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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 15 December 2025 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 15 December 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the Claim objections. The previous Claim objections have been withdrawn. However, new Claim objections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 USC 112 Claim rejections. The previous 35 USC 112 Claim rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 15 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 11 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. After conducting an updated search, additional references were identified, which teach the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the claims remain rejected in view of the prior art.
Claims 16-17 are 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.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 15 December 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 11-12 have been amended. Claim 21 is new.
Claims 11-21 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 11-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 11-12, recommend removing the double-negative limitations from claims 11 and 12, i.e., “…wherein electromagnetic radiation passes through the transmissive optical element and s to a camera signalof the pollution…” (claim 11) and “electromagnetic radiation emitted by the light source s to the camera signal of the pollution” (claim 12). If the intent is to use closed claim language, then recommend using “consists of.” If a negative claim limitation is intended, then recommend using only one negative instead of a double negative.
In claim 13, recommend amending the claim to recite: “the laser processing head” (line 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
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 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Broger et al. (EP-2894004-B1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written description).
Regarding claim 19, Broger teaches a machine (fig. 1) for carrying out the method according to claim 11 (Broger teaches the required structural limitations for the intended use of the method according to claim 11, i.e., Broger teaches a machine for determining a “degree of contamination of an optical component or protective glass arranged behind the outlet nozzle is determined,” para 0032, which is construed as meeting the intended used of claim 11, which recites: “a method of determining a degree of fouling of a transmissive optical element of a laser processing machine;” MPEP 2114.II), the machine comprising the light source (internal lighting 17, fig. 1) for illuminating the transmissive optical element (para 0059; the lighting 17 is construed as illuminating the interior of the processing head 17 where the glass 14 is located, fig. 1) and electronics (evaluation device 12, fig. 1) equipped and programmed to carry out the analyzing and calculating steps (para 0009).
Regarding claim 20, Broger teaches the machine (fig. 1) comprising the laser processing machine (laser processing device 1, fig. 1) that includes the laser processing head (processing head 4, fig. 1) that comprises the transmissive optical element (protective glass 14, fig. 1).
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.
Claims 11-15 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi (US-20190219522-A1) in view of Hutt et al. (US-20040008342-A1) and Jurca (US-20130258321-A1).
Regarding claim 11, Izumi teaches a method (fig. 5) of determining a degree of fouling of a transmissive optical element (“process of identifying contamination of the protective window 24,” para 0035) of a laser processing machine (device 10, fig. 1) that includes a laser processing head (processing head 25, fig. 1), wherein the laser processing machine is configured for the transmissive optical element (protective window 24, fig. 1) to be intersected by a laser beam propagation axis (v axis, fig. 1) at an intersection position (intersection of the beam with the window 24, fig. 1), and a camera (return light measurement unit 15, fig. 1; “camera,” para 0026) associated with a camera signal (“return light measurement data,” fig. 4), the method comprising steps of:
taking an image (figs. 2C) of the illuminated transmissive optical element (window 24, fig. 1) with the camera (return light measurement unit 15, fig. 1), wherein the image represents pollution of the transmissive optical element (“low intensity portions L caused by scattered light,” para 0022) and the camera is included in the laser processing head (return light measurement unit 15 is inside the processing head 25, fig. 1); and
analyzing the image (fig. 5) and calculating an optical element fouling value (discriminant function, para 0024) by an image processing application (discriminant function generating section 40, fig. 4) installed on the laser processing machine (a computer installed on the laser processing machine is not explicitly disclosed) or a separated computer (numerical control device 13, fig. 4) in communication with the laser processing machine (fig. 4), wherein the optical element fouling value is a quantitative measure of the degree of fouling of the transmissive optical element (the discriminant function is based on an equation of numerical weight values times numerical intensity values, para 0024);
wherein, in calculating the optical element fouling value, the image processing application weights pollution (“w0, w1, and w2 are simply referred to as “weights”,” para 0024) represented in the image based upon a distance of the pollution to the intersection position (the weights multiply the intensity values for P1 and P2, which are based on the distance relative to the origin at the optical axis O, figs. 3A-3B), and
indicating to a user that the transmissive optical element is to be cleaned or removed (para 0038) after the optical element fouling value is raised above a threshold (“when the discriminant function u>0, it can be determined that contamination of the protective window 24 exists,” para 0025; the threshold value is construed as zero).
Izumi, fig. 1
PNG
media_image1.png
1092
1037
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Izumi does not explicitly disclose illuminating the transmissive optical element with a light source configured to emit electromagnetic radiation, wherein the light source is configured to emit the electromagnetic radiation towards the transmissive optical element at a nonzero angle, wherein the nonzero angle is in a range of 90° +/- 25° to the laser beam propagation axis; wherein the light source is positioned such that the electromagnetic radiation passes through the transmissive optical element and does not lead to any of the camera signal, except for the pollution, such that the camera picks up an image of the pollution of the transmissive optical element based on light scattered by the pollution towards the camera.
However, in the same field of endeavor of detecting contamination in laser processing devices, Hutt teaches illuminating the transmissive optical element with a light source (light source 7, fig. 1) configured to emit electromagnetic radiation (light beam 8, fig. 1; para 0024), wherein the light source is configured to emit the electromagnetic radiation towards the transmissive optical element at a nonzero angle (angle of beam 8 relative to vertical axis, fig. 1); wherein the light source is positioned such that the electromagnetic radiation passes through the transmissive optical element (glass 6, fig. 1) and does not lead to any of the camera signal (detector 11 produces a “signal,” para 0023), except for the pollution (scattered light beam 13 reflects off of the splashes 4, fig. 1; the signal that is produced from the detector 11 that is based on the scattered beam 13 is construed as a signal of the pollution from the splashes 4), such that the camera (detector 11, fig. 1) picks up an image of the pollution of the transmissive optical element based on light scattered by the pollution towards the camera (“intensity of the reflected light beam 13 can be evaluated as a measure of the deposit of splashes,” para 0024; fig. 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Izumi, in view of the teachings of Hutt, by using an additional light source 7, as taught by Hutt, to illuminate the contamination on the protective window 24 that is measured by the light measurement unit 15, as taught by Izumi, in order to use an additional light source to measure the soiling of the optical surface, for the advantage of detecting using a separate light source that is independent of process parameters (Hutt, para 0019).
Hutt, fig. 1
PNG
media_image2.png
597
1157
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Izumi/Hutt do not explicitly disclose wherein the nonzero angle is in a range of 90° +/- 25° to the laser beam propagation axis.
However, in the same field of endeavor of detecting contamination in laser processing devices, Jurca teaches wherein the nonzero angle (angle 51, fig. 1) is in a range of 90° +/- 25° to the laser beam propagation axis (“The selected angle of incidence 51 can be smaller or larger or exactly 30°,” para 0038; a range of smaller than 30 degrees is construed as overlapping with the claimed range of 0-25 degrees).
Jurca, fig. 1
PNG
media_image3.png
850
871
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Izumi/Hutt, in view of the teachings of Jurca, by using an angle of less than 30 degrees, as taught by Jurca, for the angle of the beam 8, as taught by Hutt, because there can be different angles of incidence and scattering angles relative to the protective window, but so long as the output signals are detected and the intensity of the scattered radiation is measured, then the degree of contamination on the protective window can be determined (Jurca, paras 0036 and 0039) and since it has been held that in the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP 2144.05 I).
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Izumi in view of Hutt and Jurca as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Hutt teaches wherein the light source (light source 7, fig. 1) is positioned such that electromagnetic radiation (light beam 8, fig. 1; para 0024) emitted by the light source does not contribute to the camera signal except for the pollution (scattered light beam 13 reflects off of the splashes 4, fig. 1; the signal that is produced from the detector 11 that is based on the scattered beam 13 is construed as a signal of the pollution from the splashes 4).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Izumi in view of Hutt and Jurca as set forth above regarding claim 11 teaches the invention of claim 12. Specifically, Hutt teaches wherein the steps of illuminating (illuminating using the light source 7 with beam 8, fig. 1) and of taking the image (detection of the scattered light beam 13 by the detector 11, fig. 1) are carried out while the transmissive optical element is mounted to a laser processing head (“optical element of a processing head,” para 0019) that is equipped to emit the laser beam (beams 1 and 2, fig. 1) onto a workpiece (workpiece 3, fig. 1), the transmissive optical element being a protective glass (protecting glass 6, fig. 1) of the laser processing head (“processing head,” para 0024).
Regarding claim 14, Izumi teaches wherein the step of taking the image (para 0021; step S13, fig. 5) is carried out repeatedly with the camera (“repeated” after step S19, para 0037; fig. 5).
Regarding claim 15, Izumi teaches wherein the step of analyzing (fig. 5) comprises a sub-step (step S14, fig. 5) of counting pollution particles (counting particles is not explicitly disclosed) and/or determining a polluted surface area (area of the protective window 24 when there is an abnormal pattern, fig. 3B).
Regarding claim 21, Izumi teaches the image of the transmissive element (images of the protective window 24, para 0023) is fragmented into concentric zones (annotated in fig. 3A below), with the intersection position being in a center (optical axis O, fig. 3A).
Izumi, fig. 3A (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
254
421
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Izumi (US-20190219522-A1) in view of Hutt et al. (US-20040008342-A1) and Jurca (US-20130258321-A1) as applied to claim 11 above and further in view of Weber et al. (US-20240024987-A1).
Izumi teaches wherein the step of calculating (calculating the discriminant function, para 0024) comprises calculating the optical element fouling value as a weighted sum of a number of pollution particles (a number of pollution articles is not explicitly disclosed) and/or a weighted polluted surface area (the discriminant function is based on a weighted sum of intensity values for the surface areas X1 and X2, para 0024).
Izumi does not explicitly disclose wherein a weight is higher for particles and/or area portions, respectively, at positions closer to the intersection position than for particles and/or area portions further away from the intersection position.
However, in the same field of endeavor of detecting contamination in laser processing devices, Weber teaches wherein a weight is higher for particles and/or area portions, respectively, at positions closer to the intersection position (weights in the decision tree for subsample m, fig. 6; construed as data that is closer to the center) than for particles and/or area portions further away from the intersection position (weights in the decision tree for subsample 1, fig. 6; construed as data that is closer to the periphery; “random forest algorithm,” para 0112; in training the neural network, the weights are randomized, and at least one of the weights for the neurons that weigh the central sensor values are likely to be greater than at least one of the weights for the neurons along the periphery).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Izumi, in view of the teachings of Weber, where in the process of randomizing the weights, as taught by Izumi, the random forest algorithm is used such that multiple branches are considered, calculated, and removed, because there are a number of algorithms that can be used to train a neural network, and in the process of training the neural network, the weights will need to be randomized and updated where the weights w1 that will be randomly become greater than the weights w2, in order for the neural network to learn based on the teaching data so that correct outputs can be generated based on non-training inputs (Izumi, para 0025; Weber, para 0062; if the eight inside weights are randomized, then at the beginning of training, then the probability of at least one inside weight being greater than at least one outside weight is at least: (
1
-
0.5
8
)
=
0.99609375
or at least 99.6%).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 16-17 are 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.
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show “wherein the step of analyzing comprises a step of fragmenting the image into eight zones (A-H) concentric to the intersection position, and wherein the step of calculating comprises assigning a pollution impact value to each zone” of claim 16, where the analyzing step is “analyzing the image and calculating an optical element fouling value by an image processing application installed on the laser processing machine or a separated computer in communication with the laser processing machine, wherein the optical element fouling value is a quantitative measure of the degree of fouling of the transmissive optical element” as recited in claim 11.
The closest prior art of record (Armstrong-Muntner/US-20130293726-A1) teaches a lens detection method based on concentric regions, but Armstrong-Muntner is not analogous art to the claimed invention. Specifically, Armstrong-Muntner does not teach a “laser processing head” or a method for a “laser processing machine” as recited in claim 1. Instead, Armstrong-Muntner teaches a lens inspection method for lenses that are used in electrical components such as cellular phones and computers.
Other references that were considered include Broger, Shioji, and Izumi (US20190219522), which teach contamination-detection methods for laser optical components. However, none of these references teach analyzing an image based on eight concentric zones, as required in claim 16. There is no teaching in the prior art of record that would, reasonably and absent impermissible hindsight, motivate one having ordinary skill in the art to modify the teachings of the prior art to as claimed. The examiner relied on figs. 9-10 and their corresponding descriptions in the Instant Application to understand the aforementioned limitations. Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in claims 11 and 16.
Response to Argument
Applicant’s arguments filed 15 December 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Izumi combined with Hutt and Weber.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Winkler et al. (US-20180151048-A1) teach temperature thresholds for monitoring a protective glass.
Ruggles et al. (US-20190339456-A1) teach concentric zones for fiber connectors.
Binswanger et al. (US-11022563-B2) teach thresholds for monitoring a protective glass
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 Landrum can be reached on 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/17/2026