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 .
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.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-7, 10, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Price et al (US # 9,261,406). The Price reference discloses a pyrometer device (104, 210) for temperature determination in laser plastic welding (Figs. 3 & 5), comprising:
a first fiber connector (unlabeled) for a first optical fiber (218);
a second fiber connector (116) for a second optical fiber (108, 214); and
a radiation temperature sensor (102, 206);
wherein the pyrometer device is adapted to forward process laser radiation received via the first fiber connector (218) to the second fiber connector (214) and output via the second fiber connector (Col. 4, ll. 55-67);
wherein the pyrometer device (104, 210) is adapted to forward thermal radiation received via the second fiber connector to the radiation temperature sensor (Col. 5, ll. 61-64; Col. 5, ll. 26-66).
With respect to claim 2, see column 4, lines 55-67.
With respect to claim 3, see column 5, lines 26-66.
With respect to claims 4 & 5, Price discloses the partially transmissive mirror (230) for separating the laser beam from the pyrometer signal (Col. 5, ll. 50).
With respect to claim 6, the mirror 230 has a “highly reflective surface” 232 affects the coupling between the fibers 234, 214.
With respect to claim 7, the Price reference discloses that the optic fiber 214 is not just for delivery of the optical signal, but also has “homogenization function” on the light beam as well (Col. 6, ll. 5-25). This is an “adjustment device” as it affects the light beam.
With respect to claim 10, the Price reference discloses the first (234) and the second (214) optical fibers.
With respect to claim 15, Price discloses the system (Col. 3, ll. 26-53).
With respect to claim 16, the laser disclosed is either a “fiber laser”, or a “diode laser” (Col. 4, ll. 65-67).
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 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.
Claim 8 and 11-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al (US # 9,261,406). The exact wavelength of the laser, and the wavelength of the reflected light signal, would have been obvious parameters for the ordinary practioner to optimize through routine trial and error. See MPEP § 2144.05, subsection (II).
With respect to claims 11-13, the relative diameters of the optical fibers would have been obvious parameters for the ordinary practioner to optimize through routine trial and error.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as anticipated by or, in the alternative, under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Price et al (US # 9,261,406). The Prince reference discloses generic “optics” 228 for directing a signal to the pyrometer, but does not expressly disclose a “spectral filter” for filtering out the laser radiation. However, it is clear that the mirror 230 is designed to reflect the laser but not the reflected signal, so this seems to meet the limitation of a “spectral filter”; but in the alternative, if not inherently present already, it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to include a spectral filter to prevent the laser light from entering the pyrometer and giving false temperature readings.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Price et al (US # 9,261,406) in view of H.R. Potts (US # 3,420,719). The Price reference does not disclose a power meter for monitoring the output of the laser diode, but this was a well-known feedback mechanism for maintaining a laser output at a stable level as shown by the example of the Potts reference (Col. 2, ll. 35-53), and it would have been obvious to the ordinary practioner to modify the control of the diode laser (206) of Price to include a power meter to monitor the output of the diode laser (206) to provide feedback control of the laser output to insure a stable power output over time.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RANDY W GIBSON whose telephone number is (571)272-2103. The examiner can normally be reached Tue-Friday 10AM-6PM.
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, Peter Macchiarolo can be reached at 571-272-2375. 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.
RANDY W. GIBSON
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 2856
/RANDY W GIBSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2855