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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/28/2023 and 04/01/2026 by the examiner.
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.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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: “placement unit” in claims 3 and 5-6.
Prong 1: Placement unit (Generic placeholder for claims )
Prong 2: supporting a lower surface of the workpiece (Function claim 3)
Prong 2: for processing a workpiece placed on (Function for claims 5-6)
Prong 3: No structure (For claims 3 and 5-6)
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.
The specification, regarding “placement unit”, recites in ¶0028 “[0028] Cutting pallet 2 includes a placement unit 2c that supports a lower surface of workpiece WO (Fig. 5). For example, placement unit 2c of cutting pallet 2 is constructed by an upper end of each of the plurality of second support plates 2b.
Placement unit 2c is located at a position lower than the upper end of container 1 (the upper end of side wall 1b). The upper end of container 1 is located at a position higher than the upper surface of workpiece WO while workpiece WO is placed on placement unit 2c. Thus, when container 1 is filled with transmission inhibition liquid LI while workpiece WO is placed on placement unit 2c, a liquid level of transmission inhibition liquid LI can be made higher than the upper surface of workpiece WO.”. The examiner interprets “a placement unit” as a platform that is capable of holding a workpiece on its top surface.
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 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200101564 A1 – Shibazaki in view of US 20160054281 A1 – Smeeton and US 20170157711 A1 – Spiess
Regarding claim 1, Shibazaki is directed towards an processing system. Shibazaki does teach a container that can store a transmission inhibition liquid (¶0035 Tank 13 can store cooling water CW inside) inhibiting transmission of the laser beam (it is understood that the water CW has a degree of reflection and refraction therefor inhibits the transmission of the laser beam) a laser head that emits the laser beam (¶0049 Shaping head section 500, as is shown in FIG. 2, is equipped with a beam irradiation section 520 including a light source system 510 and a condensing optical system 82); a liquid level sensor (¶0038 This water level sensor 26) and detects a relative distance between the liquid level sensor and a liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid (¶0038 This water level sensor 26, to explain this briefly, is a set formed with a speaker, a microphone, and a thermometer, and the sensor calculates the distance to the water surface (liquid surface) from the time of a sound emitted from the speaker, which is reflected by the water surface (liquid surface) and reaches the microphone, and then converts the distance to the water level (liquid level).); and the liquid level sensor (¶0160 Next, cooling water CW is supplied into tank 13 until the liquid surface (water surface) coincides with target surface TS (refer to FIG. 11) by controller 1600. This supply of cooling water CW is realized by controller 1600 performing opening/closing control of the second flow control valve 18B, while monitoring the measurement information of water level sensor 26, similarly to the description above and ¶0161 Next, processing is performed on the workpiece on stage 12. This processing is performed in the following manner. That is, moving apparatus 200 and processing head section 1500 are controlled by controller 1600, and the processing of the workpiece in the local non-liquid-immersion state (refer to FIG. 11) described earlier is performed while stage 12).
Shibazaki does not expressly teach a transmittance detection sensor that detects transmittance of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container, that is fixed to the laser head and a controller that controls emission of the laser beam to the workpiece by the laser head based on detection results of the transmittance detection sensor.
Smeeton is directed towards an optical sensor for fluids. Smeeton does teach a transmittance detection sensor that detects transmittance of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container (¶0001 This invention relates to optical sensors using solid-state light sources for fluid analysis applications. and Figure 2) and a controller that controls emission of the laser beam to the workpiece by the laser head based on detection results of the transmittance detection sensor ([0108] The sensor device may optionally include a controller 23 which receives inputs from the first photodetection means 9 and optionally from the second photodetection means 20. The controller 23 may use these inputs to determine the absorbance, A, and further may use algorithms to determine the concentration of the target 1….).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibazaki to include a transmittance detection sensor that detects transmittance of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container and a controller that controls emission of the laser beam to the workpiece by the laser head based on detection results of the transmittance detection sensor because the combination of Smeeton’s optical sensors and controllers function to use the sensors input to affect the laser of Shibazaki allows precise use of said laser for processing the workpiece.
Spiess is directed towards a device fore piercing workpieces by way of a laser. Spiess does teach sensor that is fixed to the laser head (¶0019 The capacitive distance sensor can be arranged on the processing head of the laser processing machine.).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Spiess to include a sensor that is fixed to the laser head because the liquid sensor of Shibazaki, that is movable independently, being modify like the sensor of Spiess to be attach to the laser head so the laser can process the workpiece and the sensor can get its reading in the same location for accuracy.
Regarding claim 2, Shibazaki, Smeeton and Spiess teach the limitations of claim 1. Shibazaki does teach further comprising a workpiece upper surface height detection sensor that detects a height position of an upper surface of the workpiece (¶0157 and ¶0158), wherein the controller determines a target liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid in the container based on the height position of the upper surface of the workpiece detected by the workpiece upper surface height detection sensor, and adjusts a liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid in the container to the target liquid level (¶0162 …opening degree control (including opening and closing) of the second flow control valve 18B and the first flow control valve 18A is performed by controller 1600 based on the measurement information of water level sensor 26, and the amount of cooling water CW within tank 13 is adjusted so that the liquid surface (water surface) coincides with target surface TS (a surface higher than processing surface MP by a predetermined distance). That is, control of the liquid surface of cooling water CW is performed in this manner, according to the upward (or downward) move of stage 12 and the processing progress…).
Regarding claim 3, Shibazaki, Smeeton and Spiess teach the limitations of claim 1. Shibazaki does teach further comprising a support member that includes a placement unit (12) supporting a lower surface of the workpiece (W) (Figure 2 shows a table 12 having an upper surface in contact with the lower surface of the workpiece W for supporting the workpiece W), wherein the container (tank 13) can store the transmission inhibition liquid (water CW) at least up to a height position of the placement unit (¶ 0080 the liquid surface (water surface) of cooling water CW is to be set to a position higher than that of object surface TAS of workpiece W.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200101564 A1 – Shibazaki, US 20160054281 A1 – Smeeton and US 20170157711 A1 – Spiess as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20140144895 A1 - Born.
Regarding claim 4, Shibazaki, Smeeton and Spiess teach the limitations of claim 1. Shibazaki does not expressly teach further comprising a laser beam shielding member that surrounds a periphery of the laser head, wherein the liquid level sensor is fixed to the laser head with the laser beam shielding member interposed between the liquid level sensor and the laser head
Born is directed towards an processing device. Born does teach a laser beam shielding member that surrounds a periphery of the laser head (¶0057 a casing 30 that accommodates the optical system 16.), wherein the liquid level sensor is fixed to the laser head with the laser beam shielding member interposed between the liquid level sensor and the laser head (¶0066 Further the at least one inertial sensor 24 may be fixed to the casing 30 of the laser processing head 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibazaki to include a laser beam shielding member that surrounds a periphery of the laser head and level sensor is fixed to the laser head with the laser beam shielding member interposed between the liquid level sensor and the laser head because the casing and location of the sensor of Born, outside but attached to the casing, allows the laser to have protection from the outside elements and the sensor to be protected from the laser, avoiding false reading from possible laser and sensor interaction.
Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20200101564 A1 – Shibazaki in view of US 20160054281 A1 – Smeeton.
Regarding claim 5, Shibasaki does teach storing a transmission inhibition liquid (¶0035 Tank 13 can store cooling water CW inside) inhibiting transmission of the laser beam in the container (it is understood that the water CW has a degree of reflection and refraction therefor inhibits the transmission of the laser beam), detecting a liquid level position of the transmission inhibition liquid with respect to the laser head (¶0038 This water level sensor 26); and a detection result of the liquid level position of the transmission inhibition liquid (¶0160 Next, cooling water CW is supplied into tank 13 until the liquid surface (water surface) coincides with target surface TS (refer to FIG. 11) by controller 1600. This supply of cooling water CW is realized by controller 1600 performing opening/closing control of the second flow control valve 18B, while monitoring the measurement information of water level sensor 26, similarly to the description above and ¶0161 Next, processing is performed on the workpiece on stage 12. This processing is performed in the following manner. That is, moving apparatus 200 and processing head section 1500 are controlled by controller 1600, and the processing of the workpiece in the local non-liquid-immersion state (refer to FIG. 11) described earlier is performed while stage 12).
Shibazaki does not expressly teach a transmittance detection sensor that detects transmittance of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container, and a controller that controls emission of the laser beam to the workpiece by the laser head based on detection results of the transmittance detection sensor.
Smeeton is directed towards an optical sensor for fluids. Smeeton does teach a transmittance detection sensor that detects transmittance of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container (¶0001 This invention relates to optical sensors using solid-state light sources for fluid analysis applications. and Figure 2) and a controller that controls emission of the laser beam to the workpiece by the laser head based on detection results of the transmittance detection sensor ([0108] The sensor device may optionally include a controller 23 which receives inputs from the first photodetection means 9 and optionally from the second photodetection means 20. The controller 23 may use these inputs to determine the absorbance, A, and further may use algorithms to determine the concentration of the target 1….).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Shibazaki to include a transmittance detection sensor that detects transmittance of the transmission inhibition liquid stored in the container and a controller that controls emission of the laser beam to the workpiece by the laser head based on detection results of the transmittance detection sensor because the combination of Smeeton’s optical sensors and controllers function to use the sensors input to affect the laser of Shibazaki allows precise use of said laser for processing the workpiece.
Regarding claim 6, Shibazaki and Smeeton does teach the limitations of claim 5. Shibazaki does teach further comprising: detecting a height position of an upper surface of the workpiece placed on the placement unit (¶0157 and ¶0158); determining a target liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid in the container based on the detected height position of the upper surface of the workpiece; and adjusting a liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid in the container to the target liquid level,
wherein the liquid level position of the transmission inhibition liquid with respect to the laser head is detected after the liquid level of the transmission inhibition liquid is adjusted to the target liquid level (¶0162 …opening degree control (including opening and closing) of the second flow control valve 18B and the first flow control valve 18A is performed by controller 1600 based on the measurement information of water level sensor 26, and the amount of cooling water CW within tank 13 is adjusted so that the liquid surface (water surface) coincides with target surface TS (a surface higher than processing surface MP by a predetermined distance). That is, control of the liquid surface of cooling water CW is performed in this manner, according to the upward (or downward) move of stage 12 and the processing progress…).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20200070283 A1 – Markushov teaches shielding for laser heads with gas ports.
US 20090255910 A1 – Feistel teaches a protective enclosure for a laser processing device.
US 20170232558 A1 – Kano teaches a multitude of sensors including but not limited to fluid sensors and workpiece height sensors.
US 20100308023 A1 – Kuo teaches a laser processing device using a container filled with liquid. US 20180161924 A1 – Werner teaches a device for machining a workpiece while using liquid as a cooling medium.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights