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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 3/20/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (US 2018/0085858) in view of Engelsberg (US 5,821,175) and Barclay et al. (US 2019/0126328).
Regarding claim 1, Toyosawa discloses a surface processing method for removing a surface of a processing object (“Laser irradiation device, laser irradiation system, and method for removing coating or adhering matter” [Title]) by moving a beam spot with respect to the processing surface (“the optical system is configured to scan the irradiation point of the laser beam on a surface” [0012]),
the beam spot being formed by condensing a continuous wave laser beam on an irradiation surface of the processing object (“The laser oscillator 1 is constituted by an excitation source, a laser medium, an optical resonator (mirror) and the like. The excitation source may be either of a continuous wave oscillation (CW) type or a pulse oscillation type, …” [0073]; “The laser oscillator is preferably of a continuous oscillation type” [0020]).
Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein an irradiation time length is 20 μ-second or less when the beam spot passes through one point on the irradiation surface.
Engelsberg is directed to an “apparatus and method for removing surface contaminants from a surface of a substrate”; “The source of high-energy irradiation includes a pulsed or continuous wave laser …” [Abstract]. Engelsberg discloses wherein an irradiation time length is 20 μ-second or less when a beam spot passes through one point on an irradiation surface (“a dwell time of 0.02 s “ [Col. 14, line 34]).
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 include wherein an irradiation time length is 20 μ-second or less when the beam spot passes through one point on the irradiation surface. This is a known irradiation time, applied to a known method, to predictably allow for removal of a portion of a surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to apply a laser beam for an appropriate amount of time to remove a desired portion of a surface without damaging the surface.
Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein a relative speed of the beam spot to the irradiation surface is 3 m/s or more.
Barclay is directed to “laser ablation systems and methods” [Abstract], “to clean or refresh surfaces by applying laser energy to the surface to remove surface contaminants or layers” [0002].
Barclay discloses wherein a relative speed of a beam spot to an irradiation surface is 3 m/s or more (“laser beam 118 may be scanned across surface 128 with a surface velocity of at least 1 m/s (meters per second), at least 5 m/s, or at least 20 m/s” [0058]).
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 include wherein a relative speed of the beam spot to the irradiation surface is 3 m/s or more. This is a known speed, applied to a known method, to predictably allow for removal of a portion of a surface. Barclay describes how cleaning effectiveness is influenced by laser parameters: “ Cleaning effectiveness, also referred to as ablation effectiveness, is the rate of ablation at a particular location on surface 128, i.e., the amount of ablation achieved per unit time. Hence, cleaning effectiveness incorporates the amount of ablation and the speed of ablation. Generally, cleaning effectiveness at a particular location is affected by (and thus may be recited to include) laser energy, laser power, laser fluence (surface density of laser energy), laser irradiance (surface density of laser power), and residence time of laser sheet 120 at the particular location on surface 128” [0040]. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select an appropriate speed in order to effectively clean the surface.
Regarding claim 2, Toyosawa discloses wherein while the beam spot is circulated along a predetermined scanning pattern on the irradiation surface, the scanning pattern is moved relative to the irradiation surface (Figs. 4 and 6).
Regarding claim 3, Toyosawa discloses wherein the scanning pattern is circumferential and the beam spot is rotated along the circumference (Fig. 6).
Regarding claim 4, Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein, when the scanning pattern is relatively moved with respect to the irradiation surface, width of the scanning pattern perpendicular to a direction of relative movement is 10 mm or more.
However, 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 include wherein, when the scanning pattern is relatively moved with respect to the irradiation surface, width of the scanning pattern perpendicular to a direction of relative movement is 30 has a width of the spot diameter. Moreover, the radius r is preferably set so as to be 5 to 200 mm” [0118]).
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 include wherein, when the scanning pattern is relatively moved with respect to the irradiation surface, width of the scanning pattern perpendicular to a direction of relative movement is 10 mm or more, because in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 5, Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein, when number of passes, which is number of times that the scanning pattern is repeatedly moved along the irradiation surface so that a same region of the irradiation surface is irradiated in a superimposed state, is set to 3 or more, an energy to be applied to the irradiation surface is set so that an area on which objects to be removed remain is 5% or less of the entire surface on the irradiation surface.
