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
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55 [DE 102023109575 A, filing date 4/17/2023].
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: “fomred” should be “formed” (para. 00069).
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. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: “…with a first portion of a further polyline f the pattern figure…” should be “…with a first portion of a further polyline [[f]]of the pattern figure…”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
“polyline” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [para. 00067: “A polyline is understood to mean a structured succession of lines, each line being defined by two support points (SP) in three-dimensional space. The end point of one line is the starting point of the next line. Support points are pure auxiliary data and are not lasered.”]
“pattern points” is used by the claims to indicate conventional structure known in the art [para. 0068: “Pattern points are understood to mean points along the polyline which are provided for laser input/laser bombardment. The pattern points are distributed equidistantly in a first step, defined by coordinates x, y, z. This results in a single element of the pattern figure 108 in each case.”]
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claims 3, 7-9, and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Claim 3:
The recitation of “wherein the step of detecting comprises a step of underlighting the transition of the polyline from the first pattern to the second pattern” renders the claim indefinite. Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The new term “underlighting” seems to be used by the claim to mean highlighting or “underlining” a particular feature, with, e.g., an LED [para. 00025: “The step of detecting can comprise a step of underlighting the transition of the polyline from the first pattern to the second pattern. The pattern points already introduced can thereby be clearly recognized. ”; para. 00098: “In a step 929, the stitching position is underlit, for example using light emitting diodes.”]. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. The claim will be interpreted as requiring lighting of the workpiece.
Claim 7:
The recitation of “a first pattern” in line 4 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from the first pattern recited in claim 1. Claim 7 will be interpreted as reciting “[[a]]the first pattern” in view of the similar later recitation of “the second pattern”.
Claim 8:
The recitation of “a second pattern” in line 14 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from the second pattern recited in claim 1. Claim 8 will be interpreted as reciting “[[a]]the second pattern” in view of the similar earlier recitation of “the first pattern”.
Claim 9 is also rejected due to dependence on claim 8.
Claim 12:
The recitation of “…a pattern figure formed of pattern points, in a workpiece, using a laser device of a machining device, wherein the device is configured to execute and actuate the steps of the method according to claim 1 in corresponding units” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if the underlined elements are intended to be distinct from the pattern figure, pattern points, workpiece, laser device, and machining device recited in claim 1. Furthermore, it is unclear what is required by the limitation “in corresponding units”, e.g., does the claim require a particular unit of measurement, or distinct and duplicate apparatuses/units. Since the specification does not elaborate on this limitation, and since it would be obvious to a PHOSITA to configure a controller to at least use appropriate units of measurement [e.g., scale (mm, cm, etc.), or mm vs inches], the claim will be interpreted as reciting “A device configured to execute and actuate the steps of the method according to claim 1 ”
Claim 13 is also rejected due to dependence on claim 12.
Claim 13:
Similarly to claim 12, claim 13 also requires “A machining device comprising a laser device and the device according to claim 12” which renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if these elements are intended to be distinct from the corresponding elements recited in claim 12 and 1. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The machining device comprising [[a]]the laser device and the device according to claim 12.”. However, since this interpretation does not seem to further limit the invention of claim 12, applicant is advised that should claim 12 be found allowable, claim 13 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 7-8, and 10-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Doering (US 20240033847 A1 published as PCT/EP2022/059246 - 4/7/2022).
Regarding claim 1,
Doering teaches:
A method to create a pattern figure formed of pattern points [i.e., patterns comprising positions to be lasered; para. 0035: “Positions on the workpiece X, which are intended to be processed by means of the laser beam 116, for example partial removal of layers, are referred to as patterns and are defined by CAD coordinates (xwn, ywn, zwn), or workpiece coordinates.”; fig. 3] in a workpiece using a laser device of a machining device [fig. 1: processing system 100, processing head 110, laser 115, workpiece X; para. 0006: “It is therefore an object of the present invention to provide an improved method for controlling a laser processing process of a surface of a workpiece, an improved controller for controlling a laser processing process of a surface of a workpiece, and an improved processing system for processing a surface of a workpiece by means of a laser processing process.”], the pattern figure being composed at least from a first pattern and a second pattern that is related to the first pattern [Doering teaches the method including a first movement device for relatively moving the laser beam/workpiece and a second movement device for relatively moving the processing head/workpiece (para. 0009), wherein a plurality of processing fields may be defined by the maximum movement of the first movement device, the processing fields containing corresponding portions of the to-be completed pattern figure (i.e., first and second patterns correspond to first and second processing fields); para. 0010: “The processing field may be defined by a maximum movement or deflection of the laser beam, which is limited by the first movement device. The first processing field and the second processing field may be arranged adjacent to one another, spaced apart from one another and additionally or alternatively partially overlapping. The processing fields may be predefined in respect of dimension and location on the workpiece.”], the method comprising:
reading in first position data which define positions of first pattern points on the workpiece, the first pattern points being associated with a first portion of a polyline of the pattern figure associated with the first pattern [Doering teaches controlling the first movement device to move the laser and programming first processing coordinates/points corresponding to the first pattern in the first processing field according to the CAD coordinates of the workpiece; para. 0050-52: “Providing and positioning a 3D-shaped workpiece defined by CAD coordinates (xn, yn, zn), Providing a laser and a first movement device for carrying out a relative movement between the laser and the workpiece; Providing a control of the first movement device and programming first processing coordinates (x11n, y11n, z11n) in a first processing field on the basis of the CAD coordinates (xn, yn, zn) of the workpiece;”; see fig. 3, showing a plurality of patterns 330 forming a polyline spanning a first processing field 317A to a second processing field 317B];
setting a first position of the machining device [i.e., the first processing field corresponding with the first position of the laser head moved thereto by the second movement device (para. 0034)] in order to align a scanning field of the laser device [para. 0037: “The processing field, or scan field, is given by the maximum possible deflection of the laser beam 116 in the x, y, and z directions.”] onto a first surface of the workpiece provided for introducing the first pattern [i.e., a portion of the surface of the workpiece X corresponding to the first processing field; para. 0009: “Inducing a relative movement between the processing head and the workpiece by means of the second movement device, in order to arrange the processing head in a region of a first processing field of the workpiece”];
actuating the laser device to introduce the first pattern points into the first surface of the workpiece using the first position data, while the machining device is in the first position [i.e., a driving step; para. 0046: “Subsequently, in the driving step 240, the laser and the first movement device are driven by using the corrected processing coordinates in order to process the processing field.”];
setting a second position in order to align the scanning field of the laser device to a second surface of the workpiece provided for introducing the second pattern [i.e., the second movement device moving the laser head to the second processing field so as to continue laser processing of the pattern onto the next corresponding surface portion of the workpiece];
detecting a course of an end of the first portion of the polyline adjoining the second surface [Doering teaches detecting image data of the processing fields, which include courses/ends/portions of the pattern figure; para. 0009: “Initiating acquisition of image data of the processing field by means of the optical recording device”];
continuing the course of the end of the first portion of the polyline into the second surface, in order to determine a position of a reference point of a second portion of the polyline associated with the second pattern and arranged in the second surface [Doering teaches using recorded feature coordinates as reference points, detected from a previous acquisition of image data of a prior processing field; para. 0012: “Additionally or alternatively, in the step of inducing the further relative movement, the further relative movement may be induced by using predefined workpiece coordinates and/or by using feature coordinates of the workpiece which have been recorded by means of the optical recording device. The feature coordinates may represent at least one impression, indentation, opening, marking, molding, inscription and/or boundary of at least one already processed processing field of the workpiece. Such an example offers the advantage that it is possible to continue seamlessly from a previously processed processing field during the processing of a subsequently processed processing field.”; i.e., a laser processed pattern point at a boundary of a previous, adjacent processing field may be used as a reference point for the seamless transition of the laser head between fields];
reading in second position data which define positions of second pattern points on the workpiece, the second pattern points being associated with the second portion of the polyline [i.e., the CAD coordinates further including the second pattern], an end point of the first pattern points and a starting point of the second pattern points defining a transition of the polyline from the first pattern to the second pattern [see figs. 3 and 5, showing the claimed transition of the polyline between 317A and 317B, i.e., edges of the processing fields; para. 0069], and an end point of the second pattern points defining an end of the polyline in the second pattern [figs. 3 and 5];
determining adapted second position data [Doering teaches that it is known to use a sensor unit to record an actual pattern, comparing the actual/real-world pattern with a stored target/CAD pattern, so as to determine a correction value for adapting position data; para. 0004: “With a calibrated processing unit, a reference pattern which corresponds to a target pattern stored in a calculation/control unit is created on an object surface, an actual pattern which deviates from the reference pattern because of the uncalibrated sensor deflection system is recorded by means of the sensor unit, and at least one correction value for the sensor deflection system is ascertained by means of an actual/target value comparison.”] which define positions of the second pattern points on the workpiece, which are adapted to the position of the reference point [e.g., feature coordinates], the position of the starting point of the second pattern points being replaced with the position of the reference point [Doering teaches a correction step, wherein position data is adapted into corrected processing coordinates; paras. 0036-37: “The image processing device 122 is configured to ascertain the correction values between the CAD coordinates and the image coordinates of the workpiece X. The image processing device 122 has an interface to the first control device 124…The first control device 124 has an interface to the image processing device 112. The first control device 124 is configured to carry out a transformation of the processing coordinates according to CAD coordinates into corrected processing coordinates of the real workpiece X by means of correction values of the image processing device 122 and to control the movement of the laser beam 116 relative to the workpiece X according to the corrected processing coordinates after image processing has been carried out.”; para. 0041; para. 0046; para. 0063: “Aligning the first movement direction with the feature coordinates (xm1n, ym1n, zm1n),”]; and
actuating the laser device for introducing the second pattern points into the second surface of the workpiece using the adapted second position data, while the machining device is in the second position [Doering teaches the steps are repeated for each position, including the driving step; para. 0011: “After the step of inducing the further relative movement, the initiation step, the correction step, and the driving step may be carried out for the second processing field as a processing field. In other words, the initiation step, the correction step, and the driving step may be carried out for each processing field of the workpiece, it being possible for the step of inducing the further relative movement to be carried out in order to bring the processing head from one processing field to another processing field. Such an example offers the advantage that workpieces having a plurality or multiplicity of processing fields to be processed may be processed precisely, it being possible for a measurement of the processing fields to be carried out during the processing process.”].
Regarding claim 2, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doring also teaches:
wherein the step of detecting comprises
a step of alignment of an image acquisition device [i.e., the optical recording device] of the machining device with the transition of the polyline from the first pattern to the second pattern [para. 0071: “The alignment may be aligned either per individual feature or (for reasons of operating speed) with a plurality of features combined in a group. After the alignment, the laser beam processes on the basis of the corrected data.”],
a step of detecting an image of the transition using the image acquisition device, a step of detecting images of first pattern points in the image [i.e., the optical recording device detecting images of the first processing field, including boundary portions and laser processed features], and
a step of determining the course of the end of the first portion the polyline using the images of first pattern points [claim 3, para. 0072: “the feature coordinates representing at least one impression, indentation, opening, marking, molding, inscription and/or boundary of at least one already processed processing field of the workpiece”].
Regarding claim 7, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doering also teaches:
wherein, in the step of reading in first position data, the first position data further define positions of further first pattern points on the workpiece, wherein the further first pattern points are associated with a first portion of a further polyline f the pattern figure associated with a first pattern; wherein, in the step of actuating the laser device for introducing the first pattern points, the laser device is furthermore actuated for introducing the further first pattern points into the first surface of the workpiece, using the first position data, while the machining device is in the first position; wherein, in a repeated step of detecting, a course of an end of the first portion of the further polyline adjacent to the second surface is detected; wherein, in a repeated step of continuing, the course of the end of the first portion of the further polyline is continued into the second surface, in order to determine a position of a further reference point, arranged in the second surface, of a second portion of the further polyline associated with the second pattern; wherein, in the step of reading in second position data, the second position data further define positions of further second pattern points on the workpiece, wherein the further second pattern points are associated with the second portion of the further polyline, wherein an end point of the further first pattern points and a starting point of the further second pattern points define a transition of the further polyline from the first pattern to the second pattern, and an end point of the further second pattern points defines an end of the further polyline in the second pattern; wherein, in the step of determining adapted second position data, the adapted second position data are determined, which further define positions of the further second pattern points on the workpiece which are adapted to the position of the further reference point, wherein a position of the starting point of the further second pattern points is replaced by the position of the further reference point; and/or wherein, in the step of actuating the laser device for introducing the second pattern points, the laser device is furthermore actuated for introducing the further second pattern points into the second surface of the workpiece using the adapted second position data, while the machining device is in the second position [Doering teaches that the method steps can be applied to a plurality of processing fields of large components (paras. 0008, 0011), and thus would predictably form pattern points on any further or additional points on, e.g., in corresponding third or fourth processing fields].
Regarding claim 8, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doering also teaches:
wherein, in the step of reading in first position data, which first position data define further positions additional first pattern points on the workpiece, wherein the additional first pattern points are associated with a first portion of an additional polyline of the pattern figure associated with the first pattern; wherein, in the step of actuating the laser device for introducing the first pattern points, the laser device is furthermore actuated for introducing the additional first pattern points into the first surface of the workpiece, using the first position data, while the machining device is in the first position; wherein, in the step of detecting, furthermore a course of an end of the first portion of the additional polyline adjacent to the second surface is detected; wherein, in the step of continuing, the course of the end of the first portion of the additional polyline is furthermore continued into the second surface, in order to determine a position of an additional reference point, arranged in the second surface, of a second portion of the additional polyline associated with the second pattern; wherein, in the step of reading in second position data, which second position data further define positions of additional second pattern points on the workpiece, wherein the additional second pattern points are associated with a second portion of the additional polyline associated with a second pattern, wherein an end point of the additional first pattern points and a starting point of the additional second pattern points define a transition of the additional polyline from the first pattern to the second pattern, and an end point of the additional second pattern points defines an end of the additional polyline in the second pattern, wherein the position of the end point of the second pattern points coincides with the position of the end point of the additional second pattern points, in order to merge the ends of the polyline and the additional polyline; wherein, in the step of determining adapted second position data, the adapted second position data are determined, which further define positions of the additional second pattern points on the workpiece which are adapted to the position of the additional reference point, wherein a position of the starting point of the additional second pattern points is replaced by the position of the additional reference point; and/or wherein, in the step of actuating the laser device for introducing the second pattern points, the laser device is furthermore actuated for introducing the additional second pattern points into the second surface of the workpiece using the adapted second position data, while the machining device is in the second position [Doering teaches that the method steps can be applied to a plurality of processing fields of large components (paras. 0008, 0011), and thus would predictably form pattern points on any further or additional points on, e.g., in corresponding third or fourth processing fields].
Regarding claim 10, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doering also teaches:
further comprising:
morphing of the pattern figure to a height profile of the workpiece [i.e., the workpiece has an ideal/CAD 3D surface; para. 0010],
defining the first position and the second position of the machining device; and dividing the pattern figure into the first pattern and the second pattern [i.e., the laser head controllably moved to the first and second processing fields].
Regarding claim 11, Doering teaches the method according to claim 10.
Doering also teaches:
further comprising: recording the height profile of the workpiece [i.e., the image data of the processing fields of the 3D workpiece are recorded].
Regarding claim 12, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doering also teaches:
A device to create a pattern figure formed of pattern points, in a workpiece, using a laser device of a machining device, wherein the device is configured to execute and actuate the steps of the method according to claim 1 in corresponding units [a processing system/controller; paras. 0016-0020].
Regarding claim 13, Doering teaches the method according to claim 12.
Doering also teaches:
A machining device comprising a laser device and the device according to claim 12 [see claim 1 above and paras. 0016-0020].
Regarding claim 14, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doering also teaches:
A computer program, which is adapted to be stored on a machine-readable carrier or storage medium, a semiconductor memory, a hard disk memory, or an optical memory, and which is configured to execute and actuate the steps of the method according to claim 1 [a computer program stored on storage medium; paras. 0016-0020].
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.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doering (US 20240033847 A1) in view of Banerjee (WO 2019173513 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
However, Doering does not disclose:
wherein the step of detecting comprises a step of underlighting the transition of the polyline from the first pattern to the second pattern.
Banerjee, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the use of diodes for lighting a workpiece as a visual aid to a user [para. 0058: “Note that the visible light laser beam generated by the laser diode should have just enough power to make the projected perimeter visible to the user, but should not have enough power to cause any ablation or phase change of a surface material (i.e., no marking by the visible laser light perimeter). In some implementations, the visible light generated by the laser diode is itself expanded and shaped to illuminate the entire active mirror area of the DMD so that the image to be marked is visually displayed on the target material (without ablation) as a visual aid to show how the image (e.g., text, code, logo, etc.) appears on the target before actually marking the target with the C02 laser light.”].
Therefore, since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results [see MPEP 2143(A)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Doering by including the diode of Banerjee to light features/reference points such that the step of detecting comprises a step of underlighting the transition of the polyline from the first pattern to the second pattern, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Doering (US 20240033847 A1) in view of Ramírez (US 20240238904 A1, provisional application US 63438744 - 1/12/23).
Regarding claim 4, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doering further teaches that camera images (actual positional data) can be evaluated separately when compared with a reference image (expected values) so as to improve the overall processing process [para. 0041: “…This camera image is evaluated separately and optionally compared with a reference image. It is thus used for outcome control or process control of the processing process, for example a removal process.”]
However, Doering does not explicitly disclose:
wherein, in the step of continuing, the course of the end of the first portion of the polyline is continued into the second surface by linear regression.
Ramirez, in the same field of endeavor, teaches linear regression as predictably yielding confidence data/corrective actions (i.e., correction values) [para. 0148: “The machine learning model 190 may refer to the model artifact that is created by the training engine 182 using a training set that includes data inputs and, in some embodiments, corresponding target outputs (correct answers for respective training inputs). Patterns in the data sets can be found that cluster the data input and/or map the data input to the target output (the correct answer), and the machine learning model 190 is provided mappings that captures these patterns. The machine learning model 190 may use one or more of linear regression, random forest, neural network (e.g., artificial neural network), etc.”, para. 0149: “Predictive component 114 may provide current data to the trained machine learning model 190 and may run the trained machine learning model 190 on the input to obtain one or more outputs. The predictive component 114 may be capable of determining (e.g., extracting) predictive data 168 associated with producing dental appliances from the output of the trained machine learning model 190 and may determine (e.g., extract) confidence data from the output that indicates a level of confidence that the predictive data 168 corresponds to current data. The predictive component 114 or dental appliance generator 120 may use the confidence data to decide whether to cause a mold or dental appliance to be produced and/or to cause a corrective action to be performed based on the predictive data 168. For example, responsive to determining confidence data that does not meet a threshold amount, the dental appliance generator 120 may cause the dental appliance to not be produced.”].
Therefore, since it is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results [see MPEP 2143(A)], it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Doering by including/applying the linear regression of Ramirez to control the outcome/process of Doering [the camera images (data inputs) and reference images (target outputs)] such that in the step of continuing, the course of the end of the first portion of the polyline is continued into the second surface by linear regression, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 5-6, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Doering (US 20240033847 A1 published as PCT/EP2022/059246 - 4/7/2022).
Regarding claim 5, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doering further discloses:
wherein, in the step of determining adapted second position data, an adapted position of the end point of the second pattern points is deleted if a length of the second portion of the polyline defined by the adjusted positions of second pattern points on the workpiece is longer than a predetermined length of the second portion of the polyline.
In this case, selecting a given corrective action (e.g., deletion) would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Doering discloses the selection of a corresponding correction [para. 0007: “After a corresponding correction, the workpiece may be processed by means of a laser beam, for example with a fixed parameter set of the laser pulses with a pulse energy, a pulse width, a pulse repetition frequency, and a wavelength, and by using the correction data.”], wherein the action may be a deletion of pattern points, e.g., the position has already been processed and/or does not require a removal of paint; para. 0066: “FIG. 3 shows a schematic representation of a workpiece X during a laser processing process in conjunction with the method of FIG. 2. Of the three-dimensional workpiece X, a plurality of regular patterns 330 due to paint removal by means of a laser and two processing fields 317 A and 317B are shown in this case by way of example.”], after the measurement of the processing fields [i.e., the pattern figure, e.g., lengths of features; para. 0011].
Regarding claim 6, Doering teaches the method according to claim 1.
Doering further discloses:
wherein, in the step of determining adapted second position data, a distance between adjacent adapted positions of the second pattern points relative to a distance between adjacent positions of the second pattern points is changed if a length of the second portion of the polyline defined by the adjusted positions of second pattern points on the workpiece differs from a predetermined length of the second portion the polyline.
In this case, selecting a given corrective action (e.g., changing of relative distance between positions) would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Doering discloses the selection of a corresponding correction [para. 0007: “After a corresponding correction, the workpiece may be processed by means of a laser beam, for example with a fixed parameter set of the laser pulses with a pulse energy, a pulse width, a pulse repetition frequency, and a wavelength, and by using the correction data.”], wherein the action accommodates the differences of real world workpieces relative to ideal CAD representations thereof [para. 0032: “…A challenge in this case is that the CAD data cannot be used as a target specification for the placement. Under certain circumstances, they differ from the real component to such an extent that the junction would be visible…”], after the measurement of the processing fields [i.e., the pattern figure, e.g., adjacent positions of features; para. 0011].
Regarding claim 9, Doering teaches the method according to claim 8.
Doering further discloses:
wherein in the step of determining adapted second position data, a distance between adjacent adapted positions of the additional second pattern points is changed with respect to a distance between adjacent positions of the additional second pattern points, if a length of the second portion of the additional polyline defined by additional second pattern points on the workpiece is longer than a predetermined length of the second portion of the additional polyline.
In this case, selecting a given corrective action would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application.
Doering discloses the selection of a corresponding correction [para. 0007: “After a corresponding correction, the workpiece may be processed by means of a laser beam, for example with a fixed parameter set of the laser pulses with a pulse energy, a pulse width, a pulse repetition frequency, and a wavelength, and by using the correction data.”], wherein the action accommodates the differences of real world workpieces relative to ideal CAD representations thereof [para. 0032: “…A challenge in this case is that the CAD data cannot be used as a target specification for the placement. Under certain circumstances, they differ from the real component to such an extent that the junction would be visible…”], after the measurement of the processing fields [i.e., the pattern figure; para. 0011].
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
