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 as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “42b” has been used to designate both the light reflection unit and the light reception unit. Therefore at least one of the light reflection unit and the light reception unit is not shown.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the light reflection unit and the light reception unit must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. Reference numeral 42b is found in only a single figure and therefore one of the light reflection and light reception units is shown. No new matter should be entered.
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. 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.
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.
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:
Liquid storage unit in claims 1, and 4-8 with the function being to store liquid. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a tube.
Placement unit in claims 2, 6, 8 with the function being to support at lower surface of the workpiece. The corresponding structure described in the specification is the upper end of each of the plurality of second support plates.
Light emission unit in claims 4 and 5, with the function being to emit light. The corresponding structure described in the specification is a laser.
Light reception unit in claim 4, with the function being to receive light emitted from the light emission unit and transmitted through the transparent portion. There is no corresponding structure described in the specification.
Reflection unit in claim 5, with the function being to reflect light emitted from the light emission unit and transmitted through the transparent portion. There is no corresponding structure described in the specification.
Connection unit in claim 6, with the function being to connect the liquid storage unit to the container. The corresponding structure described in the specification is the connection between the liquid storage unit and the container.
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 4-5 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
There is no corresponding structure described in the specification of the light reception unit claimed in claim 4, or reflection unit in claim 5. As such it is unclear what the inventors at the time of filing had possession of.
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.
Claims 4-5 are 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.
Claim limitations “light reception unit” and “reflection unit” invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
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.
Claims 1-2 and 4-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama et al. (Japanese Publication 62168692) hereafter referred to as Katayama, in view of Smeeton (US Publication 20160054281) hereafter known as Smeeton, and Wikipedia (Communicating vessels).
Regarding claim 1, Katayama teaches a laser processing device (Figure 2) with a tank (6) that stores water (7) which is a liquid. Katayama does not teach a liquid storage unit that is disposed outside the container, has an internal space, and is connected to the container such that the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container enters the internal space; and a transmittance detection sensor that detects at least transmittance of the internal space.
Smeeton teaches a sensor (Figure 2) for measuring the concentration of a material suspended in a fluid through the transmittance of that fluid [0016] to measure the impurities of the liquid and that the distance that the light travels through the fluid is between 0.1mm and 100mm [0165].
The component parts are known in Katayama and Smeeton. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by mounting them on a single chassis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the sensor taught by Smeeton onto the chassis of the laser processing device taught by Katayama, since the operation of the sensor is in no way dependent on the operation of the other equipment of the laser processing device, and a sensor could be used in combination with the laser processing device to achieve the predictable result of measuring the liquid used by the laser processing device and make sure it is acceptable for usage by ensuring the liquid did not contain an unacceptable amount of impurities that would affect the cooling and/or contaminate the work product being cooled in the water bath.
Wikipedia teaches it is known in the art of liquid containers to have communicating vessels which have internal space and are connected to each other so that fluid in one vessel enters the other vessels.
As Katayama teaches a tank or a container that stores water, Smeeton teaches a thickness of water between 0.1mm and 100mm for the sensor, and Wikipedia teaches that it is known for containers of liquid of varying thicknesses to be communicating vessels it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a communicating vessel disclosed in Wikipedia to the tank of Katayama to achieve the predictable result of having a vessel of the thickness required by the sensor of Smeeton while ensuring the main tank of Katayama was large enough to function as a water bath.
Regarding claim 2, Katayama teaches (Figure 2) a mounting box (4) with pins (3) inside which can hold up a work piece inside the tank (6) and the tank can hold liquid up to at least a height position of the pins (3).
Regarding claims 4 and 5, the sensor taught by Smeeton includes a first (10) and second (11) transparent window that the fluid goes through (Figure 2), a solid state light emitter (4), a light reception unit or photodetection means (9) that receives light (5) from the solid state light emitter (4) that passes through the transparent windows, and a reflection unit or mirror (22) which is configured to direct light emitted by the light sources to the photodetection means (9) [203].
Regarding claim 6, the communicating vessel(s) taught by Wikipedia, shown in Figure A below, are connected by a connection unit which are connected by a connection unit located below the water level and they containers expand upwards from the connection unit.
PNG
media_image1.png
404
1380
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure A
Regarding claim 7, the modified device of Katayama teaches that the liquid storage unit can have varying thicknesses, and requiring the location of the sensor to be at a thinner location that allows the water thickness to be between 0.1mm and 100mm for the sensor.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Shibazaki (US Publication 2020/0101564).
Katayama teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach a controller that issues a control instruction of at least one of notification and a laser beam emission operation based on a detection result of the transmittance detection sensor.
Shibazaki teaches a laser processing device that includes a controller (600) that controls a laser [0052] based on the detection results of various positioning sensors (28) [0044] in order to more accurately control the laser [0047].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the controller disclosed in Shibazaki in the laser processing device of Katayama to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Shibazaki the motivation for the combination would be to allow for the control of the laser unit based on the detection of various sensors of the modified device of Katayama to increase accuracy.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Katayama in view of Smeeton, Wikipedia, and Shibazaki.
Katayama teaches a laser processing device (Figure 2) with a tank (6) that stores water (7) which is a liquid that inhibits the transmission of light and therefore the laser beam.
Katayama does not teach detecting at least transmittance of an internal space in a liquid storage unit that is disposed outside the container, is connected to the container at a position lower than the placement unit, and has the internal space that the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container enters; and controlling a laser beam emission operation based on the detected transmittance.
Smeeton teaches a sensor (Figure 2) for measuring the concentration of a material suspended in a fluid through the transmittance of that fluid [0016] to measure the purity of the liquid which would modify the thermal properties of the fluid.
The component parts are known in Katayama and Smeeton. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” into a single device by mounting them on a single chassis. Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to mount the sensor taught by Smeeton onto the chassis of the laser processing device taught by Katayama, since the operation of the sensor is in no way dependent on the operation of the other equipment of the laser processing device, and a sensor could be used in combination with the laser processing device to achieve the predictable result of measuring the liquid used by the laser processing device and make sure it is acceptable for usage by ensuring the liquid did not contain an unacceptable amount of impurities that would affect the cooling and/or contaminate the work product being cooled in the water bath.
Wikipedia teaches it is known in the art of liquid containers to have communicating vessels which have internal space and are connected to each other so that fluid in one vessel enters the other vessels.
As Katayama teaches a tank or a container that stores water, Smeeton teaches a thickness of water between 0.1mm and 100mm for the sensor, and Wikipedia teaches that it is known for containers of liquid of varying thicknesses to be communicating vessels it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to include a communicating vessel disclosed in Wikipedia to the tank of Katayama to achieve the predictable result of having a vessel of the thickness required by the sensor of Smeeton while ensuring the main tank of Katayama was large enough to function as a water bath.
Shibazaki teaches a laser processing device that includes a controller (600) that controls a laser [0052] based on the detection results of various positioning sensors (28) [0044] in order to more accurately control the laser [0047].
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the controller disclosed in Shibazaki in the laser processing device of Katayama to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Shibazaki the motivation for the combination would be to allow for the control of the laser unit based on the detection of various sensors of the modified device of Katayama to increase accuracy.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Kuo (US Publication 2010/0308023) teaches a laser cutting device that immerges the surface of what is to be cut in liquid and holds up the surface with supports.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights