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.
Response to Amendment
Cancellation of Claims 1-23 in the submission filed 3/8/2024 is acknowledged and accepted.
New Claims 24-51 are acknowledged and accepted.
Pending Claims are 24-51.
Drawings
The drawings with 4 Sheets of Figs. 1-10 received on 3/8/2024 are acknowledged and accepted.
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.
Claim(s) 24-29, 31-32,35-38, 43,45-46,48,50-51, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by de la Cal et al (US 2005/0098545 A1).
Regarding Claim 24, de la Cal teaches (fig 1a-1c) a safety apparatus (safety beam emitter 101, para 36) configured for monitoring a light path of a laser beam (high power laser application beam 105, para 36) and for interrupting the laser beam in response to an approach of an object to the laser beam (“If a person or an object intersects security boundary 107, he or it will absorb or reflect part of the signal from the safety beam emitter, and the intensity on one or more of detectors 102 will decrease. Simple electronic control setup 103, which is integrated with detectors 102, realizes this signal change and causes an alarm to sound and shuts off or blocks high power laser 106”, para 37), comprising:
at least one light barrier device (device with safety beam emitter 101, detector 102, para 37) with
a light source device (safety beam emitter 101, para 36) which is arranged for generating a safety light field (“The imaginary line extending from safety beam emitter 101 to detector 102 defines "security boundary" 107”, para 37) which extends along at least one longitudinal axis which runs parallel to the light path of the laser beam (high power laser application beam 105, para 36) (as in fig 1a) and with
a sensor device (detector 102, para 37) which comprises at least one sensor element (“Detector 102 can be a photodiode”, para 37) and is arranged for detecting the safety light field ("security boundary" 107”, para 37) and generating a sensor signal which is variable by an at least partial covering of the safety light field by the object (“If a person or an object intersects security boundary 107, he or it will absorb or reflect part of the signal from the safety beam emitter, and the intensity on one or more of detectors 102 will decrease”, para 37), and
an interrupter device (electronic control setup 103, para 37) which is coupled to the at least one light barrier device (device with safety beam emitter 101, detector 102, para 37) and is arranged for interrupting the laser beam (high power laser application beam 105, para 36) as a function of a change in the sensor signal of the at least one light barrier device (“Simple electronic control setup 103, which is integrated with detectors 102, realizes this signal change and causes an alarm to sound and shuts off or blocks high power laser 106”, para 37).
Regarding Claim 25, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the light source device (safety beam emitter 101, para 36) is configured for generating the safety light field ("security boundary" 107”, para 37) in a form of a beam tube which extends along the at least one longitudinal axis and radially surrounds the light path of the laser beam (high power laser application beam 105, para 36) (beam tube of 107 as in fig 1a) on at least a half-side.
Regarding Claim 26, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 25,
wherein the light source device (safety beam emitter 101, para 36) is configured for generating the safety light field ("security boundary" 107”, para 37) in a form of a beam tube which extends along the at least one longitudinal axis and radially surrounds the light path of the laser beam (high power laser application beam 105, para 36) on all sides (as in fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 27, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 25,
wherein the beam tube has a shape of a straight circular cylinder or a cone shape (beam tube has cone shape as in fig 1).
Regarding Claim 28, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the safety light field ("security boundary" 107”, para 37) has a cross-sectional shape which, in relation to the light path of the laser beam (high power laser application beam 105, para 36), extends radially over at least one angular section of less than 180 deg (cross section of beam 104 or boundary 107 extends over a section less than 180 deg as in fig 1a).
Regarding Claim 29, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the light source device (safety beam emitter 101, para 36) comprises one single light source with a divergent beam field (“The divergence angle of emitted safety beam 104”, para 39) and a beam shaping device (“Safety beam 305 enters objective/collimator 307 and is shaped by suitable lenses 309 to create the desired divergence”, para 23, fig 3) arranged to shape the safety light field from the divergent beam field.
Regarding Claim 31, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24.
wherein the light source device (safety beam emitter 101, para 36) comprises a plurality of light sources arranged for shaping the safety light field (“additional safety beam emitters 101 can be placed around process area 108. Additionally, detectors 102 can be placed at a greater distance from application beam source to establish a wider security boundary. An example of such a configuration is illustrated in FIG. 1b”, para 37).
Regarding Claim 32, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the sensor device (detector 102, para 37) comprises a light-sensitive sensor area (light sensitive area of detectors 102) adapted to a cross-sectional shape of the safety light field ("security boundary" 107”, para 37) (“Detector 202 is a photodiode with an interference filter centered at the emission line of safety laser beam 206”, para 41, fig 2).
Regarding Claim 35, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the at least one sensor element (“Detector 102 can be a photodiode”, para 37) comprises a photoresistor or a photodiode.
Regarding Claim 36, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the at least one sensor element (“Detector 102 can be a photodiode”, para 37) is provided with a beam collector which is configured for collecting the safety light field at the at least one sensor element (a detector with a photodiode typically has a beam collector which focuses the light onto the photodiode).
.
Regarding Claim 37, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the sensor device (“detectors 102”, para 37) comprises a plurality of sensor elements connected in series (two detectors 102 connected in series with electronic control setup 103, fig 1).
Regarding Claim 38, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the sensor device (“detectors 102”, para 37) comprises a stray light shield (interference filter, para 37) which extends at an end portion of the safety light field on the sensor device along the at least one longitudinal axis (“An example of a detector according to the present invention is shown in FIG. 4. Photodiode 401 is connected to interference filter 403 centered at a desired wavelength”, para 24, filter 403 is along the longitudinal axis in fig 4)) and is arranged for shielding the safety light field from ambient light (“whose center wavelength equals that of safety beam emitter 101”, para 37, “because the detector system, such as one or more photodiodes having certain filters, only absorbs the wavelengths emitted by the safety beam emitter(s), any interference with noise, such as ambient light, is minimized”, para 34).
Regarding Claim 43, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein the at least one light barrier device (device with safety beam emitter 101, detector 102, para 37) and the interrupter device (electronic control setup 103, para 37) comprise axially extending passage openings which leave the light path of the laser beam free (as in fig 1).
Regarding Claim 45, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein: the light source device (safety beam emitter 101, para 36) is configured for a modulated operation such that a modulation is applied on the safety light field ("security boundary" 107”, para 37), and the sensor device is coupled to an evaluation device which configured for detecting the modulation of the safety light field and for generating the sensor signal only when the modulation of the safety light field is detected (“If a person or an object intersects security boundary 107, he or it will absorb or reflect part of the signal from the safety beam emitter, and the intensity on one or more of detectors 102 will decrease. Simple electronic control setup 103, which is integrated with detectors 102, realizes this signal change and causes an alarm to sound and shuts off or blocks high power laser 106”, para 37).
Regarding Claim 46, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24,
wherein one single light barrier device (device with safety beam emitter 101, detector 102, para 37) is provided, wherein the light source device (safety beam emitter 101) and the sensor device (detector 102) are arranged at the ends of a light path of the laser beam to be monitored (101 and 102 at the ends of the light path, fig 1).
Regarding Claim 48, de la Cal teaches (fig 1a-1c) a laser apparatus (safety beam emitter 101, para 36, high power laser source 106, para 37), comprising: -
a laser source device (high power laser source 106, para 37) configured for generating a laser beam along a light path, and
the safety apparatus (safety beam emitter 101, para 36) according to claim 24, which is arranged for monitoring the light path of the laser beam and for interrupting the laser beam in response to an approach of an object to the laser beam (“If a person or an object intersects security boundary 107, he or it will absorb or reflect part of the signal from the safety beam emitter, and the intensity on one or more of detectors 102 will decrease. Simple electronic control setup 103, which is integrated with detectors 102, realizes this signal change and causes an alarm to sound and shuts off or blocks high power laser 106”, para 37).
Regarding Claim 50, de la Cal teaches a method of using the safety apparatus according to claim 24, including
a step of securing an operating area (“It is further object of the present invention to provide a safety system and method that defines a restricted area to prevent persons or objects from coming in contact with a laser beam or other potentially dangerous emission.”, para 15) between at least one laser source device (high power laser source 106, para 37) and a fusion reactor (medical or industrial application, para 16)
("While features of an apparatus may be recited either structurally or functionally, claims directed to an apparatus must be distinguished from the prior art in terms of structure rather than function. See MPEP § 2113; In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477-78, 44 USPQ2d 1429, 1431-32 (Fed. Cir. 1997); In re Swinehart, 439 F.2d 210, 212-13, 169 USPQ 226, 228-29 (CCPA 1971); In re Danly, 263 F.2d 844, 847, 120 USPQ 528, 531 (CCPA 1959). “Apparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does.” Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original, MPEP §2114). The recitation of “a fusion reactor” is a functional limitation and is an industrial application)
Regarding Claim 51, de la Cal teaches a method for monitoring a light path of a laser beam (high power laser application beam 105, para 36) and for interrupting the laser beam in response to an approach of an object to the laser beam, wherein the safety apparatus according to claim 24 is used, comprising the steps of:
generating the at least one safety light field ("security boundary" 107”, para 37) and detecting the at least one sensor signal of the at least one light barrier device (device with safety beam emitter 101, detector 102, para 37), which corresponds to an undisturbed safety light field, and
actuating of the interrupter device (electronic control setup 103, para 37) in the event of a change in the at least one sensor signal as a result of at least partial coverage of the at least one safety light field by the object, so that the laser beam is interrupted (“If a person or an object intersects security boundary 107, he or it will absorb or reflect part of the signal from the safety beam emitter, and the intensity on one or more of detectors 102 will decrease. Simple electronic control setup 103, which is integrated with detectors 102, realizes this signal change and causes an alarm to sound and shuts off or blocks high power laser 106”, para 37)
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.
Claim(s) 33,34,44,49, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de la Cal et al (US 2005/0098545 A1) in view of Giesen et al (DE 10 2013114773 A1, of record).
Regarding Claim 33, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 32.
However, de la Cal does not teach
wherein the light-sensitive sensor area of the sensor device has a shape of a half circular ring.
de la Cal and Giesen are related as light sensitive areas of sensor device.
Giesen teaches (fig 8),
wherein the light-sensitive sensor area (envelope monitoring 42’ with ring 162, pixel arrays 164, para 169) of the sensor device (detectors 74, 76, para 149) has a shape of a complete circular ring (as in fig 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of de la Cal to include the circular ring of Giesen for the purpose of using technique to improve operational reliability of envelope monitoring systems (para 5).
However, de la Cal does not teach
wherein the light-sensitive sensor area has a shape of a half circular ring.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have the light-sensitive sensor area to have a shape of a half circular ring since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination, In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to an ordinarily skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select the shape of the light sensitive sensor area to be a half circular ring for the purpose of optimizing sensor size.
One would have been motivated to have the area of the sensor device to have half a circular shape to have an optimal light sensitive area balancing a desired effectiveness of sensor size and desired accuracy in detecting foreign objects.
Regarding Claim 34, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 32.
However, de la Cal does not teach
wherein the light-sensitive sensor area of the sensor device has a shape of a complete circular ring.
de la Cal and Giesen are related as light sensitive areas of sensor device.
Giesen teaches (fig 8),
wherein the light-sensitive sensor area (envelope monitoring 42’ with ring 162, pixel arrays 164, para 169) of the sensor device (detectors 74, 76, para 149) has a shape of a complete circular ring (as in fig 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of de la Cal to include the circular ring of Giesen for the purpose of using technique to improve operational reliability of envelope monitoring systems (para 5).
Regarding Claim 44, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24.
However, de la Cal does not teach
wherein the light source device, a ring mirror and the sensor device are arranged such that the safety light field extends from the light source device via the ring mirror to the sensor device.
de la Cal and Giesen are related as safety apparatus
Giesen teaches (fig 1),
wherein the light source device (laser source 52, para 142), a ring mirror (reflector unit 64, fig 1, para 144) and the sensor device (detectors 74, 76, para 149) are arranged such that the safety light field extends from the light source device via the ring mirror to the sensor device (“The totality of the sensor laser beams 58 forms a sensor radiation field 62, which extends essentially parallel to the energy-transmitting laser beam 14 over its entire extent between the transmitting unit 12 and the receiving unit 16 and meets a reflector unit 64 of the enclosing monitoring associated with the receiving unit 16, which extends, for example, in a ring shape around the receiving unit, for example around the beam receiving optics 32”, para 144).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de la Cal to include ring mirror of Giesen for the purpose of using technique to improve operational reliability of envelope monitoring systems (para 5).
Regarding Claim 49, de la Cal teaches the laser apparatus according to claim 48.
However, de la Cal does not teach
wherein the light source device of the at least one light barrier device and the interrupter device are part of the laser source device and/or are fixedly coupled thereto.
de la Cal and Giesen are related as safety apparatus
Giesen teaches (fig 1),
wherein the light source device (laser source 52, para 142), of the at least one light barrier device and the interrupter device (evaluation unit 82, para 149) are part of the laser source device (energy transmitting laser beam 14, para 142) and/or are fixedly coupled thereto (as in fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the device of de la Cal to include fixed coupling of Giesen for the purpose of using technique to improve operational reliability of envelope monitoring systems (para 5).
Claim(s) 39,42, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de la Cal et al (US 2005/0098545 A1) in view of Toutain et al (FR 2 942 525).
Regarding Claim 39, de la Cal teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 24.
However, de la Cal does not teach
wherein: the interrupter device comprises a beam blocker and a drive device coupled to the sensor device, wherein the beam blocker is movable with the drive device into or out of the light path of the laser beam in dependency on the sensor signal of the sensor device.
de la Cal and Toutain are related as interrupter devices.
Toutain teaches (fig 1,2),
wherein: the interrupter device comprises a beam blocker (obstruction means 4, para 9) and a drive device (electromagnet 6, “The holding of the movable body 40 in the open position is ensured by an electro-magnet 6”, para 9) coupled to the sensor device (“includes a source 2 emitting a light beam and a sensor receiving said light beam, facing it”, para 8), wherein the beam blocker is movable with the drive device into or out of the light path of the laser beam in dependency on the sensor signal of the sensor device (“When the moving body 40 is in the open position, the electromagnet 6 is powered by an electric current and creates an electromagnetic force that holds the moving body 40 in place. When the operator crosses the light beam, the control means of device 1 cut off the power supply to the electromagnet 6, which has the effect of canceling the action of the electromagnetic force and thus freeing the moving body 40, which was obstructing the light beam. This configuration is shown in Fig. 2 where the moving body 40 is in the so-called closed position, obstructing the light beam by shielding it from the source 2”, para 10).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the sensor device of de la Cal to include the beam blocker of Toutain for the purpose of providing additional security to the safety light curtain and preventing accidental resetting of the curtain (para 3).
Regarding Claim 42, de la Cal-Toutain teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 39,
wherein the beam blocker comprises a shutter (“the application source is shut off completely or a device, such as a shutter for laser applications, is activated to temporarily block the application beam until the application source is correctly aimed or the obstruction is cleared”, para 32, “the laser will be shut off or blocked with a shutter or other mechanism”, para 41, de la Cal) contained in a laser source device for generating the laser beam.
Claim(s) 40, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over de la Cal et al (US 2005/0098545 A1) in view of Toutain et al (FR 2 942 525) and further in view of Erube et al (JP H07148590 A).
Regarding Claim 40, de la Cal-Toutain teaches the safety apparatus according to claim 39.
However, de la Cal-Toutain does not teach wherein the beam blocker has at least one of the features: the beam blocker comprises a synthetic foam material, the beam blocker comprises a clear, non-absorbent translucent plastic, and the beam blocker comprises PTFE.
de la Cal-Toutain and Erube are related as beam blockers.
Erube teaches (fig 1),
wherein the beam blocker (disc 16, para 8) has at least one of the features: the beam blocker comprises a synthetic foam material, the beam blocker comprises a clear, non-absorbent translucent plastic, and the beam blocker comprises PTFE (“the constituent material of the disk 16 is polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)”, para 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the beam blocker of de la Cal-Toutain to include the material of Erube for the purpose of protection from laser beam using common materials.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 30, 41,47, objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claim 30 is allowable for at least the reason:
“the beam shaping device comprises a mirror arrangement with a deflection mirror and a collimating mirror, and the light source is arranged radially spaced from the at least one longitudinal axis, wherein the deflection mirror is arranged for deflecting the divergent beam field of the light source towards the at least one longitudinal axis and the collimation mirror is arranged for shaping the safety light field parallel or divergent relative to the at least one longitudinal axis. “
Claim 41 is allowable for at least the reason “wherein the beam blocker has a shape of a hollow cylinder which is pivotable about a transverse axis perpendicular to the at least one longitudinal axis such that the beam blocker clears the light path of the laser beam in a non- pivoted state and blocks the light path of the laser beam in a pivoted state.”
Claim 47 is allowable for at least the reason “at least two light barrier devices are provided, which are arranged consecutively to one another on the light path of the laser beam to be monitored, wherein the light source device and the sensor device of each of the at least two light barrier devices are arranged at ends of a respective section of the safety light field of the light path of the laser beam to be monitored, wherein- the interrupter device is coupled to each light barrier device and is arranged for interrupting the laser beam dependent on a change in the sensor signal from at least one of the light barrier devices.”
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LaValley et al (US 8,576,382 B2) teaches a safety apparatus with an eye-safe light source and a non-eye-safe laser source and an interrupter device.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JYOTSNA V DABBI whose telephone number is (571)270-3270. The examiner can normally be reached M-Fri: 9:00am-5:00pm.
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, STEPHONE ALLEN can be reached at 571-272-2434. 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.
/JYOTSNA V DABBI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872 3/18/2026