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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I and Species 1 (claims 1-11, figures 1, 2A, 3-15) in the reply filed on 06/25/2026 is acknowledged.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation
“the ICI system is optically coupled to the processing head downstream of the at least one process beam scanning actuator” in claim 1
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
(i) “a control system for controlling at least the material modification beam source, the process beam scanning actuator, and the imaging beam scanning actuator” in claim 1;
(ii) “an auxiliary measurement system configured to measure process radiation” in claim 8
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(i) Para.[0045]-[0046] discloses “The control system 160 may also include data processing systems to correct ICI measurements. The control system 160 may further include a record generator for generating records of the ICI measurements and a quality judgment system for performing quality analysis of welded parts…The control system 160 may include, for example, hardware (e.g., a general-purpose computer or microcontroller) and software known for use in controlling fiber lasers and galvo mirrors. Existing galvo control software may be used, for example, and modified to allow the galvo mirrors to be controlled as described herein.”
(ii) Para.[0047] discloses “The laser welding system 100 may also include an auxiliary measurement system 170 including auxiliary sensors such as visible and/or IR-sensitive photodiodes, and/or cameras, some of which may be coupled to the welding head 110 by way of optical fibers. The auxiliary measurement system 170 may be configured to measure process radiation, for example, within a spectral band of 100 nm to 20 μm. The auxiliary measurement system 170 may include optical elements, such as apertures, lenses, scanning mirrors, optical fibers (some of which may be coupled to the process laser, or ICI system itself), to perform spatially localized measurements relative to the process beam and/or the measurement beam. Examples of auxiliary sensors are described in greater detail in U.S. Pat. No. 10,124,410, which is incorporated herein by reference.”
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the ICI system is optically coupled to the processing head downstream of the at least one process beam scanning actuator” is indefinite. Claim 1 recited “a processing head… including at least process beam scanning actuator”, which clearly states the process beam scanning actuator is a part of the processing head. Therefore it is unclear how the processing head downstream of the process beam canning actuator, and the limitation “the ICI system is optically coupled to the processing head downstream of the at least one process beam scanning actuator” contradicts to the limitation “a processing head… including at least process beam scanning actuator”.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the ICI system is optically coupled to the processing head downstream of the at least one process beam scanning actuator” is interpreted to the at least one process beam scanning actuator is in downstream portion of the processing head, based on the disclosure of the specification and figures.
Regarding claims 2-11, these claims are rejected due to their dependency on an indefinite claim as shown above.
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.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lessmuller (DE102015015330A1) (cited in IDS).
PNG
media_image1.png
449
743
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Lessmuller teaches a laser material processing system comprising:
a material modification beam source (processing beam source; see pra.[0001]) for generating a process beam (processing beam 18);
a processing head (processing optics 13) coupled to the material modification beam source (processing beam source) and including at least one process beam scanning actuator (movable first deflection device 26), for directing and moving the process beam according to a wobble pattern in at least one axis on a processing site of a workpiece (see para.[0057]);
an inline coherent imaging (ICI) system (measuring device 14) optically coupled to the processing head (processing optics 13), the ICI system including at least one imaging beam scanning actuator (movable second deflection device 62) for positioning the imaging beam independently of the process beam (See para.[0062] “The movable second deflection device 62 of the embodiment shown in FIG. 1 can be displaced in the direction of the arrows 64, 66 in order to deflect the OCT measuring beam 46 in the desired manner.”); and
a control system (control; see para.[0081]) for controlling at least the material modification beam source, the process beam scanning actuator, and the imaging beam scanning actuator (see para.[0081] “In the described third functional principle of the present invention, a comparatively small amount of information is also necessary to control the second deflection device 62 so that it shifts the OCT measuring beam 46 in the manner described above. For this purpose, only the geometric processing figure 70 (here the sine curve with the frequency and amplitude shown), the processing direction BR and the trigger signals at the reversal points 72 of the oscillatory movement of the processing beam need to be transmitted to the second deflection device 62 or its control (not shown). Only the trigger signals mentioned are transmitted continuously during processing, while the geometric processing figure 70 is only transmitted once at the beginning or with every change in the wobbling movement, and the processing direction BR is also only transmitted once at the beginning and in the event of a change in direction.”), wherein the control system is programmed to cause the processing head to scan the process beam in the wobble pattern (see para.[0065] “The movable first deflection device 26 is set up to deflect the processing beam 18 and the coaxially superimposed OCT measuring beam 46 in an oscillating manner relative to the main processing path. The displacement of the beams is shown as an example in FIG. 1 by S, S' and S''. The oscillatory movement carried out in this way represents a sinusoidal machining figure 70 which runs along the main machining path, i.e. H. runs along the joining edge between the workpiece parts W', W''. More precisely, the processing beam 18 and the OCT measuring beam 46 are moved back and forth along the joining edge between the workpiece parts W', W" to be connected in the xy plane. The beams basically follow the processing direction BR, on which the oscillatory movement is superimposed. In the embodiment shown, the processing figure 70 is adjusted by the deflection movement by the first deflection device 26 in such a way that the joining edge does not represent an exact center line of the sinusoidal processing figure 70. Rather, the processing figure 70 in FIG. 1 is offset to the left in the direction of the upper workpiece part W', so that greater melting of the upper workpiece part W' takes place to form the weld seam”), and wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam to a plurality of measurement locations on the processing site in coordination with the wobble pattern (see paras.[0084]-[0085] “The fourth functional principle according to the invention shown in FIG. 6 also provides that a deflection of the OCT measuring beam 46 by means of the second deflection device 62 completely subtractively superimposes the oscillating deflection by means of the first deflection device 26. In addition to this subtractive superimposition, the OCT measuring beam 46 is displaced according to the fourth functional principle by means of the second deflection device 62 to any desired measuring position on the workpiece W, for example to one of the measuring positions Pre, In and/or Post. The deflection by the second deflection device 62 is realized via an actual/target comparison of a current actual processing position and an intended target measuring position. From this actual/target comparison, the measuring device 14 or a control unit calculates a displacement vector V for displacing the OCT measuring beam 46. The current actual processing position is known from the position of the movable first deflection device 26. In this way, in the fourth functional principle of the invention, any displacement of the OCT measuring beam 46 and thus a flexible position measurement on the workpiece W can also be carried out using the wobbling movement of the processing beam 18.”),
wherein the ICI system (measuring device 14) is optically coupled to the processing head (processing optics 13) downstream of the at least one process beam scanning actuator (movable first deflection device 26).
Regarding claim 2, Lessmuller teaches the processing head (processing optics 13) is a welding head for directing and moving the process beam according to the wobble pattern on a weld site (see fig.1 and para.[0056]).
Regarding claim 3, Lessmuller teaches the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator (movable first deflection device 26 of Lessmuller) to move the imaging beam along the wobble pattern in a direction opposite to movement of the process beam and with synchronization to the wobble pattern (see para.[0021] of Lessmuller “The oscillating relative movement in relation to the OCT measuring beam, as well as in relation to the processing beam, describes in particular an oscillation around the main processing path, with the main processing path defining a reference position of the oscillatory movement. The oscillation can take place in the form of an oscillating, sinusoidal, sawtooth-shaped, circular or helical or other oscillatory movement. In the overall view, this oscillatory movement essentially follows the described machining direction relative to the workpiece, whereby this machining direction specifies the basic overall direction of the machining and does not describe the changing directions on the oscillating curve.” And para.[0081] of Lessmuller “In the described third functional principle of the present invention, a comparatively small amount of information is also necessary to control the second deflection device 62 so that it shifts the OCT measuring beam 46 in the manner described above. For this purpose, only the geometric processing figure 70 (here the sine curve with the frequency and amplitude shown), the processing direction BR and the trigger signals at the reversal points 72 of the oscillatory movement of the processing beam need to be transmitted to the second deflection device 62 or its control (not shown). Only the trigger signals mentioned are transmitted continuously during processing, while the geometric processing figure 70 is only transmitted once at the beginning or with every change in the wobbling movement, and the processing direction BR is also only transmitted once at the beginning and in the event of a change in direction.”)
Regarding claim 4, Lessmuller teaches the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator (movable first deflection device 26 of Lessmuller) to move the imaging beam along the wobble pattern in a direction of the process beam and with synchronization to a wobble pattern (see para.[0021] of Lessmuller “The oscillating relative movement in relation to the OCT measuring beam, as well as in relation to the processing beam, describes in particular an oscillation around the main processing path, with the main processing path defining a reference position of the oscillatory movement. The oscillation can take place in the form of an oscillating, sinusoidal, sawtooth-shaped, circular or helical or other oscillatory movement. In the overall view, this oscillatory movement essentially follows the described machining direction relative to the workpiece, whereby this machining direction specifies the basic overall direction of the machining and does not describe the changing directions on the oscillating curve.” And para.[0081] of Lessmuller “In the described third functional principle of the present invention, a comparatively small amount of information is also necessary to control the second deflection device 62 so that it shifts the OCT measuring beam 46 in the manner described above. For this purpose, only the geometric processing figure 70 (here the sine curve with the frequency and amplitude shown), the processing direction BR and the trigger signals at the reversal points 72 of the oscillatory movement of the processing beam need to be transmitted to the second deflection device 62 or its control (not shown). Only the trigger signals mentioned are transmitted continuously during processing, while the geometric processing figure 70 is only transmitted once at the beginning or with every change in the wobbling movement, and the processing direction BR is also only transmitted once at the beginning and in the event of a change in direction.”)
Regarding claim 5, Lessmuller teaches the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam such that the imaging beam scans the processing site in a scan pattern at least partially encompassing a wobble pattern (See para.[0063] “The processing optics 13 of the processing device 12 and the measuring optics 54 of the measuring device 14 are coupled to one another in such a way that they have a common interface 68. After being deflected by the second deflection device 62, the OCT measuring beam 46 is coupled into the processing device 12 via this common interface 68. More specifically, the OCT measurement beam 46 impinges on the semi-transparent mirror 24 and passes through it, whereby the OCT measurement beam 46 is substantially coaxially superimposed on the processing beam 18. Thus, the OCT measuring beam 46 also hits the movable first deflection device 26 and then passes through the focus lens 32 after being deflected by the movable first deflection device 26.” Hence, the measuring beam 46 is capable to scan the processing site in a scan pattern at least partially encompassing a wobble pattern.)
Regarding claim 6, Lessmuller teaches the control system is configured to control the process beam scanning actuator to adjust at least one of wobble geometry, wobble period, wobble speed, and wobble amplitude in response to measurements from the ICI system (See para.[0020] “the deflection movement of the OCT measuring beam, or of the OCT measuring beam and the processing beam, is used by one and the same first deflection device in order to carry out the position measurements. This link and the proposed solution can reduce the amount of information required to monitor and regulate the machining process. In addition, a device is provided with which three-dimensionally monitored processing of fillet welds is possible.” Hence, the control system controls the beam scanning actuator to adjust the wobble geometry.)
Regarding claim 7, Lessmuller teaches the control system is configured to control power of the process beam in response to measurements from the ICI system (see para.[0011] “ carrying out position measurements in the sense of the invention can also be used to regulate the machining process by adjusting process parameters in accordance with the recorded measurement information during machining.” Hence, the processing parameters.)
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 8 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lessmuller in view of Lee (US 2010/0288739) (cited in IDS).
Regarding claim 8, Lessmuller teaches does not explicitly teach an auxiliary measurement system configured to measure process radiation.
However, Lee teaches in the same field of endeavor of a laser processing device (laser processing device 1000) comprising an auxiliary measurement system (objective lens 110 and beam receiver 400 including photodiode 420) configured to measure process radiation.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to add the laser material processing system of Lessmuller with a photodiode for measuring process radiation as taught by Lee, in order to provide a conventional device to measure desired parameters, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Lessmuller and Lee the auxiliary measurement system (beam receiver 400 of Lee) includes optical elements (beam splitter 410 of Lee) to perform a spatially localized measurement relative to the imaging beam (beam splitter 410 is capable to perform a spatially localized measurement relative to the process beam.).
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Lessmuller and Lee the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam actuator (movable second deflection device 62 of Lessmuller) to move the imaging beam such that the imaging beam is dynamically offset from the process beam based on at least one output of the auxiliary measurement system [Examiner’s note: As discussed in claim 1, the movable second deflection device 62 is configured to move the imaging beam, and the movable first deflection device 26 is configured to move processing beam. Therefore, the movable second deflection device 62 is capable to move the imaging beam to offset from the process beam.].
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Lessmuller and Lee in view of Kamada (US 2014/0063454).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Lessmuller and Lee does not explicitly teach the auxiliary measurement system measures process radiation within a spectral band of 100 nm to 1 mm.
However, Kamada teaches a photodiode measures process radiation within a spectral band of 100nm to 1mm (see para.[0063] “photodiode 60 has a spectral sensitivity characteristic of 420 to 640 nm”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to replace the photodiode of Lessmuller and Lee with a photodiode measures process radiation within a spectral band of 100nm to 1mm as taught by Kamada, in order to provide a conventional device to measure desired parameters, since applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement to yield predictable result (MPEP 2143).
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-11 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. US12097572B2. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the
claimed subject matter of the present application and the subject matter of the U.S. Patent No. US12097572B2 are substantially the same.
Present Application 18/803,336
U.S. Patent No. US12097572B2
1. A laser material processing system comprising:
a material modification beam source for generating a process beam;
a processing head coupled to the material modification beam source and including at least one process beam scanning actuator, for directing and moving the process beam according to a wobble pattern in at least one axis on a processing site of a workpiece;
an inline coherent imaging (ICI) system optically coupled to the processing head, the ICI system including at least one imaging beam scanning actuator for positioning the imaging beam independently of the process beam; and
a control system for controlling at least the material modification beam source, the process beam scanning actuator, and the imaging beam scanning actuator, wherein the control system is programmed to cause the processing head to scan the process beam in the wobble pattern, and wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam to a plurality of measurement locations on the processing site in coordination with the wobble pattern.
wherein the ICI system is optically coupled to the processing head downstream of the at least one process beam scanning actuator.
2. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the processing head is a welding head for directing and moving the process beam according to the wobble pattern on a weld site.
3. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam along the wobble pattern in a direction opposite to movement of the process beam and with synchronization to the wobble pattern.
4. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam along the wobble pattern in a direction of the process beam and with synchronization to a wobble pattern.
5. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam such that the imaging beam scans the processing site in a scan pattern at least partially encompassing a wobble pattern.
6. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the control system is configured to control the process beam scanning actuator to adjust at least one of wobble geometry, wobble period, wobble speed, and wobble amplitude in response to measurements from the ICI system.
7. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the control system is configured to control power of the process beam in response to measurements from the ICI system.
8. The laser material processing system of claim 1 further comprising an auxiliary measurement system configured to measure process radiation.
9. The laser material processing system of claim 8 wherein the auxiliary measurement system measures process radiation within a spectral band of 100 nm to 1 mm.
10. The laser material processing system of claim 8 wherein the auxiliary measurement system includes optical elements to perform a spatially localized measurement relative to the process beam or the imaging beam.
11. The laser material processing system of claim 8 wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam actuator to move the imaging beam such that the imaging beam is dynamically offset from the process beam based on at least one output of the auxiliary measurement system.
1. A laser material processing system comprising:
a material modification beam source for generating a process beam;
a processing head coupled to the material modification beam source and including at least one process beam scanning actuator, for directing and moving the process beam according to a wobble pattern in at least one axis on a processing site of a workpiece;
an inline coherent imaging (ICI) system optically coupled to the processing head, the ICI system including at least one imaging beam scanning actuator for positioning the imaging beam independently of the process beam; and
a control system for controlling at least the material modification beam source, the process beam scanning actuator, and the imaging beam scanning actuator, wherein the control system is programmed to cause the processing head to scan the process beam in the wobble pattern, and wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam to a plurality of measurement locations on the processing site independently of the process beam and in coordination with the wobble pattern such that the imaging beam is
dynamically offset from the process beam at the workpiece surface at least in part according to a position of the process beam within the wobble pattern, or
moved relative to the process beam to correct alignment of the imaging beam relative to the process beam based at least in part on a position of the beams on the wobble pattern.
2. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the processing head is a welding head for directing and moving the process beam according to the wobble pattern on a weld site.
3. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the material modification beam source is a fiber laser.
4. The laser material processing system of claim 1 further comprising at least one motion stage for translating at least one of the processing head and the workpiece relative to each other while the processing beam is moved in the wobble pattern on the workpiece.
5. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the ICI system is optically coupled to the processing head downstream of the at least one process beam scanning actuator.
6. The laser material processing system of claim 5 wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam along the wobble pattern in a direction opposite to movement of the process beam and with synchronization to the wobble pattern.
7. The laser material processing system of claim 5 wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam along the wobble pattern in a direction of the process beam and with synchronization to a wobble pattern.
8. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the ICI system is optically coupled to the welding head upstream of the at least one process beam scanning actuator.
9. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam scanning actuator to move the imaging beam such that the imaging beam scans the processing site in a scan pattern at least partially encompassing a wobble pattern.
10. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the control system is configured to control the process beam scanning actuator to adjust at least one of wobble geometry, wobble period, wobble speed, and wobble amplitude in response to measurements from the ICI system.
11. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the control system is configured to control power of the process beam in response to measurements from the ICI system.
12. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the process beam scanning actuator is configured to move the process beam with a maximum beam displacement at the workpiece of ±30 mm.
13. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the process beam scanning actuator is configured to move the process beam by a maximum beam angle displacement of ±5° to provide a wobble amplitude.
14. The laser material processing system of claim 1 wherein the at least one process beam scanning actuator and the at least one imaging beam scanning actuator are selected from the group consisting of galvanometer scanning mirrors, polygon scanning mirrors, MEMs-based scanning mirrors, piezoelectric scanning mirrors, and diffraction-based beam scanners.
15. The laser material processing system of claim 1 further comprising an auxiliary measurement system configured to measure process radiation.
16. The laser material processing system of claim 15 wherein the auxiliary measurement system measures process radiation within a spectral band of 100 nm to 1 mm.
17. The laser material processing system of claim 15 wherein the auxiliary measurement system includes optical elements to perform a spatially localized measurement relative to the process beam.
18. The laser material processing system of claim 17 wherein the auxiliary measurement system is configured to perform the spatially localized measurement at a measurement location dynamically offset from the process beam based on at least one output from the ICI system.
19. The laser material processing system of claim 15 wherein the auxiliary measurement system includes optical elements to perform a spatially localized measurement relative to the imaging beam.
20. The laser material processing system of claim 15 wherein the control system is programmed to cause the imaging beam actuator to move the imaging beam such that the imaging beam is dynamically offset from the process beam based on at least one output of the auxiliary measurement system.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights