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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments see remarks filed 12/15/2025 have been fully considered are addressed below:
Applicant’s amendments overcome the objection to claim 11 (see remarks page 7). The objection of the claim has been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments no longer invoke 112f (see remarks page 7). The claim interpretation under 112f is moot.
Applicant’s amendment’s and arguments (see remarks page 7) overcome the 112b rejections of claims 1-12. The 112b rejections of the claims have been withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 102/103 rejections of claims 1-12 (see remarks page 8-9) have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Specifically, the applicant argues regarding claim 1 (see remarks page 9) that the cited prior art does not teach or suggest “a controller is configured to set a contamination threshold for detecting the contamination on the protective glass from a detection value based on the processing conditions of the laser processing machine. The processing conditions of the laser processing machine include laser conditions of the laser beam emitted while processing. The laser conditions include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a duty ratio of the laser beam, or include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a pulse width of the laser beam.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Firstly, Hiroaki teaches that the processing conditions of the laser processing machine include laser conditions of the laser beam emitted while processing ([0031] threshold selection unit 62 selects an exchange threshold according to the material and the fiber laser oscillator; the fiber laser oscillator sets the conditions of the laser beam; [0035] exchange threshold values set according to the reflectance of the laser beam). Additionally, Hiroaki teaches that a controller is configured to set a contamination threshold for detecting the contamination on the protective glass from a detection value based on the processing conditions of the laser processing machine ([0026] monitoring controller 52 has a function as a threshold value registration unit 60, and the CPU of the monitoring controller 52 has a function as a threshold value selection unit 62 and a function as an exchange determination unit 64).
Although Hiroaki teaches that the processing conditions include information about the laser oscillator ([0031]), Hiroaki does not explicitly teach wherein the laser conditions of the laser beam include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a duty ratio of the laser beam. However, Fujii was relied upon to teach this limitation. Fujii teaches that specific examples of the operating conditions of the laser oscillator 2 included in the above processing conditions include laser output intensity, a laser output frequency, a duty ratio of laser output, a mode, a waveform, a wavelength, and the like ([0032]). Thus, it would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that laser conditions would include peak output value, pulse frequency, and the duty ratio of the laser beam as these are inherent characteristics of a laser oscillator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hiroaki to include wherein the laser conditions of the laser beam include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a duty ratio of the laser beam as suggested by Fujii in order to improve error by considering all available variables of the laser oscillator.
Further, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that even considering that Hiroaki and Fujii do not explicitly teach a pulse frequency or pulse width of the laser beam, it is common and known in the art as evidenced by Kubota. Kubota teaches laser conditions can include a pulse frequency ([0049] The oscillator 11 a of the emitter 100 is controlled by the controller 16 to generate a pulse signal. The first driver 11 b drives the light source 11 based on the pulse signal generated by the oscillator 11 a.).
Further, the applicant argues regarding claim 9 (see remarks page 9), that “while Eguchi discloses “a beam diameter”, Fujii does not teach or suggest setting a contamination threshold for detecting the contamination on the protective glass from a detection value based on laser conditions including a gain correction value indicating a degree of change in the beam diameter from a case where the beam diameter of the laser beam is the beam waist diameter to a case where the beam diameter is greater than the beam waist diameter. Accordingly, even if Hiroaki and Eguchi are combined, the above-mentioned features and the features recited in dependent claim 9 cannot be obtained.”
However, the examiner respectfully disagrees. Additionally, the examiner is unsure why Fuiji is being argued in reference to claim 9 and believes the applicant intended to further address Eguchi which teaches the laser conditions of the laser beam include a gain correction value indicating a degree of change in the beam diameter from a case where the beam diameter of the laser beam is the beam waist diameter to a case where the beam diameter is greater than the beam waist diameter ([0019] The signal from the A / D converter 4a is used as a gain correction memory 44 and a beam diameter correction memory 46. And is fed back to the gain correction gate array 43 and the beam diameter correction gate array 45, respectively). Thus, as the gain correction value is a well-known laser condition, and Hiroaki sets the contamination threshold based on laser conditions, it would be obvious to modify Hiroaki to include the gain correction value when setting the contamination threshold in order to reduce measurement error by correcting the detector output.
Further, the applicant argues regarding claim 10 (see remarks page 9) that “regarding dependent claim 10, Kubota does not overcome the deficiency of Hiroaki by teaching or suggesting the features recited in dependent claim 10. Even if Hiroaki and Kubota are combined, therefore, the features recited in dependent claim 10 cannot be obtained.”
However, the examiner is not sure what argument the applicant is making regarding Kubota which was relied upon to address basic sensor characteristics that would be well-known to someone of ordinary skill in the art. It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that sensor characteristics would include rise and fall times (response time) and sampling frequency in order to accurately process sensor output thus reducing measurement error.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-7, and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki (JP2020151752; previously cited) in view of Fuiji (US 20210162544 A; previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Hiroaki teaches a protective glass contamination detection device (at least Fig. 1-5) configured to detect contamination ([0031] degree of contamination) on a protective glass (48) for protecting a focusing lens (38) for focusing a laser beam to irradiate the focused laser beam onto a workpiece (work material W) in a laser processing machine ([0021]), comprising:
a sensor configured to detect scattered light caused by the contamination adhered to the protective glass (photodetector 50; [0025]); and
a controller configured to receive a detection signal from the sensor, wherein the controller is configured ([0026] monitoring controller 52 has a function as a threshold value registration unit 60, and the CPU of the monitoring controller 52 has a function as a threshold value selection unit 62 and a function as an exchange determination unit 64).:
to acquire information on processing conditions of the laser processing machine (threshold value registration unit 60; [0028] is a table that contains values related to the laser processing conditions which are at least the reflectance values of the laser beam based on the work material);
to obtain a detection value that is a digital signal based on the detection signal ([0025]);
to set a contamination threshold for detecting the contamination on the protective glass from the detection value detected by the scattered light detection unit based on the processing conditions of the laser processing machine (threshold value selection unit 62; [0031] the threshold related to the conditions is selected); and
to determine a degree of the contamination on the protective glass based on the detection value and the contamination threshold (exchange determination unit 64; [0032]-[0036] determines whether detection value exceeds threshold value, when detection value exceeds threshold, the glass needs to be exchanged due to contamination; [0036]) and
wherein the processing conditions of the laser processing machine include laser conditions of the laser beam emitted while processing ([0031] threshold selection unit 62 selects an exchange threshold according to the material and the fiber laser oscillator; the fiber laser oscillator sets the conditions of the laser beam; [0035] exchange threshold values set according to the reflectance of the laser beam; thus laser conditions).
Although Hiroaki teaches that the processing conditions include information about the laser oscillator ([0031]), Hiroaki does not explicitly teach wherein the laser conditions include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a duty ratio of the laser beam, or include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a pulse width of the laser beam.
However, Fujii does address this limitation. Fujii and Hiroaki are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of laser processing.
Fujii teaches that specific examples of the operating conditions of the laser oscillator 2 included in the above processing conditions include laser output intensity, a laser output frequency, a duty ratio of laser output, a mode, a waveform, a wavelength, and the like ([0032]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that laser conditions would include peak output value, pulse frequency, and the duty ratio of the laser beam as these are inherent characteristics of a laser oscillator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hiroaki to include wherein the laser conditions of the laser beam include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a duty ratio of the laser beam as suggested by Fujii in order to improve error by considering all available variables of the laser oscillator.
Regarding claim 2, Hiroaki modified by Fuiji teaches the device according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the processing conditions of the laser processing machine include an item for adjusting an average output per unit time of the laser beam emitted while processing ([0020] fiber laser oscillator 26 is an item that can adjust the power of the laser beam; [0022] oscillator is controlled by numerical control NC 40 which also contains the machine processing selections or laser processing conditions; the examiner notes that the term “item” is broad and could be interpreted as anything that performs the function).
Regarding claim 3, Hiroaki modified by Fuiji teaches the device according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the processing conditions of the laser processing machine include an item for adjusting an irradiation area of the laser beam irradiating the protective glass while processing ([0023] NC device 40 drives the X-axis motor 20 and the Y-axis motor 24 to move the laser processing head 28 with respect to the work material W; thus the irradiation area is changed; [0022] NC device is numerical control that has a function as a machining condition registration unit 42 for registering a plurality of machining conditions including the material and plate thickness (thickness) of the work material W, the type of assist gas, the machining speed, and the like, thus relates to the processing conditions; the examiner notes that the term “item” is broad and could be interpreted as anything that performs the function).
Regarding claim 5, Hiroaki modified by Fuiji teaches the device according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the processing conditions of the laser processing machine include sensor characteristics of the scattered light detection unit ([0035] exchange determination unit 64 compares the detected value of the photodetector 50 with the selected exchange threshold value; [0025] outputs an electric signal (voltage signal or current signal) according to the scattered light intensity; [0026] amplifies the electric signal output from the photodetector 50 to cut noise; where the electric signal output and noise are considered sensor characteristics).
Even if Hiroaki does not explicitly describe the sensor characteristics as part of the processing conditions used by the contamination threshold setting unit, basing calculations off of sensor characteristics is common and known in the art and would at least be obvious in determining the reflectance values ([0035]) used by the contamination threshold setting unit.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that the processing conditions of the laser processing machine include sensor characteristics of the scattered light detection unit in order to yield predictable results when performing calculations.
Regarding claim 6, Hiroaki modified by Fuiji teaches the device according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the processing conditions of the laser processing machine include mechanical specifications of the laser processing machine emitting the laser beam ([0022] NC device 40 has a function as a machining condition registration unit 42 for registering a plurality of machining conditions).
Regarding claim 7, Hiroaki modified by Fuiji teaches the device according to claim 1 and further teaches wherein the controller is configured to select a contamination threshold calculation formula for setting the contamination threshold based on the processing conditions of the laser processing machine ([0029]; Fig. 4 shows table of threshold values, for example No. 1 if the workpiece material is steel, the threshold detector value is 50), and to calculate the contamination threshold based on the selected contamination threshold calculation formula ([0029]; under the broadest reasonable interpretation, this table would be considered a formula since a selected value is input, such as material, and the threshold value is output).
Regarding claim 11, Hiroaki modified by Fuiji teaches the device according to claim 6, and although Hiroaki does not explicitly teach wherein the mechanical specifications of the laser processing machine emitting the laser beam include an arbitrary variable determined by the mechanical specifications of the laser processing machine emitting the laser beam and sensor specifications of the sensor, and an arbitrary variable determined by characteristics of the protective glass, these limitations are common and known in the art and at least would be obvious. Each of the laser beam, scattered light detection unit, and protective glass inherently have associated arbitrary values that would be needed to perform calculations related to the reflectance of the laser on the glass ([0035]). Examples would be the wavelength of the laser, a voltage of the sensor (for calibration), or the index of refraction of the protective glass.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include wherein the mechanical specifications of the laser processing machine emitting the laser beam include an arbitrary variable determined by the mechanical specifications of the laser processing machine emitting the laser beam and sensor specifications of the sensor, and an arbitrary variable determined by the characteristics of the protective glass in order to yield predictable results when performing calculations.
Regarding claim 12, Hiroaki teaches a protective glass contamination detection method (at least Fig. 1-5) of detecting contamination ([0031] degree of contamination on a protective glass (48) for protecting a focusing lens (38) for focusing a laser beam to irradiate the focused laser beam onto a workpiece (work material W) in a laser processing machine ([0021]), comprising:
detecting scattered light caused by the contamination adhered to the protective glass(photodetector 50; [0025]);
acquiring information on processing conditions of the laser processing machine (threshold value registration unit 60; [0028] is a table that contains values related to the laser processing conditions which are at least the reflectance values of the laser beam based on the work material);
setting a contamination threshold for detecting the contamination on the protective glass from a detection value detected for the scattered light based on the processing conditions of the laser processing machine (threshold value selection unit 62; [0031] the threshold related to the conditions is selected); and
determining a degree of the contamination on the protective glass based on the detection value of the scattered light and the contamination threshold (exchange determination unit 64; [0032]-[0032] determines whether detection value exceeds threshold value, when detection value exceeds threshold, the glass needs to be exchanged due to contamination; [0036]).
wherein the processing conditions of the laser processing machine include laser conditions of the laser beam emitted while processing ([0031] threshold selection unit 62 selects an exchange threshold according to the material and the fiber laser oscillator; the fiber laser oscillator sets the conditions of the laser beam; [0035] exchange threshold values set according to the reflectance of the laser beam; thus laser conditions).
Although Hiroaki teaches that the processing conditions include information about the laser oscillator ([0031]), Hiroaki does not explicitly teach wherein the laser conditions include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a duty ratio of the laser beam, or include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a pulse width of the laser beam.
However, Fujii does address this limitation. Fujii and Hiroaki are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of laser processing.
Fujii teaches that specific examples of the operating conditions of the laser oscillator 2 included in the above processing conditions include laser output intensity, a laser output frequency, a duty ratio of laser output, a mode, a waveform, a wavelength, and the like ([0032]).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that laser conditions would include peak output value, pulse frequency, and the duty ratio of the laser beam as these are inherent characteristics of a laser oscillator. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hiroaki to include wherein the laser conditions of the laser beam include a laser peak output value of the laser beam emitted while processing, a pulse frequency of the laser beam, and a duty ratio of the laser beam as suggested by Fujii in order to improve error by considering all available variables of the laser oscillator.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki in view of Fuiji applied to claim 1 above and in further in view of JPH06255172A by Eguchi et al. (hereinafter "Eguchi"; translation provided; previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Hiroaki modified by Fuiji teaches the device according to claim 1, and although Hiroaki teaches that the processing conditions include information about the laser oscillator ([0031]), Hiroaki does not explicitly teach wherein
a beam diameter of the laser beam during irradiation of the upper surface of the workpiece with the laser beam is variable from a beam waist diameter to a beam diameter greater than the beam waist diameter by changing a focus position by an optical system element; and
the laser conditions of the laser beam include a gain correction value indicating a degree of change in the beam diameter from a case where the beam diameter of the laser beam is the beam waist diameter to a case where the beam diameter is greater than the beam waist diameter.
However, Eguchi does address this limitation. Eguchi and Hiroaki are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of laser beam detection.
Eguchi teaches a beam diameter of the laser beam during irradiation of the upper surface of the workpiece with the laser beam is variable from a beam waist diameter to a beam diameter greater than the beam waist diameter changing a focus position by an optical system element ([0019] laser beam adjusted to a desired beam diameter by the signals from the laser driving circuit 2 and the collimator lens driving circuit; [0024]-[0025]; collimator lens focus position is used to change beam diameter); and
the laser conditions of the laser beam include a gain correction value indicating a degree of change in the beam diameter from a case where the beam diameter of the laser beam is the beam waist diameter to a case where the beam diameter is greater than the beam waist diameter ([0019] The signal from the A / D converter 4a is used as a gain correction memory 44 and a beam diameter correction memory 46. And is fed back to the gain correction gate array 43 and the beam diameter correction gate array 45, respectively).
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to change the beam diameter and include a gain correction value as part of the laser conditions. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hiroaki to include wherein a beam diameter of the laser beam during irradiation of the upper surface of the workpiece with the laser beam is variable from a beam waist diameter to a beam diameter greater than the beam waist diameter by changing a focus position by an optical system element; and the laser conditions of the laser beam include a gain correction value indicating a degree of change in the beam diameter from a case where the beam diameter of the laser beam is the beam waist diameter to a case where the beam diameter is greater than the beam waist diameter as suggested by Eguchi in order to reduce measurement error by correcting the detector output.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroaki in view of Fuiji applied to claim 5 above and in further in view of Kubota.(US20220082694A1; previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Hiroaki modified by Fuiji teaches the device according to claim 5, and although Hiroaki teaches that the processing conditions include information about the sensor characteristics including output signals and noise ([0035]; [0025]-[0026]), Hiroaki does not explicitly teach wherein the sensor characteristics of the scattered light detection unit include a sensor rise time, which is a time required for a detection signal of the scattered light detection unit to reach a peak value from an initial voltage, a sensor fall time, which is a time required for the detection signal to fall from the peak value to the initial voltage, and a sampling frequency of the detection signal.
Kubota does further teach these limitations. Kubota and Hiroaki are considered to be analogous to the present invention as they are in the same field of laser detection.
Kubota teaches wherein the sensor characteristics of the scattered light detection unit include a sensor rise time, which is a time required for a detection signal of the scattered light detection unit to reach a peak value from an initial voltage, a sensor fall time, which is a time required for the detection signal to fall from the peak value to the initial voltage, and a sampling frequency of the detection signal (Fig. 18; [0117] FIG. 18 is a simplified diagram of an example of rise times Tr1a and Tr1b and fall times Td1a and Td1b of measurement signals by the detector 232. [0118] peak timing TP)
It would have been well known to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention that sensor characteristics would include rise and fall times (response time) and sampling frequency. Therefore, it would have been obvious to modify Hiroaki to include wherein the sensor characteristics of the scattered light detection unit include a sensor rise time, which is a time required for a detection signal of the scattered light detection unit to reach a peak value from an initial voltage, a sensor fall time, which is a time required for the detection signal to fall from the peak value to the initial voltage, and a sampling frequency of the detection signal as suggested by Kubota in order to accurately process sensor output thus reducing measurement error ([0119]).
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KAITLYN E KIDWELL whose telephone number is (703)756-1719. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8 a.m. - 5 p.m. ET.
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, Tarifur Chowdhury can be reached at 571-272-2287. 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.
/KAITLYN E KIDWELL/Examiner, Art Unit 2877
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877