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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/05/2025 and 11/11/2025 have been considered by the examiner.
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 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim Interpretation: The recitation “for removing an insulation coating of an electric wire including a core wire and the insulation coating made of an organic polymer material” has not been given patentable weight because the recitation occurs in the preamble. A preamble is generally not accorded any patentable weight where it merely recites the purpose of a process or the intended use of a structure, and where the body of the claim does not depend on the preamble for completeness but, instead the process steps or structural limitations are able to stand alone. See MPEP 2111.02
Claims 1, 10-12, 14, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Tsutsui (JP 6845115 B2).
Regarding claim 1, Tsutsui discloses a method for removing an insulating coating. The method to include the use of a holding unit that holds and rotates a conductor 13 having an insulating coating 15 provided on its outer peripheral surface, see at least figure 3, [0024] – [0025] – (construed as a step of installing the electric wire at a position where a surface of the electric wire is irradiated with laser light). The removal process includes irradiating the insulating film coating with a laser that partially transmits the insulating film coating wherein the laser has a wavelength of 355 to 1064 nm to include by example 532 nm when using a green laser, see [0012], [0013] - (construed as a removing step of removing the coating by irradiating each place of a target region from which the coating is to be removed on the surface of the electric wire with the laser light having a wavelength of 300 nm or more and 600 nm or less a plurality of times).
Tsutsui further discloses a laser scanning scheme of irradiating the insulating film 15 a plurality of times. In particular, at a starting point of A0 the scanning is provided around the entire circumference of the conductor, see at least [0030], figure 3 - P1, P2 - (construed as wherein the removing step includes: a first step of irradiating the surface of the electric wire with the laser light to thin the coating). And further scanning where at the previous starting point to thereby provide a cut 19 which penetrates to the conductor to separate the insulating film coating from the conductor, see at least [0031], figure 3 – P3- P6 - (construed as wherein the removing step includes: a second step of irradiating the coating thinned in the first step with the laser light to remove the coating).
Concerning the claimed ranges: Tsutsui teaches the wavelength being 355 to 1064 nm which fully encompasses the claimed 300 nm or more and 600 nm or less. The examiner takes note of the fact that as the prior art wavelength range completely encompasses the claimed range. And contemplates use thereof using a specific example within the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, the claimed range is anticipated. In re UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claims 10-11, Tsutsui discloses a diameter of a beam at a focal position of the laser light is 0.286 mm = 286 micrometers, see [0023] – (corresponds to and overlaps 500 μm or less and 200 μm or more). Concerning the claimed ranges: Tsutsui teaches a beam diameter which is fully within the claimed 500 micrometers or less and 200 micrometers or more. The examiner takes note of the fact that as the prior art beam diameter range is completely wihtin the claimed ranges. And contemplates use thereof using a specific example within the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, the claimed range is anticipated. In re UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). MPEP 2131.03.
Regarding claim 12, Tsutsui discloses when scanning a laser, any scanning line and a scanning line adjacent thereto may be in contact with each other, or a gap may be present between them. The size of the gap is preferably within a range in which the lap allowance of the laser beam spot is zero or more and the lens 5 focuses the light to include a spot, see at least figure 1 and [0017] – (construed as a spot of the laser light is scanned using a laser scanner).
Regarding claim 14, Tsutsui discloses the conductor – (construed as a core wire) is made of a copper-based metal material, see [0025].
Tsutsui discloses the shape of the conductor is not particularly limited, see [0009]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner this includes an end portion of the electric wire has a protruding shape protruding in a longitudinal direction of the electric wire.
Regarding claim 16, Tsutsui discloses the conductor – (construed as a core wire) is made of a copper-based metal material, see [0025].
Regarding claim 17, Tsutsui discloses the insulated film coated conductor is held by a holding unit and the insulating film cover the entire conductor, see [0024] – [0025]. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation afforded the examiner: The holding unit is functional as a cover since the insulated film coat in the region of the insulated film coated conductor covered by the holding unit is not removed – (construed as in the removing step, a region of the coating that is not removed is covered with a cover).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
Claims 2, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui (JP 6845115 B2) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 2, Tsutsui does not explicitly disclose in the first step, a thickness of the coating is decreased to 1 μm or less. However, it does disclose the insulating film preferably has a thickness of less than 1 mm or less to promote efficient removal, see [0011]. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsutsui’s scanning scheme to include in the first scanning pass, a thickness of the insulating film coating is decreased to 1 μm or less since: it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to select such a remaining thickness after the first scanning of the insulating film coating for the purpose of efficient removal.
Regarding claim 13, Tsutsui does not explicitly disclose the laser light is output from an optical head, a central axis of the electric wire is disposed at a position away from the optical head in a first direction, and the coating to be removed is disposed in a range of ±3 mm or less in the first direction with respect to a focal position of the laser light. However, as Tsutsui discloses the laser is distanced from the conductor, as depicted throughout the figures. It is considered, where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tsustui as claimed since: it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to distance the laser from the material to be removed for the purpose focusing the beam spot at any desired position along the extent of the conductor.
Claims 3-7, 9, 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui (JP 6845115 B2) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bocksrocker et al. (US 2023/0219170 A1).
Regarding claims 3-5, 9, Tsutsui does not explicitly disclose a power density at a focal position of the laser light in the second step is higher than a power density at a focal position of the laser light in the first step; or at least one of a power density at a focal position of the laser light, power of the laser light, a spot diameter of the laser light on the surface, a scanning speed in a case where a spot of the laser light is scanned on the surface, and a shift amount in a case where the spot of the laser light is scanned a plurality of times while being shifted in a direction intersecting a scanning direction on the surface is different between the first step and the second step; or a measure of a power density.
Bocksrocker discloses a method for stripping a rod-shaped conductor using laser radiation. The method to include traversing the conductor for a first time with at least one laser beam to at least partially reduce transparency of the coating and traversing the conductor for a second time with the at least one laser beam to at least partially reduce adhesion of the coating, see abstract. Where during the first traversal the laser has a fluence of at least 1 J/cm2 and at most 40 J/cm2 and during the second traversal the laser has a fluence of at least 1 J/cm2 and at most 40 J/cm2, see [0042] – [0043], [0045] – [0046]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that a Joule measures energy and a Watt measures power with a simple conversion being: 1 J/second = 1 watt and that power density (kW/cm2) = fluence (J/cm2)/time (seconds)1000. That is, Bocksrocker’s fluence over any time factor is a measure of power density. As Tsutsui discloses the scanning is performed over time, see at least [0028], [0030] – [0031] and both Bocksrocker and Tsutsui discloses irradiating the conductor multiple times to remove the insulating film coating. It is considered the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
Moreover, as Bocksrocker further discloses the transparency of the coating is initially reduced and the coating can subsequently absorb the energy of the laser beam and can thus be removed, preferably by being burnt off, see at least [0070]. One of ordinary skill would readily expect in the first step, the coating is combusted by energy applied to the coating from the laser light, and in the second step, the coating is combusted by energy applied to the core wire and the coating from the laser light.
For instance, as a matter of routine experimentation one of ordinary skill would readily envision a laser pulse width of 80 microseconds and fluence of 20 (J/cm2) it is readily seen that a power density (kW/cm2) = fluence 20 (J/cm2)/(0.00008 seconds)1000 = 250 (kW/cm2) – (corresponds to and overlaps a power density of 230 (kW/cm2) or more.
Thus, combination of Tsutsui and Bocksrocker discloses the claimed invention except for the power density difference. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have a difference between a power density at a focal position of the laser light between the first step and second step, or be higher than a power density at a focal position of the laser light in the first step or a spot diameter of the laser light on the surface, or a scanning speed or a shift amount, since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to form such a power density difference for the purpose of ensuring efficient removal of the insulating film coating.
Concerning the claimed ranges: The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art presents a reasonable pathway to forming a power density range of 230 (kW/cm2) or more. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Circ. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Regarding claims 6-7, Tsutsui discloses the scanning line 17 which is a locus drawn by the position where the laser 9 irradiates the insulating film 15 or the conductor 13 with the passage of time has a zigzag shape, see at least [0028], figures 2, 4, 3: P3 -P6 – (construed as the removing step includes a plurality of steps of irradiating a specific region of the target region from which the coating is to be removed with a beam of the laser light while performing scanning; and in the plurality of steps of irradiating the specific region with the beam of the laser light while performing the scanning, a scanning position is shifted in a direction intersecting a scanning direction).
Regarding claim 15, modified Tsutsui discloses the coating has a transparency of more than 90% or more to the wavelength of the laser beam, see Bocksrocker [0070] – (construed as the laser light includes laser light having a wavelength at which an absorption rate of the coating is 80 % or more). Concerning the claimed ranges: modified Tsutsui teaches a transparency/absorption rate which is fully within the claimed 80% or more. The examiner takes note of the fact that as the prior art transparency of more than 90% or more to the wavelength of the laser beam range is completely wihtin the claimed ranges. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, the claimed range is anticipated. In re UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). MPEP 2131.03.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui (JP 6845115 B2) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 8, Tsutsui does not explicitly disclose a shift amount of the scanning position is 1/3 or more and 1/2 or less of a width of an irradiation region in the scanning. However, Tsutsui discloses the scanning pathway includes multiple passes to include a zigzag pathway, see at least figures 2, 4. Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to shift an amount of the scanning position to 1/3 or more and 1/2 or less of a width of an irradiation region in the scanning as it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to form such a scanning scheme for the purpose of ensuring efficient removal of the insulating film coating. Concerning the claimed ranges: The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art presents a reasonable pathway to forming a shift amount of the scanning position is 1/3 or more and 1/2 or less of a width of an irradiation region in the scanning. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Circ. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claims 18-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui (JP 6845115 B2), in view of Bocksrocker et al. (US 2023/0219170 A1).
Regarding claims 18-19, Tsutsui discloses a method for removing an insulating coating to include a processing apparatus 1. The apparatus to include a scanning unit 3 – (construed as a laser device) configured to output laser light 9; and a lens 5 – (construed as an optical head) configured to irradiate a surface of an electric wire including a conductor 13 – (construed as a core wire). And while Tsutsui discloses an insulating coating 15 – (construed as a coating) made of polyamide-imide, see [0010] – (construed as an organic polymer material with the laser light output from the laser device, shown throughout the figures). The inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to apparatus claims, In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935), see MPEP 2115.
Tsutsui further discloses the processing apparatus is functional for a laser scanning scheme of irradiating the insulating film 15 a plurality of times, see at least [0030] – [0031] – (the coating is removed by irradiating each place of a region of the surface from which the coating is to be removed with the laser light a plurality of times). And where the laser has a wavelength of 355 to 1064 nm to include by example 532 nm when using a green laser, see [0012], [0013] – (corresponds to and overlaps a wavelength of the laser light is 300 nm or more and 600 nm or less).
Concerning the claimed range: As Tsutsui teaches the wavelength being 355 to 1064 nm which fully encompasses the claimed 300 nm or more and 600 nm or less. The examiner takes note of the fact that as the prior art wavelength range completely encompasses the claimed range. And contemplates use thereof using a specific example within the claimed range. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, the claimed range is anticipated. In re UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., 65 F.4th 679, 687, 2023 USPQ2d 448 (Fed. Cir. 2023). MPEP 2131.03.
As to a measure of power density and power: while Tsutsui discloses by example a laser output of 80 W; it does not explicitly disclose a power density at a focal position of the laser light or explicitly limit a measure of the laser’s power.
Bocksrocker discloses a method for stripping a rod-shaped conductor using laser radiation. The method includes traversing the conductor for a first time with at least one laser beam to at least partially reduce transparency of the coating and traversing the conductor for a second time with the at least one laser beam to at least partially reduce adhesion of the coating, see abstract. Where during the first traversal the laser has a fluence of at least 1 J/cm2 and at most 40 J/cm2 and during the second traversal the laser has a fluence of at least 1 J/cm2 and at most 40 J/cm2, see [0042] – [0043], [0045] – [0046]. One of ordinary skill would readily understand that a Joule measures energy and a Watt measures power with a simple conversion being: 1 J/second = 1 watt and that power density (kW/cm2) = fluence (J/cm2)/time (seconds)1000. That is, Bocksrocker’s fluence over any time factor is a measure of power density. As Tsutsui discloses the scanning is performed over time, see at least [0028], [0030] – [0031] and both Bocksrocker and Tsutsui discloses irradiating the conductor multiple times to remove the insulating film coating. It is considered the general conditions of the claim are disclosed in the prior art and it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.
For instance, as a matter of routine experimentation, one of ordinary skill would readily envision for a laser pulse width of 80 microseconds and fluence of 20 (J/cm2). It is readily seen that a power density (kW/cm2) = fluence 20 (J/cm2)/(0.00008 seconds)1000 = 250 (kW/cm2) = 2.5 (kW/mm2); and a power of 250 kW – (corresponds to and overlaps a power density of 2.5 (kW/mm2) or more; and power of 150 W or more).
Thus, combination of Tsutsui and Bocksrocker discloses the claimed invention except for the measure of power density and power ranges. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to configure the laser to have a power density of 2.5 (kW/mm2) or more and a power of 150 W or more; since it has been' held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. One would have been motivated to form such a power density and power rated laser scheme for the purpose of ensuring efficient removal of the insulating film coating.
Concerning the claimed ranges: The examiner takes note of the fact that the prior art presents a reasonable pathway to forming a power density range of 2.3 (kW/mm2) or more and a power of 150 W or more. Absent any additional and more specific information in the prior art, a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Peterson, 315 F.3d 1325, 1330, 65 USPQ2d 1379 (Fed. Circ. 2003). MPEP 2144.05.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tsutsui (JP 6845115 B2), in view of Bocksrocker et al. (US 2023/0219170 A1), as applied to claim 18 above, and further in view of Kawasaki (US 2022/0413219 A1 as an English equivalent for WO2021172226A1).
Regarding claim 20, as previously discussed, modified Tsutsui discloses the laser device has a wavelength that are 300 nm or more and 600 nm or less, see the rejection of claim 18; but does not explicitly disclose the laser device multiplexes and outputs a plurality of beams of laser light having different wavelengths.
Kawasaki discloses a light output device 100 is configured as a laser device through light sources 10, optical coupler 20 A and machine head 30. The device being configured to multiplex and output a plurality of beams of laser light having different wavelengths, see at least [0062]. This being beneficial for enhancing the luminance of the laser light and that is capable of dealing with the radiant light in an appropriate manner, see [0073].
Accordingly, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to adjust modified Tsutsui laser to multiplex and output a plurality of beams of laser light having different wavelengths as taught by Kawasaki to provide a means for enhancing the luminance of the laser as suggested by Kawasaki.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CEDRICK S WILLIAMS whose telephone number is (571)272-9776. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8:00am-5:00pm.
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, Katelyn Smith can be reached on 5712705545. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see https://ppair-my.uspto.gov/pair/PrivatePair. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/CEDRICK S WILLIAMS/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1749
Prosecution Insights