Ex Parte Briand et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Mar 9, 2018

13063689 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 9, 2018)

United States Patent and Trademark Office
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
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
13/063,689 06/06/2011 Francis Briand Serie 7862 4689
40582 7590
American Air Liquide, Inc.
Intellectual Property Department
9811 Katy Freeway
Suite 100
Houston, TX 77024
EXAMINER
PAIK, SANG YEOP
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3742
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
03/13/2018 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):
IP-U S Office @ airliquide.com
Neva. Dare-c @ airliquide. com
Justin.Murray @ airliquide.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
Ex parte FRANCIS BRIAND, GAIA BALLERINI,
ISABELLE DEBECKER, HAKIM MAAZAOUI, and ERIE VERNA
Appeal 2016-004685
Application 13/063,689
Technology Center 3700
Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LEE L. STEPINA, and
SEAN P. O’HANLON, Administrative Patent Judges.
STAICOVICI, Administrative Patent Judge.
DECISION ON APPEAL
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Francis Briand et al. (“Appellants”)1 appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a)
from the Examiner’s decision in the Final Action (dated July 30, 2014,
hereinafter “Final Act.”) rejecting claims 16—30.2 We have jurisdiction over
this appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
1 L’Air Liquide is identified as the real party in interest in Appellants’
Appeal Brief (filed Dec. 23, 2014, hereinafter “Appeal Br.”), at
page 3.
2 Claims 1—15 are cancelled. Revised Appeal Brief, filed Sept. 14,
2015, Claims App’x.
Appeal 2016-004685
Application 13/063,689
SUMMARY OF DECISION
We AFFIRM.
INVENTION
Appellants’ invention relates to a laser cutting process and apparatus.
Spec. 1,1. 4,3,1.35.
Claims 16 and 29 are independent. Claim 16 is illustrative of the
claimed invention and reads as follows:
16. A process for cutting a workpiece using a laser beam, in
which:
a) an incident laser beam, having a given initial beam
quality (BPP), is generated by a laser source coupled to at least
one optical fiber configured to convey the beam;
b) said incident laser beam is brought to a focusing
head having at least one focusing optic;
c) the incident laser beam is focused by the focusing
optic so as to obtain a focused laser beam; and
d) the workpiece is cut by the focused laser beam,
characterized in that the BPP of the incident laser beam is
adjusted or modified by an optical device suitable for and
configured to modify or act on the BPP of a laser beam so as to
obtain a focused laser beam having a modified BPP that differs
from the BPP of said incident laser beam, said optical device
comprising at least one diffracting optical component and
capable of producing a modified focused laser beam, the BPP
of which is different from the initial BPP of the incident laser
beam by a multiplicative factor equal to or greater than 1.2 but
less than or equal to 5.
2
Appeal 2016-004685
Application 13/063,689
REJECTIONS3
I. The Examiner rejected claims 16—22 and 25—30 under
35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as being unpatentable over Briand et al. (FR
2 897 007, pub. Aug. 10, 2007, hereinafter “Briand”)4 and
Egawa et al. (US 7,348,517 B2, iss. Mar. 25, 2008, hereinafter
“Egawa”).
II. The Examiner rejected claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as being unpatentable over Briand, Egawa, and Amako
et al. (US 2003/0205564 Al, pub. Nov. 6, 2003, hereinafter
“Amako”), Broekroelofs (US 5,922,224, iss. July 13, 1999), or
Yoshimura et al. (US 7,255,806 B2, iss. Aug. 14, 2007,
hereinafter “Yoshimura”).5
3 The rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b) of claims 16, 17, 19, 21, 22, and
28—30 as anticipated by Kakui et al. (US 2008/0180788 Al, pub. July 31,
2008, hereinafter “Kakui”) has been withdrawn by the Examiner.
Examiner’s Answer 4 (dated Feb. 1, 2016, hereinafter “Ans.”).
4 We note that the U.S. equivalent of Briand is Chouf et al. (US 8,278,591
B2, iss. Oct. 2, 2012, hereinafter “Chouf’). As Appellants refer to Chouf
when discussing Briand, for consistency purposes, we shall do so as well.
See Appeal Br. 9-10.
5 We consider the rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 16—22 and
25—30 as unpatentable over Briand and Kakui and of claims 23 and 24 as
unpatentable over Briand, Kakui, and Amako, Broekroelofs, or Yoshimura
as withdrawn by the Examiner. Compare Final Act. 3—5 with Ans. 2—A.
3
Appeal 2016-004685
Application 13/063,689
ANALYSIS
Rejection I
Appellants argue the rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claims 16—
22 and 25—30 together as a group. See Appeal Br. 9-10.6 Therefore, in
accordance with 37 C.F.R. § 41.37(c)(l)(iv), we select claim 16 as the
representative claim to decide the appeal, with claims 17—22 and 25—30
standing or falling with claim 16.
The Examiner finds that Briand discloses most of the limitations of
independent claim 16, but “does not show a modified BPP by a diffractive
optical device.” Final Act. 3^4. Nonetheless, the Examiner finds that
Egawa discloses an optical element for “provid[ing] a modified BPP factor
M[2]. . . [of] about 2.8 to less than 5.”7 Id. at 4; see also Egawa, fig. 4, col.
7,11. 15—29. Thus, the Examiner concludes that “it would have been obvious
to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt Briand with the optical device with
a diffractive or reflective optical component that is known to enhance the
focusing of the incident laser beam by yielding the claimed BPP factor.”
Final Act. 4.
Appellants argue that because Briand already modifies the laser beam
quality factor BPP by modifying the number of optical fibers and the manner
in which they are bundled, there is no need to provide Briand’s laser
6 Appellants’ statement that “[cjlaims 29 and 30 have been cancelled” (see
Appeal Br. 10) is not accurate as the After-Final Amendment, filed Sept. 29,
2014, was not entered by the Examiner. See Advisory Action, dated Oct. 14,
2014.
7 We note that both beam parameter product BPP and index M2 represent
beam quality and are related by a factor of (where X represents the laser
beam wavelength). See e.g., John C. Ion, Laser Processing of Engineering
Materials: Principles, Procedure and Industrial Application 67 (2005).
4
Appeal 2016-004685
Application 13/063,689
apparatus with a diffractive optical element. Appeal Br. 9—10 (citing Chouf,
col. 3,11. 42-62).
We appreciate Appellants’ position that Briand already discloses
modifying the laser beam quality factor BPP. See Chouf, col. 3,11. 56—67.
However, we agree with the Examiner that providing the optical element of
Egawa to the laser system of Briand would allow “the initial beam quality
. . . [to] be further modified ... so that the modified beam can further
enhance the desired laser [cutting] application.” Ans. 4—5 (citing Egawa,
col. 7,11. 15—55) (emphasis added). For example, Briand discloses laser
cutting stainless steel plates having a thickness in the range of 1.5 to 6 mm,
whereas Egawa discloses laser cutting a mild steel plate having a thickness
of 30 mm. See Briand, Table; Egawa, col. 7,11. 15—18, 49-52. As such,
providing the optical element of Egawa to the laser system of Briand would
expand the versatility of the laser system of Briand as it is capable of
providing quality laser cutting for a wider variety of materials and
thicknesses. Using the same laser apparatus to cut different materials and
thicknesses would have been well appreciated by those of ordinary skill in
the art.
In other words, the Examiner’s modification is an improvement to
Briand’s laser cutting process and apparatus. An improvement that is
nothing more than the predictable use of prior art elements according to their
established functions is likely to be obvious. KSR Int 7 Co. v. Teleflex Inc.,
550 U.S. 398, 417 (2007). The Examiner’s modification is nothing more
than the mere application of a known technique (i.e., the use of an optical
component to modify the laser beam quality factor BPP) to a piece of prior
art ready for the improvement.
5
Appeal 2016-004685
Application 13/063,689
For the first time, in the Reply Brief, Appellants argue that Egawa
fails to disclose a diffracting optical component, as called for by independent
claim 16. See Reply Br. 3^4. According to Appellants, Egawa’s ‘“aspheric
lens,’” “‘aspheric mirror,’” and “combination of spherical lenses” do not
constitute a diffracting optical component. Id. This argument is untimely
and not in response to an argument raised by the Examiner for the first time
in the Answer. Therefore, it will not be considered as Appellants offer no
reason why the argument was not raised in the Appeal Brief. See 37 C.F.R.
§ 41.41 (b)(2) (“Any argument raised in the reply brief which was not raised
in the appeal brief, or is not responsive to an argument raised in the
examiner’s answer . . . will not be considered by the Board for purposes of
the present appeal, unless good cause is shown.”); In re Hyatt, 211 F.3d
1367,1373 (Fed. Cir. 2000).
In conclusion, for the foregoing reasons, we sustain the rejection
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) of claim 16 as unpatentable over Briand and
Egawa. Claims 17—22 and 25—30 fall with claim 16.
Rejection II
With respect to Rejection II, Appellants do not present any arguments
separate from the arguments discussed supra. See Appeal Br. 9-10.
Therefore, for the same reasons discussed above, we likewise sustain the
rejections of claims 23 and 24 over the combined teachings of Briand,
Egawa, and Amako, Broekroelofs, or Yoshimura.
6
Appeal 2016-004685
Application 13/063,689
SUMMARY
The Examiner’s decision to reject claims 16—30 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) is affirmed.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(l)(iv).
AFFIRMED
7