LASER SCORING SYSTEM BASED ON LIGHT QUANTITY FEEDBACK

DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 05/13/2026 has been entered. 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim(s) 1 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al (US 2001/0037998) in view of Widman et al (US 2018/0033131). Regarding claim 1, Nicholas discloses a laser scoring system based on light quantity feedback, comprising: a laser source (Fig. 1 #12 cutting beam source) configured to irradiate a laser beam onto a workpiece to form a scoring groove; a sensor (Fig. 1 #26 second sensor) configured to sense and provide a depth of the scoring groove and a residual thickness of the workpiece; and a controller (Fig. 1 #30 one or more industrial controllers) configured to control the output of the laser source based on the depth of the scoring groove and the residual thickness acquired from the sensor (Fig. 1 #26 second sensor) during the formation of the scoring groove ([0041] lines 7-14 ---" During laser scoring at a given point, the two sensors 20, 26 provide signals from which a measurement of the material thickness remaining after the scoring can be derived by the control device 30. Based on this real-time thickness determination, the control device 30 controls the operation of the cutting beam source 12 to effect only the desired extent of material removal intended for any given point on the trim piece 16.”). However, Nicholas does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a residual width measurement sensor positioned on a rear surface of the workpiece, opposite a front surface where the laser beam is incident, to sense the residual thickness of the workpiece based on a transmitted light quantity of the laser beam that has passed through the scoring groove, wherein the laser scoring system further comprises an integrating sphere installed between the workpiece and the residual width measurement sensor, wherein the integrating sphere comprises a spherical reflector positioned at the rear of the workpiece and having an entrance through which a portion of the laser beam passing through the workpiece is incident; a shield installed on the inside of the spherical reflector between the entrance and the residual width measurement sensor to prevent the laser beam from being directly incident on the residual width measurement sensor; and a cooling plate installed on the outside of the reflector to cool the reflector, wherein the residual width measurement sensor is coupled to one side of the reflector. Nonetheless, Widman teaches wherein the sensor comprises a residual width measurement sensor (Fig. 16A #552 camera) to sense the residual thickness of the workpiece based on a transmitted light quantity of the laser beam that has passed through the scoring groove (Examiner notes that the phrase “to sense the residual thickness of the workpiece based on a transmitted light quantity of the laser beam that has passed through the scoring groove” is a statement of intended use and the structure of the device as taught by Widman can perform the intended function. It has been held that “[A]pparatus claims cover what a device is, not what a device does. Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., 909 F.2d 1464, 1469, 15 USPQ2d 1525, 1528 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (emphasis in original); MPEP 2114. A claim containing a “recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus” if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. Ex parte Masham, 2 USPQ2d 1647 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1987); MPEP 2114(II). A recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art.), wherein the laser scoring system further comprising an integrating sphere (Fig. 35 #580 integrating sphere) installed between the workpiece and the residual width measurement sensor, wherein the integrating sphere (Fig. 35 #580 integrating sphere) comprises a spherical reflector (Inner walls of the Fig. 35 #580 integrating sphere) positioned at the rear of the workpiece and having an entrance (Shown in the figure below) through which a portion of the laser beam passing through the workpiece is incident; a shield (Fig. 35 #588 baffle) installed on the inside of the spherical reflector between the entrance and the residual width measurement sensor to prevent the laser beam from being directly incident on the residual width measurement sensor (Fig. 16A #552 camera); and a cooling plate (Fig. 17 #584 cooling plate) installed on the outside of the spherical reflector to cool the spherical reflector, wherein the residual width measurement sensor (Fig. 16A #552 camera) is coupled to one side of the spherical reflector and is configured to determine the residual thickness of the workpiece based on scattered light inside the spherical reflector (Abstract ---"After the light has passed through the ophthalmic lens, the light is used to generate a digital image for the ophthalmic lens that has pixel intensity data that corresponds to the shape of the ophthalmic lens. Information about the light prior to passing through the ophthalmic lens, the light absorptive component of the ophthalmic lens, and the pixel intensity data is used to calculate a thickness profile for the ophthalmic lens.”; The pixel intensity data is gathered by the Fig. 16A #552 camera.). PNG media_image1.png 560 700 media_image1.png Greyscale It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nicholas by replacing the second sensor positioned at the rear of the workpiece with the sensor of Widman for the benefit of efficiently and accurately measuring the thicknesses of workpiece, and using the data to make iterative corrections and improvements to workpiece. (Widman [0008]) Regarding claim 3 , Nicholas in view of Widman teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nicholas teaches further comprising: a beam splitter (Fig. 2A #32 A reflector) provided between the workpiece and the laser source, wherein the sensor includes a monitoring sensor (Fig. 1 #20 first sensor) that provides light to the workpiece through the beam splitter while sensing the output value of the laser beam. Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al (US 2001/0037998) in view of Widman et al (US 2018/0033131) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Schonleber et al (US 2013/0120740). Regarding claim 2, Nicholas in view of Widman teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nicholas teaches further comprising: a beam splitter (Fig. 2A #32 A reflector) provided between the workpiece and the laser source However, Nicholas in view of Widman does not teach wherein the sensor comprises an optical coherence tomography (OCT) sensor to provide light to the workpiece by the beam splitter to sense the depth of the scoring groove. Nonetheless, Schonleber teaches wherein the sensor comprises an optical coherence tomography (OCT) sensor ([0019] lines 16-20 ---" For this purpose a spectral-interferometric distance sensor (also referred to as an OCT or optical coherence tomograph) is integrated into the laser scanner in the material-working device for material working.”) to provide light to the workpiece by the beam splitter to sense the depth of the scoring groove. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nicholas in view of Widman by incorporating the OCT sensor of Schonleber for the purpose of calculating a thickness profile of the workpiece. Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al (US 2001/0037998) in view of Widman et al (US 2018/0033131) as applied to claim 3, further in view of Fukuyo et al (US 2004/0002199). Regarding claim 4, Nicholas in view of Widman teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 3), but does not teach further comprising a neutral density (ND) filter disposed between the beam splitter and the monitoring sensor to pass only the wavelength of the laser beam, and a diverting lens adjusting the size of the laser beam. Nonetheless, Fukuyo teaches further comprising a neutral density (ND) filter (Fig. 67 #401 power regulator; [0418] lines 3-8 ---"The power regulator 401 comprises, for embodiment, a plurality of ND (neutral density) filters, and a mechanism for moving the individual ND filters to positions perpendicular to the optical axis of the laser light L and to the outside of the optical path of laser light L.”) disposed between the beam splitter and the monitoring sensor to pass only the wavelength of the laser beam, and a diverting lens (Fig. 67 #s 105a, 105b, and 105c light-converging lenses) adjusting the size of the laser beam. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nicholas in view of Widman by incorporating the ND filter and diverting lens of Fukuyo for the purpose of calculating a thickness profile of the workpiece. Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nicholas et al (US 2001/0037998) in view of Widman et al (US 2018/0033131) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Stork et al (US 2014/0144895). Regarding claim 5, Nicholas in view of Widman teaches the system as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the sensor comprises a nozzle sensor mounted on a nozzle unit of a laser processing head and sensing an angle of the laser processing head and a distance from the workpiece. Nonetheless, Stork teaches wherein the sensor comprises a nozzle sensor (Fig. 1 #24 inertial sensor) mounted on a nozzle unit of a laser processing head and sensing an angle of the laser processing head and a distance from the workpiece ([0056] lines 7-11 ---" The inertial sensors 24 measure a specific force, e.g. gravitation, and/or angular acceleration without an external reference. Therefore, no reference in the environment, such as a texturized surface for the optical flow method, is necessary for the measurement of the acceleration.”). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the system of Nicholas in view of Widman by incorporating the nozzle sensor of Stork for the purpose of sensing the angle at which the laser contacts the workpiece. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see page 10, filed 05/13/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Widman et al (US 2018/0033131). Applicant argues that the Fig. 35 #514 forming optic is not a sensor but rather a part of an imaging system. Examiner respectfully agrees. However, Fig. 16A #552 camera of Widman is a sensor. The Fig. 16A #552 camera captures images of the reflected scattered light inside of the integrating sphere. This new mapping of a residual-thickness sensing structure is applied in claim 1. Applicant's further arguments filed 05/13/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. 1) The combination of Nicholas and Widman does not teach or suggest the claimed scattered-light-based residual thickness sensing arrangement. Widman does not disclose or suggest a sensing structure configured to use transmitted processing laser light for residual-thickness feedback sensing during laser scoring based on diffusely scattered light within an integrating sphere. More specifically, Widman does not disclose or suggest the presently claimed configuration in which: (i) direct incidence of the transmitted laser beam onto the residual width measurement sensor is blocked by a shield; and (ii) the residual thickness is determined specifically based on scattered light inside the spherical reflector. Examiner respectfully disagrees. (i) Widman does teach that direct light is prevented from directly illuminating the forming optic. [0236] ---" In one embodiment, the integrating sphere 580 includes a baffle 588 that prevents direct illumination of the forming optic 514. Figure 35 (Figure included below) shows light being reflected by the #588 baffle, where light is then reflected onto and throughout the inner surface of the integrating sphere. PNG media_image2.png 508 432 media_image2.png Greyscale (ii) Widman does teach that residual thickness is determined specifically based on scattered light inside the spherical reflector. Abstract ---" After the light has passed through the ophthalmic lens, the light is used to generate a digital image for the ophthalmic lens that has pixel intensity data that corresponds to the shape of the ophthalmic lens. Information about the light prior to passing through the ophthalmic lens, the light absorptive component of the ophthalmic lens, and the pixel intensity data is used to calculate a thickness profile for the ophthalmic lens.” The Fig. 35 #580 integrating sphere scatters light and the Fig. 16A #552 camera captures the image of the scattered light. Applicant argues that the presently claimed invention employs a fundamentally different sensing principle from the image-based optical analysis of Widman and instead utilizes scattered-light-based residual-thickness feedback control. Examiner respectfully disagrees. The combination of Nicholas and Widman would realize scattered-light-based residual-thickness feedback control with Nicholas having the control part machining based on sensor data and Widman providing the sensor data. In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). 2) The proposed combination would require fundamental redesign rather that simple substitution. Applicant argues that the Examiner's proposed combination would require substantial redesign of the optical feedback structure of Nicholas. Specifically, Nicholas does not disclose conditioning transmitted processing laser light through an integrating sphere such that residual thickness is determined based on scattered light while direct beam incidence onto the sensor is blocked. Examiner respectfully agrees. However, it would be obvious to substitute the sensor of Nicholas with the sensor arrangement of Widman. The combination of Nicholas and Widman would realize the requirements of the claimed invention, the requirements being: (i) transmitted processing laser light passing through the workpiece (Nicholas); (ii) an integrating sphere configured to receive the transmitted processing laser light (Widman); (iii) an optical path introducing the transmitted laser beam into the spherical reflector (Nicholas and Widman); (iv) a shield structure blocking direct beam incidence onto the residual width measurement sensor (Widman); and (v) residual-thickness determination based on scattered light inside the spherical Reflector (Widman). In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, 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). Applicant argues that the cited references do not explain why a person having ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to redesign the sensing architecture of Nicholas to adopt the presently claimed integrating-sphere-based scattered-light sensing configuration in which direct beam incidence onto the sensor is structurally excluded. In response to applicant’s argument that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, replacing the sensor of Nicholas with the sensor of Widman would be beneficial for efficiently and accurately measuring the thicknesses of the workpiece, and using the data to make iterative corrections and improvements to workpiece. Applicant argues that the present rejection relies upon hindsight reconstruction that selectively extracts isolated optical components from Widman while disregarding the fundamentally different sensing principle and operational context of the cited reference. In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, 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, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971). 3) The presently claimed configuration achieves different technical effects. Applicant argues that the shield is not merely a general optical baffle, but instead structurally prevents directly incident transmitted laser light from reaching the residual width measurement sensor such that residual-thickness determination is performed using diffusely scattered light within the spherical reflector. The shield of Widman does prevent directly incident transmitted laser light from reaching the residual width measurement sensor such that residual-thickness determination is performed using diffusely scattered light within the spherical reflector. This effect is shown in figure 35 (included below). [0236] ---"In one embodiment, the integrating sphere 580 includes a baffle 588 that prevents direct illumination of the forming optic 514.” [0239] ---"Referring to FIG. 19, in one embodiment, using a baffle 588 improves the irradiance of the intensity-based image.” [0296] ---"As light rays are generated by LED 540, at least some of the light rays reflect off the baffle 588 before being internally reflected within the integrating sphere 580 and through the convexly curved surface 516 of the forming optic 514.” The technical effect is known in the art. PNG media_image2.png 508 432 media_image2.png Greyscale Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5. 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. /JOE E MILLS JR./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761