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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Japan on 07/21/2021.
Drawings
Figure 4, 5, 6, and 12 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
Claim Objections
Claims 4, 5, 10 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claims 4, 5, 10 recite “when the laser processing device is viewed from a side-surface side of the steel sheet”. The phrase should be changed to either transverse or longitudinal. Appropriate correction is required.
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:
dust collection mechanism unit in claims 1, 3, 15, interpreted as port as described in paragraph [43 ] of the original disclosure, and equivalents thereof
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(b)
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.
Claim3 is 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.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 3 recites the broad recitation “only at one of an upstream side or a downstream side” (claim 3 depends on claim 1, claim 1 recites “only at one of an upstream side or a downstream side”), and the claim also recites "only on the downstream side" which is the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claim(s) are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6-8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and (a)(2) as being anticipated by Yoshii et al., US 20170106471 (hereafter Yoshii).
Regarding claim 1, A laser processing device comprising: (Fig. 1)
a laser light source unit (40) that irradiates, with laser light, a surface (Fig. 4) …conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction; ( Paragraph [41] teaches “the chuck table 11 holding the plate-shaped workpiece W is moved in the feeding direction shown by an arrow X1 in FIG. 5A” )
PNG
media_image1.png
549
676
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 in Yoshii
…a first nozzle (43) that injects gas toward an irradiation site of the laser light (Fig. 4), parallel to an optical axis direction of the laser light;(Fig. 4)
and a dust collection mechanism unit (68) that is provided only at one of an upstream side or a downstream side of the irradiation site, in the conveyance direction, (Fig. 4) and that collects, from a dust collection port, laser sputter generated from the irradiation site. (Paragraph [8] teaches “debris removing means for removing the debris scattering from the plate-shaped workpiece due to the application of the laser beam passed through the laser beam passage;”)
of a steel sheet (the limitation is directed to a material or article worked upon by an apparatus. MPEP 2115 sets forth that “The courts have held that "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), In re Casey, 370 F.2d 576, 152 USPQ 235 (CCPA 1967).”)
Regarding claim 3,
The laser processing device according to claim 1 , wherein the dust collection mechanism unit is installed only on the downstream side in the conveyance direction. (Fig. 4 in Yoshii)
Regarding claim 6,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a rectifying plate provided so as to face the dust collection port of the laser sputter in the dust collection mechanism unit. (Sidewall 63 in Fig. 4 in Yoshii)
Regarding claim 7,
The laser processing device according to claim 1 , further comprising a second nozzle that is provided so as to face the dust collection port of the laser sputter in the dust collection mechanism unit and that injects gas toward the dust collection port. (Air discharge port 66 in Fig. 4 in Yoshii)
Regarding claim 8,
The laser processing device according to claim 7, wherein an injection amount of the gas injected from the second nozzle is less than or equal to a suction amount of the dust collection mechanism unit. (Paragraph [49] in Yoshii teaches “ in the case that the flow rate of air by the air discharge port 66 was 25 L/minute and the flow rate of air by the suction port 67 was 150 L/minute to 250 L/minute, no debris stayed near the position directly above the work point P.”)
Regarding claim 10,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein, when the laser processing device is viewed from a side-surface side of the steel sheet, an upper surface of the dust collection mechanism unit has a structure in which a distance from a surface of the steel sheet increases in a direction in which the laser sputter is sucked from the dust collection port. (Fig. 4 in Yoshii teaches a tapered suction port 68)
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.
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(s) 2, 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii.
Regarding claim 2,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein an injection amount of the gas injected from the first nozzle is less than or equal to a suction amount of the dust collection mechanism unit. (Paragraph [49] in Yoshii teaches “ in the case that the flow rate of air by the air discharge port 66 was 25 L/minute and the flow rate of air by the suction port 67 was 150 L/minute to 250 L/minute, no debris stayed near the position directly above the work point P.”)
Even though Yoshii is silent about the flow rate of first nozzle, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the flow rate of first nozzle to be less than that of the suction amount. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to have a suction flow rate higher or equal to injected air flow rate from both nozzles to create a desired air flow.
Regarding claim 9,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein a suction flow velocity by the dust collection mechanism unit is 15 m/s or more and 50 m/s or less. (Yoshii teaches “it is preferable to adjust the balance between the flow rate of air by the air discharge port 66 and the flow rate of air by the suction port 67, in order to prevent the stay of the debris directly above the work point P (in order to ensure a proper flow velocity)” in paragraph [49]. Thus, Yoshii teaches that suction flow velocity is a result effective variable optimized based on the injection air velocity.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to optimize the suction flow velocity as taught in Yoshii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to prevent the stay of debris in the irradiation area as taught in paragraph [49] in Yoshii. Additionally, MPEP 2144.05-II sets forth that ““[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” See In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). The discovery of an optimum value of a known result effective variable, without producing any new or unexpected results, is within the ambit of a person of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Boesch, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)”.
Claim(s) 4, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Masuda et al., US 20210245299 (hereafter Masuda).
Regarding claim 4, The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein, when the laser processing device is viewed from a side-surface side of the steel sheet, a separation distance in the conveyance direction between the irradiation site of the laser light on the steel sheet and the dust collection port of the dust collection mechanism unit is 25 mm or less. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Masuda teaches opening 48 on bottom wall 43 in Fig. 3. Paragraph [34] teaches “the opening 48 is of a substantially square or rectangular shape having a size ranging from 20 to 30 mm.” Thus, if the size of the opening is 20 mm, then the distance from the irradiation site to the dust collection port is less than 25 mm.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the distance from the irradiation site to the dust collection port is less than 25 mm as taught in Masuda to the device in Yoshii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The transmitting portion 47 defined in the slanted portion 41 and the opening 48 defined in the bottom wall 43 are generally vertically opposite each other, and they both allow the laser beam 25 to pass therethrough” as taught in paragraph [34] in Masuda.
Regarding claim 5,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein, when the laser processing device is viewed from a side-surface side of the steel sheet, a minimum value of a height from the irradiation site of the laser light on the steel sheet to a lower end of the dust collection port of the dust collection mechanism unit is 10 mm or less. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Masuda teaches “the vertical distance between the bottom wall 43 and the holding surface 11 of the chuck table 10 is set to approximately 5 mm” in paragraph [33].
PNG
media_image2.png
417
649
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 in Masuda
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the height from the irradiation site to the dust collection port to be less than 10 mm as taught in Masuda to the device in Yoshii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The bottom wall 43 and the holding surface 11 of the chuck table 10 are spaced from each other by a vertical distance that is equal to the vertical distance between the first side 45 and the holding surface 11 of the chuck table 10” as taught in paragraph [33] in Masuda.
Claim(s) 11, 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Koichi et al., JP H10202452 (hereafter Koichi).
Regarding claim 11, The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein a carbon-made plate is disposed on a vertical direction upper portion of an inner wall of the dust collection mechanism unit. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Koichi teaches a heat resistant plate 1 made of carbon to block spatters generated during laser processing on page 4, paragraph 10-11.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the carbon plate as taught in Koichi to in any or all sections of suction port in Yoshii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Even when sputters 5 are produced from a work W during laser machining, the sputters 5 are blocked by the heat resistant plate 1. Consequently, the sputters 5 do not intrude to on an upper surface of a die D provided on a lower part turret 12, and stable quality of a punched, especially molded product is secured” as taught in abstract in Koichi.
Regarding claim 12,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein a wall surface of the dust collection mechanism unit is configured of a carbon-made plate. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Koichi teaches a heat resistant plate 1 made of carbon to block spatters generated during laser processing on page 4, paragraph 10-11.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the carbon plate as taught in Koichi to in any or all sections of suction port in Yoshii. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Even when sputters 5 are produced from a work W during laser machining, the sputters 5 are blocked by the heat resistant plate 1. Consequently, the sputters 5 do not intrude to on an upper surface of a die D provided on a lower part turret 12, and stable quality of a punched, especially molded product is secured” as taught in abstract in Koichi.
Claim(s) 13, 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hong et al., KR 20190077730 (hereafter Hong).
Regarding claim 13,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein the laser processing device is installed between adjacent conveyance rolls provided with a predetermined spacing along the conveyance direction. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fig. 1 in Hong teaches laser beam 16 installed between rollers 8a and 8b.)
PNG
media_image3.png
501
778
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Hong
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add conveyance rolls and position them as taught in Hong to the device in Yoshii to process steel sheet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a steel sheet support roll position adjustment step of controlling a vertical position of a steel sheet while supporting the steel sheet” as taught in abstract in Hong.
Regarding claim 14,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein the laser processing device is installed above a roll surface of a steel sheet support roll that changes the conveyance direction. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Fig. 1 in Hong teaches laser beam 16 installed above roll 9.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add conveyance rolls and position them as taught in Hong to the device in Yoshii to process steel sheet. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a steel sheet support roll position adjustment step of controlling a vertical position of a steel sheet while supporting the steel sheet” as taught in abstract in Hong.
Claim(s) 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshii , and further in view Lim et al., US 20210129203 (hereafter Lim).
A laser processing method comprising: irradiating, with laser light from a laser light source unit, (Fig.4 in Yoshii)
…and injecting gas from a first nozzle (43) toward an irradiation site of the laser light, parallel to an optical axis direction of the laser light; (Fig. 4) and collecting laser sputter generated from the irradiation site from a dust collection port (68) of a dust collection mechanism unit (61) provided only at one of an upstream side or a downstream side of the irradiation site, in the conveyance direction.(Fig. 4)
a surface of a steel sheet conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction, (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Lim teaches in abstract “a groove forming unit for forming a groove in a cutting-scheduled area in front of the cutting unit with reference to the steel plate transfer direction;”)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method in Yoshii to process steel plate as taught in Lim. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “in the field of a cold-rolling process, the production of advanced high strength steel (AHSS) has increased, and the development of a high strength steel plate (S) having improved strength has been continuously conducted” as taught in paragraph [7] in Lim.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, and 15 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 12, respectively of copending Application No. 18/728075 (reference application, hereafter ‘075). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other as described in Table 1 below.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Table 1
Instant claim 18/571267 (12/18/2023)
Reference claim 1 (‘075, 07/10/2024)
Claim 1. A laser processing device comprising: a laser light source unit that irradiates, with laser light, a surface of a steel sheet conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction;
A laser processing device comprising: a laser light source that irradiates, with a laser light, a surface of a steel sheet being conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction;
a first nozzle that injects gas toward an irradiation site of the laser light, parallel to an optical axis direction of the laser light; and
a gas injector that injects a first gas in parallel with an optical axis direction of the laser light toward an irradiation site of the laser light;
a dust collection mechanism unit that is provided only at one of an upstream side or a downstream side of the irradiation site, in the conveyance direction, and that collects, from a dust collection port, laser sputter generated from the irradiation site.
a dust collector that is provided at either an upstream side or a downstream side of the irradiation site in the conveyance direction and that collects laser spatter generated from the irradiation site via a dust collection port;
Claim 15. A laser processing method comprising: irradiating, with laser light from a laser light source unit, a surface of a steel sheet conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction,
Claim 12. A laser processing method comprising : irradiating, with a laser light, a surface of a steel sheet being conveyed in a predetermined conveyance direction, using a laser light source;
and injecting gas from a first nozzle toward an irradiation site of the laser light, parallel to an optical axis direction of the laser light; and
stirring up, from the surface of the steel sheet, laser spatter generated from an irradiation site by injecting a first gas in parallel with an optical axis direction of the laser light toward the irradiation site of the laser light, using a gas injector;
collecting laser sputter generated from the irradiation site from a dust collection port of a dust collection mechanism unit provided only at one of an upstream side or a downstream side of the irradiation site, in the conveyance direction.
collecting the laser spatter via a dust collection port of a dust collector provided at either an upstream side or a downstream side of the irradiation site in the conveyance direction;
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights