DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The preliminary amendment filed on 07 August 2024 is acknowledged.
Information Disclosure Statement
It is noted that the present application has at least five (5) related foreign filings or publications in other countries. Applicant is reminded of the duty under 37 CFR 1.56(a) to disclose information material to patentability, such as (a) Office Actions and prior art related to the claimed invention which have been cited during prosecution of related filings, (b) prior foreign or domestic filings by Applicant(s) which are related to the claimed or disclosed invention and which constitute prior art, (c) related brochures, dissertations, or other research publications, including that which has been authored by one or more inventors listed under this application or by other individuals under which or along which one or more inventors may have been working, and (d) any other relevant prior art Applicant may be aware of, including since the filing of any previous information disclosure statement (IDS).
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The “wherein” clause which appears in the claim 1 preamble should be moved to the body of the claim (for example to the end of the claimed providing step, with the term “providing” changed for example to “guiding”), and in the providing step the term “an” should be changed to “the”.
After the term “removed” at line 4 of the 1st claim 1 applying step, terms such as “from the airbag cover” should be added.
Terms such as “of the airbag cover” should be added to the end of the claim 1 clause beginning with “the parameter”.
In the 2nd claim 1 applying step, the recitation of “a” prior to “second measurement beam” should be changed to “the”.
This same corresponding change should also be made to the recitation of “a” prior to “measurement location” in the claim 1 clause beginning with “as a measurement location”.
The comma which appears prior to “and” ending the claim 1 controlling step should be changed to a semi-colon “;”.
The term “and” ending the claim 1 clause beginning with “the parameter” should be deleted.
At line 4 of the claim 1 clause beginning with “as a measurement location”, the recitation of “before the airbag cover is provided” should be changed, for example, to “before said providing of the airbag cover”, or if the suggested corrections outlined under objection (a) are adopted, to “before said guiding of the airbag cover”.
This same corresponding change should also be made to this same recitation of “before providing the airbag cover” which appears in the 3rd to last line of claim 1.
In the claim 1 clause beginning with “as a measurement location”, each of the line 4 clause beginning with “before the airbag cover is provided”, in addition to the line 6 clause beginning with “the remaining residual wall thickness” should be indented to their own respective lines so as to each be recited as a separate wherein clause. Further, the term “and” prior to “before” at line 4 and prior to “the remaining residual wall thickness” at line 6 should each be deleted.
In claim 11, the term “faser” is believed to correspond to an untranslated German term for “fiber” as specified at page 6 line 1 of the Substitute Specification filed 07 August 2024. If this understanding is correct, then this claim term “faser” should be changed to “fiber”.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction 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:
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 1 recitation of “an” airbag cover (providing step) relates back to the airbag cover first recited at line 2 of the claim preamble. A suggested correction appears under objection (a) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear at line 4 of the 1st claim 1 applying step exactly what the recited material is “removed” from. A suggested correction appears under objection (b) above.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear in the claim 1 clause beginning with “the parameter” exactly what the recited “residual wall thickness” is of. A suggested correction appears under objection (c) above.
In the claim 1 clause beginning with “the distance”, it is unclear how to interpret the recitation of determining distance “by a reflective element with a defined thickness”. This language is confusing, in particular since it is unclear how a reflective element could provide such determination.
Since antecedent basis is not clearly conveyed, it is unclear if or exactly how the claim 1 recitation of “a” second measurement beam (2nd applying step) relates back to the second measurement beam first recited in the 3rd claimed emitting step. A suggested correction appears under objection (d) above.
This same corresponding issue exists also in the claim 1 clause beginning with as “a” measurement location, in particular with respect to the previous recitation of a measurement location first recited in the 2nd claimed applying step. A suggested correction similarly appears under objection (d) above.
Absent persuasive argument contesting these issues, appropriate correction 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.
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 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). A machine translation of each of Bach and Suzuki is cited herein.
As to claim 1, Bach teaches the claimed 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 which is in turn used to control the processing beam source in the manner claimed (see again fig. 1 and its corresponding description).
Bach discloses that a distance S3 between the first and second measurement beam sources should be redetermined before each drilling operation of a respective component 1, but does not specify exactly how this redetermining is performed, let alone by the claimed use of a reflective element in place of the component. However, in a technique which similarly provides non-contact distance and/or thickness measurement of a component, Suzuki discloses use of a reference calibration body with a known thickness being arranged in place of said component so as to determine a distance C between measurement means 10 and 12, which correspond to the first and second measurement beam sources of Bach and those claimed, and which are similarly disposed on opposing sides of the calibration body and component (see at least fig. 3 and its corresponding description). 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 is utilized for Bach’s above-cited redetermining before each drilling operation so that an accurate value may be obtained for distance S3 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). A machine translation of Hermani is cited herein.
Bach does not specify the exact type of measurement equipment utilized for the first and second measurement means, 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.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Suzuki as applied above, or in the alternative over this combination and further in view of either Nicholas et al. (US 7,297,897), Bauer et al. (US 5,883,356), or Wittenbecher (US 7,989,728).
Under either of the above-cited rejections of claim 4, claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bach in view of Suzuki and either Nicholas, Bauer, or Wittenbecher.
Bach teaches a holding device (machine translation p. 4, 1st full paragraph) which is believed to provide the claim 4 placement surface. In the alternative that it is ultimately determined that Bach is not sufficiently specific enough to establish that component 1 in fact rests on the holding device in the manner claimed, then each of Nicholas, Bauer, and Wittenbecher is recognized for disclosing such a placement surface for a similar laser machining process, in particular whereby a measurement is performed therethrough consistent with the transmittance recited by claims 5-6 (Nicholas fig. 1 fixture 18, Bauer fig. 5 fixture 32, Wittenbecher fig. 1 holding unit). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to incorporate these teachings from either Nicholas, Bauer, or Wittenbecher into modified Bach as providing an art-recognized suitable and/or interchangeable holding device.
Claims 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 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). A machine translation of Maier 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.
Interview Request
Applicant’s Representative is encouraged to contact the Examiner directly should there be any questions or outstanding issues arising from the instant Office action, particularly if it is believed that a discussion will help to advance prosecution.
Conclusion
See at least the abstract and figures of the additional prior art hereby made of record, which additional prior art is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure and may be relied upon in subsequent rejections against claimed subject matter.
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