However, Toyosawa teaches “if the size of the circular scanning is changed, energy density at the irradiation position is also changed” [0201]. That is, Toyosawa teaches that energy density is related to size of the scanned area that is affected by the laser beam.
Therefore, 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 include wherein, when number of passes, which is number of times that the scanning pattern is repeatedly moved along the irradiation surface so that a same region of the irradiation surface is irradiated in a superimposed state, is set to 3 or more, an energy to be applied to the irradiation surface is set so that an area on which objects to be removed remain is 5% or less of the entire surface on the irradiation surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select an appropriate energy density, and thus, an appropriate energy that is applied to the laser surface, such that the surface removal process can be performed without needing to repeat the laser scanning more times than is anticipated. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand, using Toyosawa’s above teaching, that a relatively low energy will require additional scans over the same point to achieve the same surface ablation that a relatively high energy can achieve in fewer scans.
Regarding claim 6, Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein, when number of passes, which is number of times that the scanning pattern is repeatedly moved along the irradiation surface so that the same region of the irradiation surface is irradiated in a superimposed state, is set to 20 or less, an energy to be applied to the irradiation surface is set so that the area on which objects to be removed remain is 5% or less of the entire surface on the irradiation surface.
However, Toyosawa teaches “if the size of the circular scanning is changed, energy density at the irradiation position is also changed” [0201]. That is, Toyosawa teaches that energy density is related to size of the scanned area that is affected by the laser beam.
Therefore, 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 include wherein, when number of passes, which is number of times that the scanning pattern is repeatedly moved along the irradiation surface so that the same region of the irradiation surface is irradiated in a superimposed state, is set to 20 or less, an energy to be applied to the irradiation surface is set so that the area on which objects to be removed remain is 5% or less of the entire surface on the irradiation surface. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to select an appropriate energy density, and thus, an appropriate energy that is applied to the laser surface, such that the surface removal process can be performed without needing to repeat the laser scanning more times than is anticipated. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand, using Toyosawa’s above teaching, that a relatively low energy will require additional scans over the same point to achieve the same surface ablation that a relatively high energy can achieve in fewer scans.
Regarding claim 12, Toyosawa discloses wherein the base material of the processing object is made of an iron-based metal (“steel material” [0003]; “In order to use the structures safely for a long time which are difficult to be moved such as a bridge, an express way, an elevated track for a railway, a building, a tank, a machine facility and the like, a coating of painting applied on a surface of a base material (steel material) needs to be periodically peeled off, removed, and re-painted in order to prevent corrosion” [0003]).
Regarding claim 13, Toyosawa discloses wherein the surface removed from the processing object by irradiation with the laser beam comprises at least one of an oxide, hydroxide, carbonate, paint film or salinity of the base material of the processing object or a material of a paint film formed on the surface of the base material (“a coating of a painting” [0003]; “In order to use the structures safely for a long time which are difficult to be moved such as a bridge, an express way, an elevated track for a railway, a building, a tank, a machine facility and the like, a coating of painting applied on a surface of a base material (steel material) needs to be periodically peeled off, removed, and re-painted in order to prevent corrosion” [0003]).
Claims 7-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (US 2018/0085858) in view of Engelsberg (US 5,821,175) and Barclay et al. (US 2019/0126328), further in view of Champonnois et al. (US 2009/0224178.
Regarding claim 7, Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein 1-point fluence, which is energy per unit area applied to the irradiation surface when the beam spot passes through one point on the irradiation surface, is set to 100 J/cm² or less.
Champonnois is directed to “a method for laser ablation of a surface coating from a wall, such as a painted wall finish” [Abstract]. Champonnois discloses wherein “a fluence on said coat ranging from 1 J/cm² to 50 J/ cm²” [0052].
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 include wherein 1-point fluence, which is energy per unit area applied to the irradiation surface when the beam spot passes through one point on the irradiation surface, is set to 100 J/cm² or less. This is a known laser fluence for ablating a surface coating, applied to a known method of ablating a surface coating, to achieve predictable results. Furthermore, Champonnois teaches that “the intended fluence value depend[s] in particular on the material to be ablated and on the surface finish of said coat” [0052].
Regarding claim 8, Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein 1-point fluence, which is energy per unit area applied to the irradiation surface when the beam spot passes through one point on the irradiation surface, is set to 27 J/cm² or more.
Champonnois discloses wherein “a fluence on said coat ranging from 1 J/cm² to 50 J/ cm²” [0052].
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 include wherein 1-point fluence, which is energy per unit area applied to the irradiation surface when the beam spot passes through one point on the irradiation surface, is set to 27 J/cm² or more. This is a known laser fluence for ablating a surface coating, applied to a known method of ablating a surface coating, to achieve predictable results. Furthermore, Champonnois teaches that “the intended fluence value depend[s] in particular on the material to be ablated and on the surface finish of said coat” [0052]. Regarding the claimed range, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 9, Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein 1-point fluence, which is energy per unit area applied to the irradiation surface when the beam spot passes through one point on the irradiation surface, is set to 31 J/cm² or more.
Champonnois discloses wherein “a fluence on said coat ranging from 1 J/cm² to 50 J/ cm²” [0052].
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 include wherein 1-point fluence, which is energy per unit area applied to the irradiation surface when the beam spot passes through one point on the irradiation surface, is set to 31 J/cm² or more. This is a known laser fluence for ablating a surface coating, applied to a known method of ablating a surface coating, to achieve predictable results. Furthermore, Champonnois teaches that “the intended fluence value depend[s] in particular on the material to be ablated and on the surface finish of said coat” [0052]. Regarding the claimed range, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Toyosawa et al. (US 2018/0085858) in view of Engelsberg (US 5,821,175) and Barclay et al. (US 2019/0126328), further in view of Wang et al. (US 2019/0036429).
Regarding claim 10, Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein the surface roughness of the irradiation surface after irradiation with the laser beam is set to 25 µm Rz JIS or more.
Wang is directed to a method of manufacturing components, involving surface treatment [0004]. Wang discloses wherein a surface roughness of an irradiation surface after irradiation a the laser beam is set to 25 µm Rz JIS or more (“the laser ablation process or other surface preparation processes may be performed such that the first and/or second surfaces 20, 22 of the substrate 12 include a plurality of peaks 34 and valleys 36. In one form, the first and/or second surfaces 20, 22 of the substrate 12 may exhibit a ten-point mean surface roughness (Rz) in the range of 10-100 μm, or more preferably in the range of 20-30 μm, prior to deposition of a coating of joining material thereon” [0043]).
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 include wherein the surface roughness of the irradiation surface after irradiation with the laser beam is set to 25 µm Rz JIS or more. An appropriate surface roughness advantageously allows for material adhesion. Regarding the claimed range, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Regarding claim 11, Toyosawa does not expressly disclose wherein the surface roughness of the irradiation surface after irradiation with the laser beam is set to 80 µm Rz JIS or less.
Wang discloses wherein the surface roughness of the irradiation surface after irradiation with the laser beam is set to 80 µm Rz JIS or less (“the laser ablation process or other surface preparation processes may be performed such that the first and/or second surfaces 20, 22 of the substrate 12 include a plurality of peaks 34 and valleys 36. In one form, the first and/or second surfaces 20, 22 of the substrate 12 may exhibit a ten-point mean surface roughness (Rz) in the range of 10-100 μm, or more preferably in the range of 20-30 μm, prior to deposition of a coating of joining material thereon” [0043]).
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 include wherein the surface roughness of the irradiation surface after irradiation with the laser beam is set to 80 µm Rz JIS or less. An appropriate surface roughness advantageously allows for material adhesion. Regarding the claimed range, the courts have held that in the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art,” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. MPEP § 2144.05-I.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 5,736,709 is directed to descaling metal with a laser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 PM.
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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights