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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 7, line 3; claim 8, line 2; claim 10, line 3 are objected to because of the following informalities: “the shield” should be - -the metal shield- -. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 11, line 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “A laser machining device” should be - -The laser machining device - -. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadano et al (US 20190105734) in view of Buske (US 20190202008).
Regarding claim 1, Hadano discloses a nozzle unit (Figure 1; 6) for a laser machining device (Figure 1; 2) that uses laser light to machine a workpiece (Figure 3; 10) disposed in a light-blocking liquid (The liquid in Figure 2; 41, Paragraph 0021, 0037) having light- blocking properties (Water has light blocking properties), the nozzle unit comprising:
a nozzle (Figure 7; 86) through which the laser light passes.
Hadano does not disclose an inner nozzle through which the laser light passes;
a gas outlet port that blows a gas toward the workpiece in order to remove the light-blocking liquid from between the inner nozzle and the workpiece; and
a swirler that causes the gas to swirl.
However, Buske teaches nozzle unit (Figure 1) comprising:
an inner nozzle (Figure 2; 38) through which a laser light (Figure 1; 8) passes;
a gas outlet port (Figure 2; 24) that blows a gas (Figure 2; 36) toward a workpiece (Figure 2; 6) in order to remove a light-blocking liquid from between the inner nozzle and the workpiece (Functional Language, 24 can blow a gas toward the workpiece in order to remove a light-blocking liquid from between the inner nozzle and a workpiece); and
a swirler (Figure 2; 32) that causes the gas to swirl (Paragraph 0055).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano to include an inner nozzle through which the laser light passes; a gas outlet port that blows a gas toward the workpiece in order to remove the light-blocking liquid from between the inner nozzle and the workpiece; and a swirler that causes the gas to swirl as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, the modification uses at least Figure 2; 18, 40, 32 of Buske in Hadano).
Regarding claim 2, Hadano in view of Buske teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano does not disclose an outer nozzle disposed on an outer circumference of the inner nozzle, and
a gas passage provided between the inner nozzle and the outer nozzle, the gas passage communicating with the gas outlet port.
However, Buske teaches an outer nozzle (Figure 2; 18, 40) disposed on an outer circumference (The outer circumference of the inner nozzle) of the inner nozzle, and
a gas passage (The gas passage between the inner and outer nozzle) provided between the inner nozzle and the outer nozzle, the gas passage communicating with the gas outlet port.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano to include an outer nozzle disposed on an outer circumference of the inner nozzle, and a gas passage provided between the inner nozzle and the outer nozzle, the gas passage communicating with the gas outlet port as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 3, Hadano in view of Buske teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano does not disclose wherein the swirler is disposed in the gas passage.
However, Buske teaches wherein the swirler is disposed in the gas passage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano wherein the swirler is disposed in the gas passage as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, This is the same modification as claim 1)
Regarding claim 11, Hadano in view of Buske teaches the laser machining device including the nozzle unit according to claim 1.
Hadano further discloses a liquid storage tank (Figure 1; 41) configured to store the light-blocking liquid (Functional Language, the tank stores the light-blocking liquid);
a placement stand (Figure 2; 32) disposed inside the liquid storage tank and on which the workpiece is placed (Functional Language, Paragraph 0028);
a laser generator (Figure 5; 82) configured to generate the laser light (Functional Language, Paragraph 0033);
a laser head (Figure 5; 84, 86) connected to the laser generator and disposed above the placement stand; and
a drive device (Figure 5; 72) configured to move the laser head (Functional Language, Paragraph 0031), the nozzle unit being attached to the laser head.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadano in view of Buske as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Twarog (US 20060102606).
Regarding claim 4, Hadano in view of Buske teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano does not disclose wherein the swirler has an annular shape and is disposed on the outer circumference of the inner nozzle, and
the swirler includes a plurality of holes that are slanted in a radial direction of the swirler as seen in a cross-section perpendicular to an axial direction of the swirler.
However, Buske teaches wherein the swirler has an annular shape (The swirler has an annular shape) and is disposed on the outer circumference of the inner nozzle, and
the swirler includes a plurality of holes (Figure 2; 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano wherein the swirler has an annular shape and is disposed on the outer circumference of the inner nozzle, and the swirler includes a plurality of holes as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Hadano in view of Buske does not teach wherein the plurality of holes that are slanted in a radial direction of the swirler as seen in a cross-section perpendicular to an axial direction of the swirler.
However, Twarog teaches a plurality of holes (Figure 1; 26a) that are slanted in a radial direction of a swirler (The radial direction of Figure 1; 26, Paragraph 0069) as seen in a cross-section perpendicular to an axial direction (A cross-section perpendicular to the axial direction of Figure 1; 24) of the swirler.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano in view of Buske wherein the plurality of holes that are slanted in a radial direction of the swirler as seen in a cross-section perpendicular to an axial direction of the swirler as taught by and suggested by Twarog because it has been held that applying a known technique, in this case Twarog’s use of a radial swirleraccording to the steps described immediately above, to a known device, in this case, Hadano in view of Buske’s nozzle unit, ready for improvement to yield predictable results, in this case to be able to swirler a fluid, was an obvious extension of prior art teachings, KSR, 550 U.S. 398 (2007), 82 USPQ2d at 1396; MPEP 2143(D) (The modification uses the radial swirler of Twarog instead of the axial swirler of Buske).
Claim(s) 5-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadano in view of Buske as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Bjelajac et al (US 20220234138).
Regarding claim 5, Hadano in view of Buske teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano in view of Buske does not disclose wherein the outer nozzle includes an outer cap made of an insulator and disposed on the outer circumference of a tip end of the inner nozzle.
However, Bjelajac teaches an outer nozzle (At least Figure 3A; 130, 115, 110) includes an outer cap (Figure 3A; 130, 115) made of an insulator (Paragraph 0029) and disposed on an outer circumference of a tip end of an inner nozzle (The outer circumference of the tip (the portion of Figure 3A; 120 that widens and below) of Figure 3A; 120).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano in view of Buske wherein the outer nozzle includes an outer cap made of an insulator and disposed on the outer circumference of a tip end of the inner nozzle as taught by and suggested by Bjelajac in order to protect the components (Paragraph 0049, the modification adds an outer cap).
Regarding claim 6, Hadano in view of Buske and Bjelajac teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano does not disclose wherein the outer nozzle further includes a metal shield disposed between the outer cap and the inner nozzle.
However, Buske teaches wherein the outer nozzle further includes a metal shield (Figure 2; 18, Paragraph 0053) disposed adjacent the inner nozzle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano wherein the outer nozzle further includes a metal shield disposed between the outer cap and the inner nozzle as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Hadano in view of Buske does not disclose wherein the metal shield disposed between the outer cap and the inner nozzle.
However, Bjelajac teaches wherein the outer nozzle further includes a metal shield (Figure 3A; 110) disposed between the outer cap and the inner nozzle.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano in view of Buske wherein the metal shield disposed between the outer cap and the inner nozzle as taught by and suggested by Bjelajac in order to protect the components (Paragraph 0049, This is the same modification as claim 5).
Regarding claim 7, Hadano in view of Buske and Bjelajac teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano does not disclose wherein the outer nozzle further includes an insulation guide disposed between the inner nozzle and the metal shield.
However, Buske teaches wherein the outer nozzle further includes an insulation guide (Figure 2; 40, Paragraph 0057) disposed between the inner nozzle and the metal shield.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano wherein the outer nozzle further includes an insulation guide disposed between the inner nozzle and the metal shield as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 8, Hadano in view of Buske and Bjelajac teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano does not disclose wherein the metal shield is covered by the outer cap and the insulation guide.
However, Buske teaches wherein the metal shield is covered on an inside (The inside of the metal shield) by the insulation guide.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano wherein the metal shield is covered on an inside by the insulation guide as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Hadano in view of Buske does not disclose wherein the metal shield is covered by the outer cap.
However, Bjelajac teaches wherein the metal shield is covered on an outside (The outside of the metal shield) by the outer cap.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano in view of Buske wherein the metal shield is covered by the outer cap as taught by and suggested by Bjelajac in order to protect the components (Paragraph 0049, This is the same modification as claim 5).
Regarding claim 9, Hadano in view of Buske and Bjelajac teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano does not disclose wherein the gas passage is provided between the insulation guide and the inner nozzle, and the swirler is disposed between the insulation guide and the inner nozzle.
However, Buske teaches wherein the outer nozzle further includes an insulation guide (Figure 2; 40, Paragraph 0057) disposed between the inner nozzle and the metal shield.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano wherein the gas passage is provided between the insulation guide and the inner nozzle, and the swirler is disposed between the insulation guide and the inner nozzle as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Regarding claim 10, Hadano in view of Buske and Bjelajac teaches the invention as claimed.
Hadano does not disclose wherein the gas passage is provided between the insulation guide and the inner nozzle, and the swirler is disposed between the insulation guide and the inner nozzle.
However, Buske teaches wherein the metal shield includes a unit coupling section (The portion of Figure 2; 18 that has holes for fasteners in Figure 2) that is disposed so as to be exposed outside of the nozzle unit, and
the nozzle unit is attached to a laser machining device (At least Figure 1; 10) with the unit coupling section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano wherein the metal shield includes a unit coupling section (The portion of Figure 2; 18 that has holes for fasteners in Figure 2) that is disposed so as to be exposed outside of the nozzle unit, and the nozzle unit is attached to a laser machining device (At least Figure 1; 10) with the unit coupling section as taught by and suggested by Buske in order to prevent oxidation (Paragraph 0054, 0064, This is the same modification as claim 1).
Hadano in view of Buske does not disclose wherein the metal shield includes a unit coupling section that is disposed so as to be exposed outside of the outer cap.
However, Bjelajac teaches wherein the metal shield includes a unit coupling section (The portion of Figure 3A; 110 that couples to 68) that is disposed so as to be exposed outside of the outer cap, and
the nozzle unit is attached to a laser machining device (Figure 3A; 62, 68) with the unit coupling section.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano in view of Buske wherein the metal shield includes a unit coupling section that is disposed so as to be exposed outside of the outer cap as taught by and suggested by Bjelajac in order to protect the components (Paragraph 0049, This is the same modification as claim 5).
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadano in view of Buske as applied to claim 11 above, and further in view of Tanaka et al (US 20200080831).
Regarding claim 12, Hadano in view of Buske teaches the laser machining device according to claim 11.
Hadano in view of Buske does not disclose a sensor configured to detect a capacitance between the inner nozzle and the workpiece; and
a controller configured to
calculate a height of the inner nozzle with respect to the workpiece with the capacitance, and
control the drive device to move the laser head in a height direction.
However, Tanaka teaches a sensor (Figure 5; 10) configured to detect a capacitance between a laser nozzle (Figure 5; 11) and a workpiece (Figure 5; 5. Functional Language, Paragraph 0004, 0006); and
a controller (Figure 5; 34) configured to
calculate a height (The height between the nozzle and workpiece) of the laser nozzle with respect to the workpiece with the capacitance (Functional Language, Paragraph 0004), and
control the drive device to move the laser head in a height direction (The height direction of Figure 5; 11 with respect to 5. Functional Language, Paragraph 0083).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Hadano in view of Buske to include a sensor configured to detect a capacitance between the inner nozzle and the workpiece; and a controller configured to calculate a height of the inner nozzle with respect to the workpiece with the capacitance, and control the drive device to move the laser head in a height direction as taught by and suggested by Tanaka in order to maintain processing quality (Paragraph 0003, the modification uses the sensor of Tanaka in Hadano).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Brandt et al (US 20040200810) states in Paragraph 0004 that the impinging gas on the workpiece assists in working the workpiece
Cook et al (US 20080116179) states in Paragraph 0005 that the impinging gas on the workpiece assists in working the workpiece
Sturgess (US 3703259) states that axial and radial swirlers are interchangeable
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, 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.
/EDWIN KANG/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights