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 .
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.
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.
Claim 6 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.
The phrase “improves a water draining property” contains a subjective term “improves” and the claim language does not specify or otherwise define how the water substituting agent acts to improve said water draining property. The Examiner notes that the specification defines a water substituting agent as “a solvent that peels liquid such as water from a surface of a substance wetted with the liquid. For example, the water substituting agent may act to repel the liquid such as water by forming a monomolecular thin film on the surface of the substance” in paragraph [0055] of the instant specification, however under Broadest Reasonable Interpretation, the claimed water substituting agent as written may be an object, not necessarily a liquid, submerged in the liquid that displaces or physically drains water in order to “improve the water draining property of the workpiece.” As such, the scope of what constitutes as a “water substituting agent” and how it improves the water draining property of the workpiece is unclear, rendering the claim indefinite.
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)(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.
Claims 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Shibazaki, US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101564 A1.
Claim 5. Shibazaki discloses a thermal processing method comprising: processing a workpiece supported by a container storing a liquid using a laser beam or plasma; and (Shibazaki, Abstract “The processing system is provided with:… a beam irradiation section which emits beams toward the target portion…” where the target portion is on the workpiece W; and Fig. 2 shows the workpiece mounted on a table equipped in stage 12; and [0035] “…tank 13 may be called a pool or a reservoir. Tank 13 can store cooling water CW inside.”)
blowing gas to the workpiece using an air blow nozzle after the workpiece is processed, (Shibazaki, [0174] “… as for the first embodiment described above, the flow (jetting) of inert gas outside from the first space 30a may be started almost at the same time as when supply of the cooling water to tank 13 begins, and the flow (jetting) state of the gas may be maintained at all times until the shaping is completed, regardless of the time of shaping or the time of non-shaping” where the ability to maintain the flow of gas regardless of the time of non-shaping corresponds to the claimed gas blowing before or after the workpiece has been processed.)
wherein a movement trajectory of the air blow nozzle during the gas blowing to the workpiece by the air blow nozzle is limited within a planar shape of the workpiece. (Shibazaki, [0047]-[0048] “Controller 600 calculates position and attitude of the workpiece (or stage 12) by accurately detecting each of the center positions (three-dimensional coordinates) of at least three alignment marks using mark detection system 56… controller 600 performs a least squares processing using the surface shape data and correlates the three-dimensional position and attitude of the object surface on the workpiece with respect to the stage coordinate system”; and [0049] “… a beam irradiation section 520 including a light source system 510 and a condensing optical system 82 that emits beams LB1 and LB2 which are tilted with respect to an optical axis AX within a YZ plane via condensing optical system 82 (terminal lens 82a)… a cover member 30 connected to a lower end of a barrel 85 which holds condensing optical system 82…”
Examiner’s Note: The cover member 30 is attached to the barrel 85 holding the tilting optical system 82 which, enabled by the tilting mechanism of the beam irradiation section 520 and the controller driving the movement of the stage 12, allows the cover member 30 to blow gas indirectly a distance away from the workpiece in addition to at an angle with respect to the optical axis AX while working within the bounds of a predetermined surface or partial area of the target portion of the workpiece, corresponding to the claimed planar shape of the workpiece.)
Claim 7. Shibazaki discloses the thermal processing method according to claim 5,
wherein in processing the workpiece, a liquid level of the liquid is controlled to be higher than an upper surface of the workpiece supported by the container, and (Shibazaki, [0065] “Controller 600 moves stage 12 down by a predetermined distance (corresponding to the thickness of each layer) in the −Z direction… and concurrently controls the supply amount of cooling water CW from outlet portion 20 into tank 13 and the drainage amount of cooling water CW from inside tank 13 via the drain pipe by controlling the first flow control valve 18A and the second flow control valve 18B based on measurement information of water level sensor 26, so that the liquid surface of cooling water CW is maintained to a position a predetermined distance higher (slightly higher) than object surface TAS.”)
in blowing the gas to the workpiece, the liquid level of the liquid is controlled to be lower than the upper surface of the workpiece supported by the container. (Shibazaki, [0102] “When shaping of the Nth layer is completed, the first flow control valve 18A is fully opened by controller 600, and cooling water CW within tank 13 is drained outside via drain pipe 16”; and [0174] “… as for the first embodiment described above, the flow (jetting) of inert gas outside from the first space 30a may be started almost at the same time as when supply of the cooling water to tank 13 begins, and the flow (jetting) state of the gas may be maintained at all times until the shaping is completed, regardless of the time of shaping or the time of non-shaping” where the ability to maintain the flow of gas regardless of the time of non-shaping corresponds to the claimed gas blowing before or after the workpiece has been processed.)
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.
Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibazaki, US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101564 A1 in view of Onodera, JPH08132270 (cited by Applicant on IDS dated 2/21/2024).
Claim 1. Shibazaki discloses a thermal processing device that processes a workpiece using a laser beam or plasma, (Shibazaki, Abstract “The processing system is provided with:… a beam irradiation section which emits beams toward the target portion…” where the target portion is on the workpiece W.)
the thermal processing device comprising: a container that supports the workpiece and is capable of storing a liquid; (Shibazaki, Fig. 2 shows the workpiece mounted on a table equipped in stage 12; and [0035] “…tank 13 may be called a pool or a reservoir. Tank 13 can store cooling water CW inside.”)
an air blow nozzle that blows gas to the workpiece supported by the container; (Shibazaki, [0035] “… when the gas jets out from outlet 30b at the tip of cover member 30… the flow of the inert gas can blow away and remove cooling water CW that exists on a partial area on object surface TAS including target portion TA” where cover member 30 defines the gas supplying system.)
[a controller that controls…] so as to limit a movement trajectory of the air blow nozzle during the gas blowing to the workpiece by the air blow nozzle within a planar shape of the workpiece. (Shibazaki, [0047]-[0048] “Controller 600 calculates position and attitude of the workpiece (or stage 12) by accurately detecting each of the center positions (three-dimensional coordinates) of at least three alignment marks using mark detection system 56… controller 600 performs a least squares processing using the surface shape data and correlates the three-dimensional position and attitude of the object surface on the workpiece with respect to the stage coordinate system” which enables the shaping head section 500, including the gas nozzle, to work within the bounds of a predetermined surface or partial area of the target portion of the workpiece, corresponding to the claimed planar shape of the workpiece; and [0080] “… with shaping system 100, as is shown in FIGS. 2 and 5, after swirling flow SF described above is generated, inert gas jetting out from outlet 30b at the tip of cover member 30 is to be supplied toward target portion TA… the partial area including target portion TA is set locally to a non-liquid-immersion state (dry state), and supply of shaping material PD and irradiation of the beam to the target portion is performed in the local non-liquid-immersion state… and shaping to target portion TA is performed.”)
Shibazaki does not explicitly disclose a drive mechanism that moves the air blow nozzle; and a controller that controls the drive mechanism.
Onodera discloses a drive mechanism that moves the air blow nozzle; and a controller that controls the drive mechanism… (Onodera, [0013]-[0014] “… the processing head 5 is movable in the Z-axis direction by a drive member. Further, a Y-axis carriage 9 is provided integrally with the Z-axis carriage 7… and the Y-axis carriage 9 is moved in the left-right direction (hereinafter referred to as the Y-axis direction…”)
Shibazaki and Onodera are analogous art because they are related to processing a workpiece with a laser beam system. Although Shibazaki does not explicitly disclose a gas nozzle movable with a drive mechanism, it discloses a movement mechanism for the stage 12 movable in six degrees of freedom and a measurement system designed to process the shape of the workpiece which is then correlated to the stage coordinate system to facilitate movement and accuracy of shaping at a target portion on the workpiece (see Shibazaki, [0080]). In addition, the shaping head 500 is taught by Shibazaki to enable movement by tilting with respect to the optical axis AX (see Shibazaki, [0049]). Onodera discloses a processing head 5 similar to Shibazaki’s shaping head 500, equipped with a drive member that enables it to move in a Z-axis direction (vertical) and a Y-axis direction (left-right direction). Onodera also teaches a movable processing table similar to Shibazaki’s movable stage (see Onodera, [0016]-[017]). Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify the shaping head 500 (which includes the gas nozzle) of Shibazaki with the processing head drive mechanism taught by Onodera. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a modification in order to irradiate the target area of the workpiece with more accuracy and higher resolution without being affected by cooling water (see Shibazaki, [0080]).
Claim 2. Modified Shibazaki discloses the thermal processing device according to claim 1,
wherein the air blow nozzle is movable in a vertical direction with respect to the workpiece. (Onodera, [0013]-[0014] “a processing head 5 having a nozzle 3 at the bottom and extends in the vertical direction (hereinafter referred to as the Z-axis direction)… the processing head 5 is movable in the Z-axis direction by a drive member”)
Claim 3. Modified Shibazaki discloses the thermal processing device according to claim 1, further comprising a processing head that includes a laser head or a plasma torch and (Shibazaki, Fig. 2 shows shaping head section 500 corresponding to the claimed processing head, which includes a beam irradiation section 520 corresponding to the claimed laser head.)
is movable with respect to the workpiece, (Shibazaki, [0049] “… a beam irradiation section 520 including a light source system 510 and a condensing optical system 82 that emits beams LB1 and LB2 which are tilted with respect to an optical axis AX within a YZ plane via condensing optical system 82 (terminal lens 82a)…”)
wherein the processing head includes the air blow nozzle. (Shibazaki, Fig. 2 shows shaping head section 500 corresponding to the claimed processing head, which includes a cover member 30 defining the gas supply system corresponding to the claimed air blow nozzle.)
Claim 4. Modified Shibazaki discloses the thermal processing device according to claim 1, wherein the air blow nozzle blows out gas obliquely with respect to an upper surface of the workpiece. (Shibazaki, [0049] “… a beam irradiation section 520 including a light source system 510 and a condensing optical system 82 that emits beams LB1 and LB2 which are tilted with respect to an optical axis AX within a YZ plane via condensing optical system 82 (terminal lens 82a)… a cover member 30 connected to a lower end of a barrel 85 which holds condensing optical system 82…”
Examiner’s Note: The cover member 30 is attached to the barrel 85 holding the tilting optical system 82 which, enabled by the tilting mechanism of the beam irradiation section 520, allows the cover member 30 to blow gas indirectly a distance away from the workpiece in addition to at an angle with respect to the optical axis AX.)
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shibazaki, US Patent Application Publication No. 20200101564 A1, in view of Onodera, JPH08132270 (cited by Applicant on IDS dated 2/21/2024), in further view of Zerust/Excore, “https://www.zerust.com/faq/what-is-a-rust-inhibitor/” (referred to as “Zerust”).
Claim 6. Shibazaki discloses the thermal processing method according to claim 5,
Shibazaki does not explicitly disclose wherein the liquid contains a water substituting agent that improves a water draining property of the workpiece.
Onodera in view of Zerust discloses wherein the liquid contains a water substituting agent that improves a water draining property of the workpiece. (Onodera, [0020] “… by using a rust preventive agent as the cooling water R, it is possible to prevent the workpiece W from rusting…”; and Zerust, Rust Inhibitor page 1 “These products protect metal by leaving behind a continuous physical film or barrier that separates the metal surface from moisture, oxygen and corrosive contaminants that cause rust.”)
Shibazaki and Onodera are analogous art because they are related to processing a workpiece with a laser beam system. Shibazaki does not explicitly disclose the liquid containing a water substituting agent, however Shibazaki teaches that the liquid (CW) supplied may be a liquid other than water (see Shibazaki, [0179]). Onodera discloses the use of a fluid that contains a rust preventative agent as a substitute to the cooling water R, where rust preventative agents typically form a film or barrier that separates a surface from moisture among other contaminants that cause rust as described by Zerust, similar to the water substituting agent defined in paragraph [0055] of the instant specification as “a solvent that peels liquid such as water from a surface of a substance wetted with the liquid. For example, the water substituting agent may act to repel the liquid such as water by forming a monomolecular thin film on the surface of the substance.” Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to simply substitute the cooling water (CW) of Shibazaki with the rust preventative agent taught by Onodera, of which may be further substituted by the specific rust inhibitor products described by Zerust. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make such a substitution in order to prevent the workpiece W from rusting from the moisture and other contaminants introduced during processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRYSTENE NHELLE B MACEDA whose telephone number is (571)272-2380. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 7:30a-5:00p.
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.
/K.B.M./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights