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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. As per claim 15 the claim limitation recites the phrase, “the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium." [0016] provides a definition for the term, "computer readable storage medium," which excludes transitory signals per se; however, the phrase in claim 15 ("computer-readable tangible storage medium") is somewhat different and thus may not be limited by the above paragraph. Thus, the phrase is not clearly limited to a non-transitory computer readable medium. When the specification is silent, the BRI of a CRM and a computer readable storage media (CRSM) in view of the state of the art covers a signal per se. See Ex parte Mewherter, 2012-007962 (PTAB, 2013). Therefore, the claim must be rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 101 as covering non-statutory subject matter. See In re Nuijten, 500 F.3d 1346, 1356-57 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (transitory embodiments are not directed to statutory subject matter).
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 of this title, 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.
Claims 1, 8 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galt (WO2025213252) in view of Wersborg (US 2013/0178952).
Regarding claim 1, Galt teaches a computer-based method of dynamic control of operational parameters in laser-based sheet metal cutting, the method comprising:
receiving real-time and historical data from one or more sources in a sheet metal cutting
environment (page 17, lines 15-22; page 23, lines 12-26; page 33, lines 6-19, the Galt invention can be applied and utilized in the context of laser cutting and sheet metal processing; Abstract, the system receives time series data in real time from operations from any subcomponent in the system e.g., the laser cutting system; page 25, lines 9-26, historical time series data can also be received and used for training a machine learning model);
identifying one or more specifications of the piece of sheet metal based on the real-time data (page 33, lines 11-18, the collected data can measure material properties of the material being processed e.g., the sheet metal; page 12, lines 23-28, an inspection system can be used to collect parameters of an object being processed, such as physical attributes e.g., dimensions, weight etc.)
computing one or more operational parameters during a cutting of a piece of sheet metal
based on the real-time data (page 17, lines 15-22; page 23, lines 12-26, the system can obtain real-time measurements of a wide variety of parameters e.g., pressure, flow rates etc.; the system may apply computations to the raw data e.g., pre-processing, filtering etc.);
determining whether a problem condition occurs in one or more regions of the piece of sheet metal based on the one or more specifications (page 29, lines 9-28; page 25, lines 1-5; page 28, lines 4-20, the system can determine whether an anomaly exists in a system subcomponent or in a physical property of a material being processed e.g., the sheet metal; the system may also predict such anomalies, based on the collected and analyzed time-series data);
based on determining the problem condition occurs in at least one region of the one or more regions, correlating the one or more operational parameters with the at least one region where the problem condition occurred (page 35, lines 8-30, the system may determine a root cause of the anomaly using a machine learning model; the system may determine that an operational parameter is related to the anomaly, and that an adjustment of the operating parameter is needed);
identifying at least one operational parameter that resulted in the problem condition based on the correlation (page 35, lines 8-30, the system may determine a root cause of the anomaly using a machine learning model; the system may determine that an operational parameter is related to the anomaly, and that an adjustment of the operating parameter is needed; and
adapting the at least one operational parameter such that the problem condition is eliminated based on the historical data (page 35, lines 8-30, using the machine learning model, the system may determine a root cause of the anomaly using a machine learning model; the system may determine that an operational parameter is related to the anomaly, and that an adjustment of the operating parameter is needed to correct the anomaly; the machine learning model and the above determinations are based on historical data).
However, Galt does not expressly disclose identifying a cut profile based on the real-time data; the determining whether the problem condition occurs based on the cut profile.
In the same field of endeavor, Wersborg teaches
identifying a cut profile based on the real-time data;
the determining whether the problem condition occurs based on the cut profile ([0006-0007, 0076, 0077], the system relates to laser cutting of a metal; the system monitors the cutting process; for example, the system gathers operational data on and monitors features of the cut e.g., kerf width, cutting quality parameters, etc., and can determine if a significant problem has occurred e.g., whether the cut is insufficient, minimum kerf width has not been met, appearance of dross etc.; per Galt page 29, lines 9-28; page 25, lines 1-5; page 28, lines 4-20, the system can determine an anomaly based on an analysis of any collected operational data).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated identifying a cut profile based on the real-time data; the determining whether the problem condition occurs based on the cut profile as suggested in Wersborg into Galt because Galt and Wersborg pertain to analogous fields of technology. Galt pertains to a system that uses a machine learning model to analyze operational data of an industrial process, such as laser cutting of metal, and based on the analysis to identify anomalies and determine operational parameters to adjust to address the anomalies. Wersborg also pertains to a system related to laser cutting of metal. Wersborg describes a wide variety of operational parameters that can be monitored that are related to cutting quality e.g., room environment, gas and nozzle parameters for gas applied by a nozzle to blow out melted material, gas pressure, laser beam conditions, the nature of the metal alloy, surface coatings, kerf width etc. It would be obvious to modify the invention of Galt to obtain and analyze the operational data collected in Wersborg. It would be desirable to do this to improve the ability of the system to identify root causes and remedies for detected problems e.g., see Wersborg [0076, 0077, 0006-0007].
Regarding claim 8, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. The combination of Galt and Wersborg also teaches a computer system, the computer system comprising: one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more
computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of
the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the
one or more processors via at least one of the one or more computer-readable memories (Galt page 10 describes a processor and memory).
Regarding claim 15, the claim corresponds to claim 1 and is rejected for the same reasons. The combination of Galt and Wersborg also teaches a computer program product, the computer program product comprising: one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium (Galt page 10 describes a processor and memory).
Claims 2, 3, 9, 10, 16 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galt and Wersborg, as applied in claims 1, 8 and 15, and further in view of Yamaguchi (US 2008/0066596).
Regarding claim 2, the combination of Galt and Wersborg teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Galt and Wersborg does not expressly disclose wherein adapting the at least one operational parameter further comprises: causing a backpressure suction module to execute a suction of a gas together with one or more particles of the piece of sheet metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Yamaguchi teaches wherein adapting the at least one operational parameter further comprises:
causing a backpressure suction module to execute a suction of a gas together with one or
more particles of the piece of sheet metal ([0033-0036, 0016], in a laser cutting system, there is a dust collector that suctions air from the interior of the supporting table, below the workpiece, which removes fumes and associated particles generated by the cutting process; this appears to be similar to the description of the backpressure suction module described in [0059] of the specification i.e., a mechanism that suctions gas and particles beneath the platform on which the sheet metal rests; adjustment of the suction/exhaust system is performed dynamically during cutting, in connection with other parameters such as cutting head movement speed e.g., see [0014-0016]).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein adapting the at least one operational parameter further comprises: causing a backpressure suction module to execute a suction of a gas together with one or more particles of the piece of sheet metal as suggested in Yamaguchi into Galt and Wersborg because Galt/Wersborg and Yamaguchi pertain to analogous fields of technology. Galt/Wersborg pertains to a system for laser cutting of sheet metal, with the use of an assist gas, where a variety of operational parameters are tracked and anomalies are detected. Yamaguchi also pertains to a system for laser cutting of sheet metal. In Yamaguchi, fumes are suctioned beneath the workpiece. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Galt/Wersborg to help remove debris and fumes from the laser cutting system e.g., see Yamaguchi [0033-0036].
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Yamaguchi teaches the invention as claimed in claim 2. The combination of Galt, Wersborg and Yamaguchi also teaches wherein causing the backpressure suction module to execute the suction of the gas together with the one or more particles of the piece of sheet metal further comprises: adjusting a valve and a damper of the backpressure suction module to a pre-determined position (Yamaguchi [0047], to control the exhaust process, dampers and associated electromagnetic valves are adjusted).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of Galt and Wersborg teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Claim 9 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 10, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Yamaguchi teaches the invention as claimed in claim 9. Claim 10 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Galt and Wersborg teaches the invention as claimed in claim 15. Claim 16 corresponds to claim 2 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 17, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Yamaguchi teaches the invention as claimed in claim 15. Claim 17 corresponds to claim 3 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Claims 4-7, 11-14 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Galt and Wersborg, as applied in claims 1, 8 and 15, and further in view of Riveiro (A. Riveiro et al., "Laser Cutting: A Review on the Influence of Assist Gas," Materials, published Jan. 6, 2019).
Regarding claim 4, the combination of Galt and Wersborg does not expressly disclose wherein the problem condition is a boundary layer separation at the one or more regions of the piece of sheet metal.
In the same field of endeavor, Riveiro teaches wherein the problem condition is a boundary layer separation at the one or more regions of the piece of sheet metal (pages 12, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22 it is known that boundary layer separation is linked in laser cutting to reductions in cutting performance; it is known to visualize and identify the above using the Schlieren method and Schlieren images).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the problem condition is a boundary layer separation at the one or more regions of the piece of sheet metal as suggested in Riveiro into Galt and Wersborg because Galt and Riveiro pertain to analogous fields of technology. Galt pertains to a system that collects data from a industrial process e.g., laser cutting, and then analyzes it to predict or identify a wide variety of anomalies/problems in the object being processed or the laser cutting system. Riveiro teaches that it is known to collect data using a Schlieren method and Schlieren images, to identify a potential problem such as boundary layer separation, which can lead to cutting performance problems. It would be obvious to modify the Galt system to also collect data in the form of Schlieren images, and then to use its ML model to identify potentially an anomaly related to boundary layer separation. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Galt so that the Galt invention could identify a wider variety of potential problems relating to the laser cutting process e.g., see Riveiro pages 12, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22.
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Riveiro teaches the invention as claimed in claim 4. The combination of Galt, Wersborg and Riveiro also teaches wherein determining that the problem condition occurs in the one or more regions further comprises: detecting the boundary layer separation in the one or more regions in real-time based on one or more captured schlieren images during the cutting of the piece of sheet metal (Riveiro pages 12, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22 it is known that boundary layer separation is linked in laser cutting to reductions in cutting performance; it is known to visualize and identify the above using the Schlieren method and Schlieren images).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Riveiro teaches the invention as claimed in claim 4. The combination of Galt, Wersborg and Riveiro also teaches wherein:
determining that the problem condition occurs in the one or more regions includes
predicting the boundary layer separation in the one or more regions based on the historical data (Galt page 28, lines 9-24; page 29, lines 9-28, the system can use an ML model to predict a change in a material being processed; Galt page 29, lines 9-28; page 25, lines 1-5; page 28, lines 4-20, the system can determine whether an anomaly exists in a system subcomponent or in a physical property of a material being processed e.g., the sheet metal; the system may also predict such anomalies, based on the collected and analyzed time-series data; Riveiro pages 12, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22, it is known that boundary layer separation can be a problem that emerges in laser i.e., it is linked to reductions in cutting performance; thus, it would be obvious to modify Galt so that the Galt invention predicts a change/anomaly, such as boundary layer separation); and
identifying the at least one operational parameter that resulted in the problem condition
further comprises:
inputting a plurality of historical schlieren images containing a variety of operational parameters and a variety of cut profiles and specifications into a convolutional neural network (CNN) (Riveiro pages 12, 11, 13, 19, 21, 22, it is known that boundary layer separation is linked in laser cutting to reductions in cutting performance; it is known to visualize and identify the above using the Schlieren method and Schlieren images obtained during laser cutting; Galt page 17, lines 15-22; page 23, lines 12-26; page 33, lines 6-19, a wide variety of data can be collected during an industrial process e.g., laser cutting, which can be analyzed using and inputted into an ML model; see also Galt page 25, lines 9-26, to train the ML model, any suitable type of historical data can be inputted as training data; thus, it would be obvious to modify the Galt invention to input a wide variety of suitable data that helps identify anomalies in a laser cutting process e.g., Schlieren images) and
outputting, by the CNN, the at least one operational parameter based on the plurality of historical schlieren images (Galt page 35, lines 8-30, the system may determine a root cause of the anomaly using a machine learning model; the system may determine that an operational parameter is related to the anomaly, and that an adjustment of the operating parameter is needed.)
Regarding claim 7, the combination of Galt and Wersborg teaches the invention as claimed in claim 1. However, the combination of Galt and Wersborg does not expressly disclose wherein the adapted operational parameter is selected from a group consisting of a flow rate of a gas, a pressure of the gas, and an angle of a nozzle applying the gas.
In the same field of endeavor, Riveiro teaches wherein the adapted operational parameter is selected from a group consisting of a flow rate of a gas, a pressure of the gas, and an angle of a nozzle applying the gas (Riveiro page 12, it is known, to prevent boundary layer separation, to adjust assist gas pressure; it is further known to consider adjusting the angle between laser beam-nozzle).
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have incorporated wherein the adapted operational parameter is selected from a group consisting of a flow rate of a gas, a pressure of the gas, and an angle of a nozzle applying the gas as suggested in Riveiro into Galt and Wersborg because Galt/Wersborg and Riveiro pertain to analogous fields of technology. Galt/Wersborg pertains to a system for identifying anomalies in a laser cutting process and determining adjustments to operational parameters to address an anomaly. Riveiro also pertains to a laser cutting process, where an assist gas is also used to facilitate the process. Riveiro further indicates that a known anomaly/problem is boundary layer separation, which can cause cutting quality issues, and further notes that it is known to consider adjusting various parameters to address potential boundary layer separation e.g., gas pressure. It would be desirable to incorporate this feature into Galt/Wersborg so that the invention and ML model of Galt can address a wider variety of anomalies and remedial actions e.g., see Riveiro page 12.
Regarding claim 11, the combination of Galt and Wersborg teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Claim 11 also corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 12, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Riveiro teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11. Claim 12 also corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 13, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Riveiro teaches the invention as claimed in claim 11. Claim 13 also corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 14, the combination of Galt and Wersborg teaches the invention as claimed in claim 8. Claim 14 also corresponds to claim 7 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 18, the combination of Galt and Wersborg teaches the invention as claimed in claim 15. Claim 18 also corresponds to claim 4 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 19, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Riveiro teaches the invention as claimed in claim 18. Claim 19 also corresponds to claim 5 and is rejected for the same reasons.
Regarding claim 20, the combination of Galt, Wersborg and Riveiro teaches the invention as claimed in claim 18. Claim 20 also corresponds to claim 6 and is rejected for the same reasons. Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Crees (US 7,560,064) teaches a laser cutting system, with exhaust ducts and vent doors below a cutting surface e.g., see Crees cols. 1, 2 and 5.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERIC YOON whose telephone number is (408)918-7581. The examiner can normally be reached on 9 am to 5 pm ET Monday through Friday.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Scott Baderman, can be reached at telephone number 571-272-3644. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated- interview-request-air-form.
/ERIC J YOON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2118
