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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the table of Fig. 5 labels the durations of the high and low periods as “Ton(ms)” and “Toff(ms)”, whereas the specification (see, e.g., ¶¶ [0011] and [0036]) and claims 5-6 identify these durations as “Thi” and “Tlow”. The terminology in the drawings should be consistent with that used in the specification. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it contains 49 words, which is fewer than the 50 to 150 words called for. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “an outer surface of a metal member” in lines 4-5 should read “an outer surface of the metal member, since “a metal member” is already introduced in the preamble. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The 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 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shimizu et al. (JP 2015100959 A) hereinafter Shimizu, in view of Oliver et al. (WO 2011116968 A2) hereinafter Oliver.
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu teaches, in Figs. 1-2, a manufacturing method (“method”) of a metal member (1, “metal molded object”) (Shimizu (translation), p. 2, lns. 55-56: “a method for producing a metal molded article for a metal resin bonded molded article obtained by joining a metal molded article and a thermoplastic resin material”), the manufacturing method comprising:
Radiating a laser beam (5, “laser beam optical axis”; Shimizu (translation), p. 2, lns. 40-41: “A concave portion is formed by laser irradiation on the surface of the metal molded body to be bonded to the resin material”) to two or more radiation regions (Shimizu (translation), p. 6, ln. 40: “independent dots”) spaced apart from each other on an outer surface (2, “metal molded object surface”) of a metal member (1) (Shimizu (translation), p. 6, lns. 39-40: “the laser irradiation trace, is formed as a large number of independent dots as viewed from the normal direction of the surface of the metal molded body”) to thereby form a dimple (6, “recessed part”; Shimizu (translation), p. 6, lns. 27-28: “As shown in FIG. 1, a laser-irradiated metal molded product is formed with a recess composed of a side surface 3 and a bottom surface 4”; the recessed part 6 formed by laser irradiation at each of the dots, as shown in Figs. 1-2, is construed as the claimed “dimple”) in each radiation region of the two or more radiation regions (“independent dots”) (Shimizu (translation), p. 7, lns. 53-54: “the opening diameter of the recess formed in a dot shape by the irradiation was 30 μm and the depth was 40 μm”).
PNG
media_image1.png
336
298
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 & 2 of Shimizu
Regarding claim 1, Shimizu does not explicitly teach simultaneously radiating two or more laser beams from a single laser apparatus.
However, Oliver teaches, Figs. 4a-4b, a method for laser-beam based processing (abstract), comprising: simultaneously radiating two or more laser beams (5, “split beams”) from a single laser apparatus (Figs. 4a-4b; p. 1, lns. 3-5: “a system for laser-beam based processing, comprising a laser source providing a raw laser beam, a diffractive optical element, a laser scanner and a focussing lens”; laser source 4, DOE 1, laser scanner 2, focusing lens 10) to two or more radiation regions (8, “laser spots”) spaced apart from each other (7, “distance”; p. 20, lns. 24-25: “The distance (7) between the laser spots (8) is a result of the separation angle and the focal length (9) of the focusing lens (10)”) on an outer surface of a metal member (“work piece”) (p. 9, lns. 4-7: “splitting the raw laser beam into a plurality of split beams by using the diffractive optical element and focussing the plurality of split beams using the focussing lens onto a work piece such that an array of laser spots is generated on the surface of the work piece”; p. 20, ln. 33: “in each spot a timely parallel process is performed”; p. 13, lns. 20-21: “the extensive micro structuring of metallic compressor blades for fluidic purposes”).
Shimizu and Oliver are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser processing of the surface of a workpiece to form recesses in that surface. Therefore, 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 method of Shimizu to simultaneously radiate two or more laser beams from a single laser apparatus to the spaced radiation regions, as taught by Oliver, in order to achieve “a considerable reduction of process times and an efficient use of expensive laser sources and their available output power” (Oliver, p. 12, lns. 32-33), thereby forming Shimizu’s independent dot-shaped recesses at two or more spaced locations on the surface of the metal molded object 1 at the same time.
PNG
media_image2.png
552
519
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4a of Oliver
PNG
media_image3.png
350
609
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4b of Oliver
Regarding claim 2, Shimizu in view of Oliver teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, and Oliver further teaches, in Figs. 4a-4b, wherein the two or more laser beams (5, “split beams”) are formed by splitting a laser beam (3, “raw laser beam”) generated by a laser oscillator (4, “laser source”) (p. 1, lns. 12-15: “The laser source, which preferably is a pulsed laser, generates a raw laser beam which by some optical elements is led onto the surface of the work piece”; p. 20, lns. 22-24: “The incident laser beam is separated into an amount of split beams (5) under a separation angle (6) which is given by the diffractive grating of the DOE”).
Regarding claim 3, Shimizu in view of Oliver teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, wherein radiation of the two or more laser beams (Oliver: 5) forms the dimple (Shimizu: 6) in each radiation region (Shimizu: “independent dots”).
Shimizu does not explicitly teach wherein: during radiation of the two or more laser beams to form the dimple in each radiation region, a high period and a low period alternately arrive more than once; in the high period, an intensity of each laser beam of the two or more laser beams is a high-level intensity, and in the low period, the intensity of each laser beam is reduced to a low-level intensity that is lower than the high-level intensity; and the low period is longer than the high period.
However, Oliver teaches, in Figs. 4a-4b, a method for laser-beam based processing (abstract), wherein during radiation of the two or more laser beams (5) to form the dimple in each radiation region, a high period (“pulse duration”) and a low period (time between successive pulses; see the examiner’s interpretation as follows) alternately arrive more than once (p. 8, lns. 20-21: “Preferably the laser source provides laser pulses... the laser source provides picosecond laser pulses”; p. 2, lns. 19-21: “By using a DOE the incident laser beam is separated into several laser beams, each with the characteristics of the original beam except the power”; p. 10, lns. 25-27: “Generally, the maximum ablation rate within the optical penetration zone for ... metals using picosecond pulses is about 0.1 pm/pulse or below”; p. 11, lns. 8-9: “higher ablation rates up to 1 pm/pulse and above”; the examiner interprets Oliver as teaching that a pulsed laser source alternates between emitting a pulse and not emitting a pulse, and each split beam is pulsed in the same manner as the raw beam; because each pulse removes only on the order of 0.1 to 1 um of material (the examiner notes that “pm” in the quoted text is a typographical error for “µm”, as confirmed by the µm/pulse units of the ablation rate shown in Fig. 1), forming a recess having Shimizu’s depth of 40 um (Shimizu (translation), p. 7, lns. 53-54) requires a plurality of pulses at each radiation region, such that the high period and the low period alternately arrive more than once during formation of each dimple);
in the high period (“pulse duration”), an intensity of each laser beam of the two or more laser beams (5) is a high-level intensity (p. 8, lns. 21-22: “The length of such a pulse is preferably no longer than 50 picoseconds,” which the examiner interprets as teaching during each pulse, each split beam delivers its share of the pulse energy within the pulse duration, which constitutes the high-level intensity), and in the low period, the intensity of each laser beam is reduced to a low-level intensity that is lower than the high-level intensity (p. 9, lns. 17-19: “Line-shaped recesses can be obtained by moving the mirrors of the laser scanner between two laser pulses only a little bit,” which the examiner interprets as teaching that Oliver’s laser emits discrete pulses separated in time, and no pulse is delivered between two laser pulses, such that the intensity of each laser beam in that time is lower than during the pulse); and
the low period is longer than the high period (p. 8, lns. 21-22: “The length of such a pulse is preferably no longer than 50 picoseconds”; p. 19, ln. 30: “Current picosecond lasers deliver repetition rates up to 1 MHz”; the examiner interprets Oliver as teaching that the pulse period is the inverse of the repetition rate, so at a repetition rate of no more than 1 MHz time between successive pulses is approximately 1 us or more, which is longer than a pulse duration of no more than 50 ps; see also “τp= 11.8 ps,” where “τp is the pulse duration of the laser pulses” (p. 13, lns. 21-23), and “[t]he scribing speed of about 200 mm/s was limited by the 50 kHz maximum repetition rate” (p. 19, lns. 12-13), where time between pulses is approximately 20 us).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to radiate the two or more laser beams of Shimizu in view of Oliver as picosecond laser pulses, as taught by Oliver, in order “to minimize thermal damage and burr” (Oliver, p. 1, ln. 25), thereby forming each of Shimizu’s dot-shaped recesses (6) through alternating high and low periods of each laser beam.
Regarding claim 4, Shimizu in view of Oliver teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 3, and Oliver further teaches wherein the low-level intensity is zero (p. 8, lns. 20-21: “Preferably the laser source provides laser pulses... the laser source provides picosecond laser pulses”; p. 9, lns. 17-19: “Line-shaped recesses can be obtained by moving the mirrors of the laser scanner between two laser pulses only a little bit”; the examiner interprets Oliver as teaching that the laser source emits discrete laser pulses separated in time, such that no laser light is emitted between two laser pulses and the intensity of each laser beam in the low period is zero).
Regarding claim 5, Shimizu in view of Oliver teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 3, but Shimizu does not explicitly teach, wherein: an evaluation indicator represented by I is equal to or less than 40.06667; and I is calculated by I = P (W) × Thi (ms) / Tlow (ms) where P represents the high-level intensity, Thi represents a duration of the high period, and Tlow represents a duration of the low period.
However, Oliver teaches wherein:
an evaluation indicator represented by I is equal to or less than 40.06667; and
I is calculated by
I = P (W) × Thi (ms) / Tlow (ms)
where P represents the high-level intensity, Thi represents a duration of the high period, and Tlow represents a duration of the low period (p. 19, ln. 22-: “Initially, the 3 spot element, given in Figure 3, was used. The pulse energy for single spot ablation below the transition fluence, in this case
E
P-
1
spot
=
12.5
μj , has been tripled to a value of about
E
P-
3
s
P
0
t
s
=
37 .5 μJ. Three parallel lines instead of one single line were scribed”; p. 13, lns. 21-23: “τp= 11.8 ps,” where “τp is the pulse duration of the laser pulses”; p. 19, lns. 12-13: “The scribing speed of about 200 mm/s was limited by the 50 kHz maximum repetition rate”; the examiner interprets Oliver as teaching that each split beam delivers a pulse energy of 12.5 uJ over a pulse duration Thi of 11.8 ps, such that P is approximately 12.5 uJ/11.8 ps = 1.06 x 106 W; at a repetition rate of no more than 50 kHz, the pulse period is at least 20 us, such that Tlow is at least approximately 0.02 ms; accordingly, I = P (W) x Thi (ms) / Tlow (ms) ≒ (1.06 x 106) x (1.18 x 10-8) / 0.02 = 0.63, which is equal to or less than 40.06667; further, in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 6, Shimizu in view of Oliver teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 5, and Oliver further teaches wherein I is equal to or less than 21.46429 (as set forth with respect to the claim 5 rejection above, the examiner interprets Oliver as teaching I = 0.63, which is equal to or less than 21.46429; See MPEP 2144.05(I)).
Regarding claim 7, Shimizu in view of Oliver teaches the manufacturing method according to claim 1, and Shimizu further teaches wherein:
each radiation region (“independent dots”) of the two or more radiation regions has an approximately circular shape (Shimizu (translation), p. 7, lns. 53-54: “the opening diameter of the recess formed in a dot shape by the irradiation was 30 μm and the depth was 40 μm”; the examiner interprets a dot-shaped recess characterized by an opening diameter as approximately circular).
Shimizu does not explicitly teach wherein a distance between adjacent radiation regions of the two or more radiation regions is greater than a diameter of each radiation region of the adjacent radiation regions.
However, Oliver teaches wherein each radiation region (8, “laser spots”) of the two or more radiation regions has an approximately circular shape, and a distance (7, “distance) between adjacent radiation regions of the two or more radiation regions is greater than a diameter of each radiation region of the adjacent radiation regions (p. 15, lns. 29-30: “With a measured spot diameter of dB=23.4 µ[m]”; p. 16, lns. 9-11: “The measured distance between two spots/lines a=692 µm. The distance between the lines is given by the separation angle of the DOE and the focal length of the scanner lens”; the examiner interprets Oliver’s laser spots, characterized by a spot diameter, as approximately circular, and interprets the distance a = 692 um between adjacent spots as greater than the spot diameter 23.4 um; even if the distance a is measured center to center, the distance between the edge of adjacent spots is approximately 692 – 23.4 ≒ 669 um, which is greater than 23.4 um).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to set the distance between adjacent radiation regions of Shimizu in view of Oliver to be greater than the diameter of each radiation region, as taught by Oliver, in order to provide a gap that “indicates that adjoining lines do not influence each other” (Oliver, p. 16, lns. 12-13), thereby forming Shimizu’s independent dot-shaped recesses (6) without interference between adjacent recesses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yamazaki (WO 2020230197 A1), Yamazaki (EP 3936311 A1), Lee et al. (KR 20150032087 A), Karl-Heinz et al. (DE 102012017703 A1), Ryoji et al. (JP 2010120232 A), Atsushi et al. (JP 2008000800 A), Schneiderloechner et al. (DE 10352423 B3), Hayashi (JP 2004122233 A).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights