Ex Parte WATANABE et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Aug 29, 2018

14048707 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2018)

UNITED STA TES p A TENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE
14/048,707 10/08/2013
513 7590 08/31/2018
WENDEROTH, LIND & PONACK, L.L.P.
1030 15th Street, N.W.,
Suite 400 East
Washington, DC 20005-1503
UNITED ST A TES OF AMERICA
FIRST NAMED INVENTOR
Masao WATANABE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www .uspto.gov
ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
2013-1569A 9781
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
08/31/2018 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
eoa@wenderoth.com
kmiller@wenderoth.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte MAS AO WAT AN ABE and T AIICHIROU KOGA 1
Appeal 2018-001171
Application 14/048,707
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
ARTHUR M. PESLAK, Administrative Patent Judges.
STEPINA, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Masao Watanabe and Taiichirou Koga ("Appellants") appeal under 35
U.S.C. § 134(a) from the Examiner's Final decision rejecting claims 1-3.
We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We REVERSE.
1 Appellants' Appeal Brief lists Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, LTD as the
real party in interest. Appeal Br. 2.
Appeal 2018-001171
Application 14/048, 707
THE CLAIMED SUBJECT MATTER
The claims are directed to a laser cutting apparatus and laser cutting
method. Spec. ,r 1. Claims 1 and 3 are independent. Claim 1, reproduced
below, is illustrative of the claimed subject matter:
1. A laser cutting apparatus for cutting a workpiece by
radiating a laser beam thereon, the laser cutting apparatus
compnsmg:
a laser entrance portion to which an optical fiber that
transmits the laser beam is fixed; and
a lens through which the laser beam radiated from the
optical fiber fixed by the laser entrance portion passes,
wherein the laser entrance portion includes a moving
portion for moving or tilting the optical fiber with respect to the
lens, and a fixing portion that fixes the moved or tilted optical
fiber with respect to the lens,
wherein intensity-peak portions become equal and form a
ring shape in an energy-intensity distribution on a plane which
includes a cut portion of the workpiece and which is
perpendicular to a beam axis of the laser beam, and
wherein the fixing portion fixes the moved or tilted optical
fiber with respect to the lens in a state in which the optical fiber
has been moved or tilted with respect to the lens and in which a
positional relationship between the optical fiber held by the
moving portion and the lens has been adjusted based on a
measured energy-intensity distribution of the laser beam on the
plane which includes the cut portion of the workpiece.
Teichert
Zumoto
Frelier
Anikitchev
Ogino
Ramsayer
Morikatsu
REFERENCES RELIED ON BY THE EXAMINER
us 4,303,301
us 5,684,642
us 5,937,123
US 7,847,213 Bl
US 2009/0173724 Al
US 2010/0320177 Al
JP 2012-024794 A
2
Dec. 1, 1981
Nov. 4, 1997
Aug. 10, 1999
Dec. 7, 2010
July 9, 2009
Dec. 23, 2010
Feb.9,2012
Appeal 2018-001171
Application 14/048, 707
REJECTIONS 2
(I) Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Morikatsu, Frelier or Teichert, Zumoto, and Anikitchev.
(II) Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Morikatsu, Frelier or Teichert, Zumoto, Anikitchev, and Ramsayer or
Ogino.
OPINION
Claim 1 recites, in part, "wherein intensity-peak portions become
equal and form a ring shape in an energy-intensity distribution on a plane
which includes a cut portion of the workpiece and which is perpendicular to
a beam axis of the laser beam." Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Claim 3
similarly recites
adjusting a positional relationship between the optical fiber and
the lens in such a manner that intensity-peak portions become
equal and form a ring shape in an energy-intensity distribution
on a plane which includes a cut portion of the workpiece and
which is perpendicular to a beam axis of the laser beam.
Appeal Br. 15 (Claims App.). 3
The Examiner finds that Morikatsu discloses most of the features of
the independent claims including "a moving portion (3 8) that also moves the
2 A rejection of claims 1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph, as failing
to comply with the written description requirement; and a rejection of claims
1-3 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, second paragraph, as being indefinite are
withdrawn. See Advisory Action dated Mar. 20, 2017.
3 Although claim 1 does not relate the intensity peak portions to adjusting
the positional relationship between the optical fiber and the lens, based on
the disclosure in the Specification and claim 3, we understand the limitation
"intensity-peak portions become equal and form a ring shape" to be a result
of adjusting (moving or tilting) the optical fiber with respect to the lens.
3
Appeal 2018-001171
Application 14/048, 707
optical fiber," but relies on Zmnoto to teach intensity peak portions that are
equal and form a ring by changing an angle of incidence. Final Act. 3--4.
The Examiner alternately relies on Anikitchev to teach intensity peak
portions that form a ring. Final Act. 4. The Examiner considers that it
would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art to modify
the apparatus of Morikatsu so that moving the optical fiber to change the
angle of incidence with respect to the lens would "predictably produce the
desired shapes including the ring shape as claimed for laser cutting." Id.
Appellants argue that the energy-intensity distribution of the laser
beam of Zumoto and Anikitchev is not based on the recited adjusted
positional relationship between the optical fiber and the lens. Appeal Br. 5.
Specifically, Appellants assert that the Figure 3 embodiment of Zumoto
teaches "a change in optical intensity across an optical axis as the fiber is
moved in DISTANCE from an axially-ALIGNED lens," and Anikitchev
teaches "changing an opening ratio of a slit (aperture 124) to create non-
Gaussian distributions of intensity." Id. Appellants assert that Zumoto's
Figure 8(a) embodiment also cited by the Examiner does not suggest the
claimed energy-intensity distribution, because this embodiment is based on
"an adjustment that is made at the opposite, inlet end face 72 of an optical
fiber 70 - not at the end that radiates to a lens, as claimed by Claim 1."
Appeal Br. 6-7.
In response, the Examiner does not directly address Appellants'
argument with respect to the recited positional relationship in Anikitchev
and states that "Anikitchev [is] further applied to show the ring-shaped laser
beam as known in the art." Ans. 4. Responding to Appellants' argument
regarding Zumoto' s optical fiber and lens, the Examiner states that because
4
Appeal 2018-001171
Application 14/048, 707
"there is no explicit[] recitation how the fixing portion is provided with the
lens but that the fixing portion/adjustment is made with respect to the lens
... Zumoto would also meet the claimed fixing portion." Ans. 5. The
Examiner notes that because the claims do not require the lens and optical
fiber to be "mis-aligned," the claims do not distinguish over movement
along the optical axis as in Zumoto. Id.
In reply, Appellants reiterate that the references do not suggest that
the energy-intensity distribution of the laser beam is changed by adjusting
the positional relationship between the laser entrance portion and the lens, as
claimed. Reply Br. 2-3.
Appellants have the better position. Anikitchev discloses that
"changes in the size of aperture 124 alter the intensity and phase profile in
the second Fourier plane 126." Anikitchev, 8:52-54. The Examiner does
not point to any portion of Anikitchev that discloses adjusting a positional
relationship between the optical fiber and the lens so that intensity-peak
portions become equal and form a ring shape in an energy-intensity
distribution, as required by the claims. Although we appreciate that the laser
beam profiles in Figures 5D and 5E of Anikitchev include intensity peak
portions similar to those illustrated in Figure 6 of the present Specification
(see Final Act. 4), the intensity peak portions of Anikitchev are not attained
by adjusting the optical fiber with respect to the lens as recited in the claims.
The Examiner has not established that there is known correlation between
the change in aperture size and the recited positional relationship that would
allow one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the teachings of Anikitchev to
Morikatsu and result in the claimed energy-intensity distribution.
5
Appeal 2018-001171
Application 14/048, 707
Zmnoto discloses that "the focusing pattern of the laser beam 13
incident on the first lens 6 changes with respect to the optical axis direction
in the vicinity of the focusing position, as shown in FIG. 3." Zumoto,
12:29--32. That is, the light intensity shapes vary as you change distance
from the lens along the optical axis. Id. at Fig. 3; see also Appeal Br. 5. In
contrast, the Specification discloses that "[ t ]he moving portion 6 can be
moved in a plane as a flat surface (XY plane) perpendicular to the beam axis
of the laser beam." Spec. ,r 21. Hence, one of ordinary skill in the art would
understand that "moving," as recited in claim 1 and consistent with the
Specification is perpendicular to the optical axis, not along the optical axis.
The Figure 3 embodiment of Zumoto and accompanying disclosure on
column 12, do not suggest adjusting a positional relationship between the
optical fiber and the lens, as claimed. As such, the Examiner has not
adequately established that the Figure 3 embodiment of Zumoto suggests
adjusting a positional relationship between the optical fiber and the lens so
that intensity-peak portions become equal and form a ring shape, as recited.
As to the embodiment of Figure 8(a) of Zumoto, we agree with
Appellants that Zumoto does not disclose a relationship between the optical
fiber and the lens as recited. Specifically, the Examiner's position that
"there is no explicit recitation how the fixing portion is provided with the
lens," is incorrect. Ans. 5. Claim 1 recites, in part, "a laser entrance portion
to which an optical fiber that transmits the laser beam is fixed; and a lens
through which the laser beam radiated from the optical fiber fixed by the
laser entrance portion passes." Appeal Br. 14 (Claims App.). Hence the
laser beam radiated from the optical fiber must pass through the lens, placing
the lens after the outlet of the optical fiber, as Appellants assert. Because
6
Appeal 2018-001171
Application 14/048, 707
Zmnoto's Figure 8(a) depicts lens 60 before optical fiber 70, the Examiner
has not established adequately that a lens after the optical fiber as recited
would produce the same intensity distribution. That is, Zumoto discloses
that "the intensity distribution of the outgoing laser beam can be controlled
by changing the angle of incidence on the optical fiber," and the Examiner
has not provided sufficient evidence that the recited intensity-peak portions
become equal and form a ring shape when the lens is after the optical fiber
as in Morikatsu. Zumoto, 14: 13-16.
A preponderance of the evidence does not support the Examiner's
finding that the claimed intensity distribution would be achieved (see Final
Act. 4) because Anikitchev changes aperture size to alter intensity and
because Zumoto changes intensity based on movement along the optical axis
in Figure 3, or based on an incident angle from a lens to an optical fiber in
Figure 8. It is not evident that Morikatsu as modified based on the teachings
of Anikitchev and Zumoto would "predictably produce the desired shapes
including the ring shape as claimed," as the Examiner determines. Id.
Accordingly, we do not sustain the rejection of claims 1 and 3 as
unpatentable over Morikatsu, Frelier or Teichert, Zumoto, and Anikitchev.
Rejection (II)
The Examiner's use of the disclosures ofRamsayer and Ogino does
not remedy the deficiency in Rejection (I) discussed above. See Final Act.
4--5. Accordingly, for the reasons discussed above regarding Rejection (I),
we do not sustain Rejection (II).
7
Appeal 2018-001171
Application 14/048, 707
REVERSED
8