configured to change the focal length, is provided in the optical path between the first laser oscillator 12 and the dichroic mirror 20, and a second focusing optical system 18, which focuses the second laser beam LB2 and is configured to change the focal length, is provided in the optical path between the second laser oscillator 14 and the dichroic mirror 20. Therefore, there is no need to provide a special f-θ lens.)
and a controller configured to control the adjustment in the focal length performed by the focus shifter unit and the change in the direction of the optical axis performed by the Galvano scanner unit (Figure 1 shows controller unit 26 is in direct communication with at least element 16, 18, and 22, [0040] As shown in Figure 2, the control unit 26 includes a storage unit 56, a laser control unit 58, a scanning control unit 60, a displacement amount calculation unit 62, and a focal length adjustment unit (focal length adjustment means) 64.).
Nagashima does not expressly teach a controller configured to synchronously control and a focus shifter unit configured to adjust a focal length of the laser beams superimposed by the combiner unit;
Nagashima discloses all the limitations of the claims, except for the focus shift it does not teach the orientation of the focus shifter being located downstream from the combiner. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to a focus shifter unit configured to adjust a focal length of the laser beams superimposed by the combiner unit, since it has been held that rearranging parts of a prior art structure involves only routing skill in the art. In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950).
Bronstein is directed towards a imagining a projecting device. Bronstein does teach a controller configured to synchronously control the laser beams adjustment units ([0017] The plenoptic imaging device may further include a controller for synchronously reorienting each of said reorientable mirrors to scan each of the lines of sight across at least a sector of a scene.).
The combination of the synchronously controller of Bronstein and the laser processing system of Nagashima give the processing system the ability to change the diameter of the beams as well as the angle of the beams at the same time.
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagashima to include a controller configured to synchronously control the laser beams adjustment units because the controller of Bronstein allows the laser processing unit allows for adjustment of the focal length and angle of the beams synchronously.
Regarding claim 2, Nagashima and Bronstein does teach the limitations of claim 1. Nagashima does teach wherein a lens configured to allow a laser beam to pass there through does not exist between the Galvano scanner unit and the processing object (Figure 1 shows there is no additional lens after the galvanometer scanner (scanning optical system) 22.).
Regarding claim 3, Nagashima and Bronstein does teach the limitations of claim 1. Nagashima does teach wherein the focus shifter unit includes a lens that moves forward and backward along the optical axis of the laser beams to adjust a focal length of the laser beams ([0059] Furthermore, by displacing the first lens holder 34 along the optical axis of the first diameter expanding lens 28, the distance between the first diameter-expanding lens 28 and the first condensing lens 30 can be changed, thus allowing for easy adjustment of the focal length of the first condensing optical system 16.), and wherein the combiner unit is disposed downstream of the lens of the focus shifter unit (Figure 1 shows that the combiner 20 is downstream from the focus shifters 16 and 18 is ).
Regarding claim 4, Nagashima and Bronstein does teach the limitations of claim 1. Nagashima does teach wherein the focus shifter unit includes a lens for expanding a diameter of the laser beams superimposed by the combiner unit ([0059] the distance between the first diameter-expanding lens 28 and the first condensing lens 30 can be changed, thus allowing for easy adjustment of the focal length of the first condensing optical system 16.) and a lens for reducing a diameter of the laser beams passing through the lens ([0032] and convex lenses are used as the first light-gathering lenses 30 and 32, respectively.), and a relative distance between the two lenses along the optical axis of the laser beams are expanded or reduced in synchronization with the change in the direction of the optical axis performed by the Galvano scanner unit ([0028] a galvanometer scanner (scanning optical system) 22 for simultaneously operating the first laser beam LB1 and the second laser beam LB2 superimposed by the dichroic mirror 20 on a workpiece W placed on a support base 100, and a control unit 26.).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014024105 A – Nagashima and US 20120200829 A1 - Bronstein as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20160016261 A1 - Mudd.
Regarding claim 5, Nagashima and Bronstein does teach the limitations of claim 1. Nagashima does teach an infrared laser beam ([0001] a first laser beam having a wavelength in the infrared region) and the combined laser beam, is emitted to the processing object through the combiner unit (20), the focus shifter unit (16 and 18), and the Galvano scanner unit (22).
Nagashima does not expressly teach the laser processing device is configured to perform welding by emitting a laser beam to the processing object, and wherein a laser beam, that is obtained by superimposing a blue laser beam.
Since a first laser beam and a second laser beam having different wavelengths. is a key factor in the success of the laser device. As discussed by Nagashima, first laser beam having a wavelength in the infrared region and a second laser beam having a wavelength in the ultraviolet region are widely known.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to try, by one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention, to perform a blue laser beam and to incorporate it into the system of Nagashima since there are a finite number of identified, predictable potential solutions to the recognized need and one of ordinary skill in the art would have pursued the known potential solutions with a reasonable expectation of success.
Mudd is directed towards a laser welding device. Mudd does teach the laser processing device is configured to perform welding by emitting a laser beam to the processing object ([0021] FIG. 7 is an enlarged view of the weld pool of FIG. 5 superimposed with a plot correlating the laser power density applied to the various positions on the workpiece.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Nagashima and Bronstein to include the laser processing device is configured to perform welding by emitting a laser beam to the processing object because the ability to weld of Mudd allows the laser system of Nagashima and Bronstein to combine to workpieces together to form one solid workpiece.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200204770 A1 – Kitakami teaches superimposing lasers of different wavelengths.
US 20210234337 A1 – Kassai teaches super imposing different laser wavelengths with a focusing unit.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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 W 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights