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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 2-13 and 15-20 of Groups 1-7 and 9-11 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected vacuum laser processing device, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on August 4th, 2026. Regarding Applicant’s remarks concerning claims 8 and 9, which read on the elected species (Species 1), Applicant is reminded that:
Selection of a species does not mean that all corresponding claims will be examined (this is controlled by the restriction group of claims elected), but it does limit what limitations can be incorporated into the elected claims during prosecution.
Although claims 8 and 9 read on the elected Species 1, this does not mean that claims 8 and 9 will be examined. Because claims 8 and 9 belong to non-elected groups (Groups 4 and 5, respectively), they are currently withdrawn from further consideration.
Claim Interpretation
No claim interpretation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) has been made for this application.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
PNG
media_image1.png
457
696
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 1. Fig. 2 disclosed by Takemoto, annotated to show claimed elements.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Takemoto (US 2022/0055151 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Takemoto discloses a vacuum laser processing device (laser welding device 1 [Figs. 1 and 2, title, 0036]; see Annotated Figure 1) comprising:
a laser beam irradiation unit (laser beam irradiation unit 2 [Figs. 1 and 2, 0036]) having an optical system (optical system 2b [0037]) configured to emit a laser beam (laser beam L [Fig. 2, 0037]) and an irradiation chamber (part of first tubular portion 50 that is to the right of 6b in Figs 2 and 6, [Fig. 2, 0042]) through which the emitted laser beam passes (laser beam L passes through the internal space 50a of the tubular portion 50 [Fig. 2, 0042]);
a construction chamber (chamber 3 [Fig. 2, 0039]) to which the irradiation chamber of the laser beam irradiation unit is connected (“space 50a of the first tubular portion 50 communicates with the internal space 3d of the chamber 3 via the space 60a of the second tubular portion 60” [0042]), and in which an object (workpiece W [0037]) to be processed to be constructed by the laser beam is positioned (“the chamber 3 is configured to accommodate the workpiece W therein” [0039]);
a vacuum device unit (vacuum pump 9 [Fig. 2, 0046]) configured to produce a vacuum in an interior of the construction chamber (“the internal space 3d is set to a low vacuum atmosphere […] using the vacuum gauge 8 and the vacuum pump 9” [0040]); and
a gas supply unit (inert gas supply unit 6 [Fig. 2, 0044]) having a gas nozzle (gas injection nozzle 6b [0044]) configured to inject cross jet gas toward the laser beam (gas is injected into an optical path hole 161 toward the laser beam [Figs. 4 and 5, 0065-0066]) at an outlet (50a at 6b, see Fig 2) of the laser beam of the irradiation chamber.
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.
PNG
media_image2.png
536
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Figure 3. Fig. 1 disclosed by Heinrichsdorff, annotated to show components of a vacuum device unit.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Takemoto (US 2022/0055151 A1) in view of Heinrichsdorff (US 2014/0201964 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Takemoto discloses that the vacuum device unit includes a vacuum pump (vacuum pump 9 [Fig. 2, 0046]). However, Takemoto does not disclose the details of the vacuum pump connection to the construction chamber beyond its exhaust port (exhaust port 12 [Fig. 2, 0039]). Thus, Takemoto does not expressly disclose that the vacuum device unit includes a vacuum exhaust pipe connected to the construction chamber, a vacuum pump provided in the vacuum exhaust pipe, and a collection section positioned upstream of the vacuum pump in the vacuum exhaust pipe.
Heinrichsdorff teaches a vacuum device unit for a laser processing repair device [Fig. 1, 0021-0024]. The vacuum device unit maintains a vacuum in the processing chamber of the repair device during the repair process [0023].
Specifically, Heinrichsdorff teaches that the vacuum device unit includes a vacuum exhaust pipe (connection between vacuum chamber 11, filter 23, and vacuum pump 22 [Fig. 1, 0023]; see Annotated Figure 3) connected to the construction chamber (pipe shown in Fig. 1 connects to vacuum chamber 11), a vacuum pump provided in the vacuum exhaust pipe (vacuum pump 22 [Fig. 1, 0023]), and a collection section (filter 23 [Fig. 1, 0023]) positioned upstream of the vacuum pump in the vacuum exhaust pipe (filter 23 is upstream of vacuum pump 22 [Fig. 1, 0023]).
According to MPEP 2143(B), it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. MPEP 2143(B) states that the rationale for this rejection must show that: (1) the prior art contained a device (method, or product) which differed from the claimed device by the substitution of some components (step, or element) with other components, (2) the substituted components and their functions were known in the art, and (3) one of ordinary skill in the art could have substituted one known element for another, and the results of the substitution would have been predictable.
In this case, Takemoto discloses a vacuum device unit connected to the construction chamber. However, Takemoto does not disclose a collection section in a vacuum pipe, upstream of the vacuum pump. Heinrichsdorff teaches a vacuum device unit for a laser processing repair device within a vacuum chamber. The vacuum device unit taught by Heinrichsdorff includes a vacuum pump, located downstream from a collection section on a connecting pipe. Both the vacuum device unit disclosed by Takemoto and the vacuum device unit including a pump, a pipe, and a collection section taught by Heinrichsdorff perform the function of drawing a vacuum into a chamber for the purpose of laser processing. Thus, one of ordinary skill in the art would have substituted the vacuum device unit taught by Heinrichsdorff for the vacuum device unit in the laser processing device disclosed by Takemoto before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Specifically, one of ordinary skill in the art would have connected the vacuum pipe (along with the vacuum pump and filter) taught by Heinrichsdorff to the exhaust port disclosed by Takemoto to replace the vacuum pump disclosed by Takemoto. One of ordinary skill in the art would have made this substitution because any fumes or spatter from the laser processing would be filtered out by the collection section, preventing damage to the vacuum pump caused by this debris. Further, one of ordinary skill in the art would have obtained predictable results with this substitution because both vacuum device units are used to draw a vacuum on a chamber for laser processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MARISSA RAE BOSS whose telephone number is (571)270-0274. The examiner can normally be reached 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571)270-5569. 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.
/MARISSA RAE BOSS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights