DETAILED ACTION
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 09 June 2026 is acknowledged.
Withdrawn Rejections
Upon further consideration:
The rejection of claim 4 over Bach alone is hereby withdrawn due to the holding device of Bach not being disclosed with sufficient specificity to establish that the airbag cover “rests” thereon as recited by claim 4.
The rejection of claim 6 over Bach in view of Nicholas is hereby withdrawn due to the claim 6 recess not being disclosed by Nicholas.
Response to Remarks
Remarks submitted 09 June 2026 are addressed in succession as follows:
At Rem. 7-8, with respect to previously outlined indefiniteness rejection (d), it is stated that the specification describes how to use a reflective element to determine the claimed distance, as would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. However, it is noted that although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims (see In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993)). Absent clarification by amendment, this indefiniteness issue is believed to remain at issue.
At Rem. 9, it is stated that Bach does not teach “a calibration step as recited in claim 1”. However, it is noted that the term “calibration” does not appear in claim 1 or elsewhere in the specification as originally filed. It is in turn unclear whether this term refers to the claim 1 step of determining distance between measurement beam sources (as in Suzuki), or to some other claimed or unclaimed step. If this argument is maintained, then clarification is requested in this regard, in addition to a corresponding claim amendment as necessary.
At Rem. 9, it is stated that a person skilled in the art would conclude that calibration is not necessary in Bach since it otherwise would have been mentioned. However, it is noted that this argument addresses Bach alone as opposed to the combination thereof with Suzuki; one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references (see In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986)).
At Rem. 9-10, it is stated that in all cases, Bach’s workpiece itself is involved in the process of determining parameters such as distance S3 between the first and second measurement beam sources. However, it is unclear that Bach in fact specifies distance S3 between measurement beam sources as being determined in this manner, or that Bach ever otherwise specifies how distance S3 is determined. If this argument is maintained, specifically with respect to Bach’s distance S3, then clarification is requested of exact passages to this effect from Bach, in addition to an explanation of why Bach’s manner of determining distance S3, if specified, could not have been substituted for the corresponding distance determination of Suzuki by one of ordinary skill in the art (e.g. in correspondence with at least KSR rationale (B)).
At Rem. 10, it is stated that in the pending application, the distance between the two measurement devices is measured “only once” and this measurement is then used “during the whole process of producing the bores”. However, it is noted that measuring distance “only once” and using this distance “during the whole process of producing the bores” as such is neither recited nor otherwise implied by the pending claims. If this is intended and fully supported, then it is suggested that a claim amendment be made to this effect, and that accompanying remarks be submitted detailing why an obvious rearrangement of prior art process steps could not have been performed by one of ordinary skill in the art (as set forth under MPEP § 2144.04(IV)(C)) so as to meet this alleged order of claim steps, particularly for an instance of constant workpiece thickness in Bach whereby a redetermining of distance S3 is not required or otherwise necessary.
At Rem. 10, it is stated that Bach and Suzuki are related to different fields of technology. As a preliminary matter, see Applicable Rejection 2 set forth below citing CN 108788488, in place of Suzuki, which was made of record via IDS on 07 August 2024. Further, to the extent that the above statement corresponds to an allegation that Suzuki is nonanalogous to Bach, it is noted that it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention (see In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992)). In this case, Bach teaches a laser drilling process that includes determining drilling depth by use of a determined distance S3 between measurement sources, and Suzuki teaches a method directed specifically to how such a distance (i.e. distance C in Suzuki) between measurement sources can be determined, thereby being directly pertinent to both Bach and the instant claims in this regard. Note also the remarkable similarity between Bach’s fig. 1 and Suzuki’s fig. 3, which include respective values not only of corresponding distances S1/A and S2/B, but also a thickness d/T of the workpiece and, in particular, a distance S3/C between measurement sources.
At Rem. 10, it is stated that a combination of Suzuki with Bach requires use of the current application as hindsight. To the extent that this statement corresponds to an allegation that the conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it is noted that it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made (as set forth in greater detail by claim rejections outlined below), and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is in fact proper (see In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971)).
Upon review of the above responses, Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly for further clarification on any outstanding issues, to discuss potential claim amendments that might help to advance prosecution, and/or to discuss what Applicant believes to be the crux of the claimed and/or disclosed invention as it is believed to distinguish over the prior art, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “wherein” beginning the 4th, 6th, and 9th to last lines of claim 1 should each be deleted.
The term “and” ending the 10th and 7th to last lines of claim 1 should each be deleted.
In the 4th to last line of claim 1, the term “of” after “distance” should be changed to “between”.
The claim 3 line 3 recitation of “(b)” should be deleted.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
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.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. In particular:
In the 1st claim 1 wherein clause, the recitation of the parameter “of the airbag cover” lacks antecedent basis, in particular since although a “parameter” is recited previously, this previously recited parameter is not specified as being of the airbag cover. This issue might be addressed by moving “of the airbag cover” subsequent to the first instance of “a parameter”, in the claimed evaluating step.
In the final claim 1 wherein clause, it is unclear how to interpret the recitation of determining distance “using” a reflective element. This language is confusing, in particular since it is unclear, without further clarification, how a reflective element could provide such determination.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear to what extent the final claim 1 wherein clause (i.e. determining distance between first and second measurement beam sources using a reflective element) corresponds to the third wherein clause (i.e. determining distance between first and second measurement beam sources), in particular whether the final wherein clause corresponds to the same, but more specific step of determining, or whether these determining steps differ at least partly in scope from one another. If the former of these scenarios is intended, then this issue might be addressed by deleting the third wherein clause. If the latter of these scenarios is intended, then clarification via amendment should be made.
The claim 3 line 3 recitation of the second path length “(b)” lacks antecedent basis. While a second path length is recited previously, no such second path length “(b)” is recited. A suggested correction appears under objection (d) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in claim 4 exactly which “entire process” is being referenced (i.e. a process corresponding to the claim 1 application of a process beam causing material to be removed, a process corresponding to some other claim 1 step, or a process corresponding to the entire claim 1 method). It is noted that the latter of these scenarios would provide the airbag cover resting on the placement surface during a period of time inclusive of prior to the airbag cover being provided (as in the first claim 1 step), which is confusing. It is further noted that while a “processing” beam and “processing” site are recited previously, the claim 4 term “process” does not appear previously in claim 4 or claim 1.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction by amendment is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Rejection 1
Claims 1 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach (DE 10355931) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP 2007-139606). The machine translation of each of Bach and Suzuki made of record with the Office action issued 09 January 2026 is cited herein.
As to claim 1, Bach teaches providing and guiding of airbag cover 1 relative to a tool with a first measurement means 5 (hereinafter referenced as a second measurement beam source) in addition to a processing beam source 4 integrated with a second measurement means (hereinafter referenced as a first measurement beam source) (see fig. 1 and its corresponding description, in addition to the shifting and change in position referenced by the machine translation at p. 4, 1st and 2nd full paragraphs). A processing beam and first and second measurement beams are emitted and applied in the manner claimed, with values S1 and S2 corresponding to the claimed first and second path lengths being used to determine at least one parameter inclusive of a remaining residual wall thickness S5 which is in turn used to control the processing beam source in the manner claimed (see again fig. 1 and its corresponding description).
In fig. 1, Bach references various other distance values inclusive of a distance S3 between the measurement beam sources. With respect to the disclosed distance values, Bach states that such distances may be determined before each drilling operation for an accurate determination of residual thickness S5 (see the final sentence of the 2nd full paragraph of the machine translation at p. 4 regarding such distances in general, and see the final sentence of the 1st full paragraph at p. 5 regarding distance S3 in particular), with distance S3 also otherwise being explicitly disclosed as requiring some sort of determination (p. 6 lines 4-6). However, Bach is not believed to specify exactly how this determination in particular of distance S3 is performed, let alone by the claimed use of a reflective element in place of the airbag cover 1.
In a technique believed to be reasonably pertinent to Bach in that a distance between measurement means is similarly utilized for non-contact thickness calculation of a component, Suzuki discloses use of a reference calibration body (i.e. acting as the claimed reflective element) with a known thickness being arranged in place of said component so as to determine a distance C (corresponding to Bach’s above-cited distance S3) between measurement means 10 and 12 (corresponding to Bach’s first and second measurement sources) for in turn calculating the component’s thickness T (corresponding to Bach’s thickness), which measurement means 10 and 12 are disposed on opposing sides of the calibration body and component as in Bach (see the remarkable similarity between Suzuki’s fig. 3 and Bach’s fig. 1, and see also Suzuki’s corresponding description of fig. 3 as relevant to the above teachings). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Suzuki into Bach, in particular whereby such a calibration body may be utilized for determining Bach’s above-cited distance S3 between the measurement sources thereof, either as an alternative manner of determining/measuring this distance for the Bach’s unspecified (or other) manner therefor, or as an improvement to Bach whereby this distance may be accurately determined in real time regardless of the defined position provided for the Bach measurement sources, in turn providing an accurate residual thickness S5 of the airbag cover which may in turn help to improve accuracy of Bach’s drilling operation.
The claim 7 guiding is additionally disclosed by Bach as set forth under at least the above citations,
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Suzuki as applied above, and further in view of Hermani et al. (DE 102019132619). The machine translation of Hermani made of record with the Office action issued 09 January 2026 is cited herein.
Bach does not specify the exact type of measurement equipment utilized for the first and second measurement sources, in particular that the claim 2-3 optical coherence tomography is utilized. However, Hermani similarly discloses non-contact distance measurement, in particular via optical coherency tomography as a potential improvement over other techniques (see at least the abstract in addition to the machine translation at p. 2, 3rd full paragraph). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Hermani into modified Bach as providing an art-recognized interchangeable and/or improved distance measurement means.
Claims 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Suzuki as applied above, and further in view of either Bauer et al. (US 5,883,356) or Wittenbecher (US 7,989,728).
Bach teaches a holding device (machine translation p. 4, 1st full paragraph) which is believed to provide the claim 4 placement surface but is not disclosed with sufficient specificity to establish the claim 4 resting thereon. However, each of Bauer and Wittenbecher is recognized for disclosing such a placement surface for a similar laser machining process, in particular whereby the treated article may be construed as resting to at least some extent thereon, and whereby a measurement is performed therethrough consistent with the transmittance recited by claims 5-6 (Bauer fig. 5 fixture 32 including slots (i.e. recesses), Wittenbecher fig. 1 holding unit). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from either Bauer or Wittenbecher into modified Bach as providing an art-recognized suitable and/or interchangeable holding device for the otherwise unspecified holding device of Bach.
Claims 4-5 and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Suzuki as applied above, and further in view of Nicholas et al. (US 7,297,897).
Bach teaches a holding device (machine translation p. 4, 1st full paragraph) which is believed to provide the claim 4 placement surface but is not disclosed with sufficient specificity to establish the claim 4 resting thereon. However, Nicholas is recognized for disclosing such a placement surface for a similar laser machining process, in particular whereby the treated article may be construed as resting to at least some extent thereon, and whereby a measurement is performed therethrough consistent with the transmittance recited by claim 5 (see at least the fig. 1 fixture 18). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Nicholas into modified Bach as providing an art-recognized suitable and/or interchangeable holding device for the otherwise unspecified holding device of Bach.
Bach is not believed to specify an exact structure of the processing and first measurement source, in particular whereby a selection of wavelengths is provided as set forth by claims 8-9. However, Nicholas similarly discloses laser processing an airbag component in which a processing and measurement source are utilized (figs. 1-2B), in particular whereby explicit disclosure is made that different wavelengths should be utilized for processing and sensor beams (see at least 4:19-20). While a specific wavelength or wavelengths corresponding to white light is not explicitly disclosed, Nicholas establishes that the wavelengths should be chosen based on their interaction with a coated and selectively reflective and transmissive component (see at least 4:13-17), which would have motivated one skilled in the art to experiment with different wavelengths, and to arrive at the claim 9 color/wavelength(s), through routine optimization based on the reflectance and/or transmittance required (see MPEP 2144.05(II) regarding routine optimization in this regard). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Nicholas into modified Bach as providing an art-recognized suitable, interchangeable, and/or improved processing and measurement beam source, in addition to the necessary equipment associated therewith.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Suzuki as applied above, and further in view of Maier (DE 102018002300). The machine translation of Maier made of record with the Office action issued 09 January 2026 is cited herein.
Bach is not believed to specify an exact structure of the processing and first measurement source, in particular whereby the claim 10-11 CO2 and fiber lasers are utilized. However, Maier provides such laser types, in particular for beams sources 4 and 10, which are similarly utilized for processing an airbag component (see at least fig. 1 and its corresponding description). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from Maier into modified Bach as providing an art-recognized suitable, interchangeable, and/or improved energy source type for these similar corresponding processing and measuring sources of Bach.
Applicable Rejection 2
It is noted that while not outlined herein for the sake of brevity, a rejection is also applicable over the above-cited Bach reference in view of CN 108788488 (in place of Suzuki as cited under Rejection 1 above), which was made of record via IDS on 07 August 2024. In particular, CN 108788488 discloses the same/similar use of a calibration body/reflective element as Suzuki, for determining distance L between measurement means 2/3, which distance L is used in turn for determining thickness information for a component being subjected to laser treatment. A notable difference between CN 108788488 and Suzuki is that in addition to what Suzuki discloses, this reference goes further in that the determined distance between measurement means is specified explicitly as being utilized for a laser cutting process (as in Bach).
This reference should be addressed in reply to this Office action via amendment and/or remarks.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is again encouraged to contact the Examiner upon review of the instant Office action so as to discuss the claimed invention, the above prior art rejection and other applicable prior art, and how it is believed that the crux of the claimed and disclosed invention distinguishes over the prior art as a whole, particularly if it is believed that such a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 Atul P. Khare whose telephone number is (571)270-7608. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9am-6pm.
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, Christina A. Johnson can be reached at (571) 272-1176. 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.
/Atul P. Khare/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1742
Prosecution Insights