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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 39 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In this case, it was noted that the status of claim 39 was “previously presented” on 05/18/2026, but claim 39 was not “newly added” in the RCE 11/25/2025. Claim 39 was proposed in the response after final on 10/21/2025, and it was not entered. Hence, the status of claim 39 should be “newly added” on 05/18/2026.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this case, independent claim 40 recites the subject matter “wherein said top protection assembly, said middle protection assembly, and said bottom protection assembly form a cavity enclosing only substantially said laser torch head” was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. In contract, the specification discloses, the top protection assembly, the middle protection assembly, and the bottom protection assembly form a cavity enclosing not only substantially said laser torch head, but must also enclose a part of the surface of the workpiece so as preventing exposure of the laser by an operator (see para 0037).
Hence, claim 40 fails to comply with the written description requirement.
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.
Claim 40 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated over Schmauder (WO 2011045098 A1 and see PDF translation attached).
Regarding claim 40, Schmauder discloses, a laser cutting tool (see processing machine 1 in Fig. 1) with protective enclosure assembly (see shielding device 8 in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2) for manipulating a workpiece (see metal sheet 5 in Fig. 1) on a material bed (see coordinate guide 4 and annotated in Fig. 1), said laser cutting tool (1) with protective enclosure assembly (8) comprising:
a frame (see frame 2 in Fig. 1), said frame including said material bed (see frame 2 including coordinate guide 4 as annotated in Fig. 1);
a top protection assembly (see base plate 14 in Fig. 2);
a middle protection shield (see ring-shaped element holders 16 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3);
a bottom protection assembly (see shielding elements 18 in Fig. 2 and Fig. 3);
a laser torch head (see laser processing head machining head 6 in Fig. 3) selectively positionable above said material bed (see Fig. 1 and Fig. 3);
wherein said top protection assembly (14), said middle protection assembly (16), and said bottom protection assembly (18) are removably mounted to one another (see Fig. 3 and disclosed in the specification “Ring-shaped element holders 16 of the shielding units 13 are each provided with a toothed rim 17 on their side facing the base plate 14 of the shielding device 8 (FIG. 3). On the side opposite the sprocket 17, the egg cement holders 16 support shielding elements 18 in the form of elastic bristles which extend along the device axis 7”); and
wherein said top protection assembly (14), said middle protection assembly (16), and said bottom protection assembly (18) form a cavity enclosing only substantially said laser torch head (see Fig. 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
526
875
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Allowable Subject Matter
Independent claims 21 and 39 are allowed. Claims 23-26, 34, 37-38 are also allowed as being dependent upon claim 21.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Trumpf teaches a frame 21, the top protection assembly with the opening as seen in Fig. 2, Huonker teaches an annular shield brush assembly 15 to cover the opening to prevent the laser to seal the laser light for coming out, and Harrison further teaches, complex mechanical interlocks and shutter systems designed to disable the laser when safety sensors are triggered.
However, Trumpf does not explicitly teach the top protection assembly is removable or interlocked with a frame, Huonker does not explicitly teach an annular shield brush assembly 15 is removable or interlocked with a frame, hence, the modification of Harrion to make “said laser torch head can be deactivated if said at least one top interlock switch is in an unlock position” or “all the top, middle and bottom switches are in locked positions in order to activate the laser head” to reach the claimed invention would be unreasonable and based on hindsight since there is no suggestion or motivation in the references to indicate obviousness in such extensive changes to Trumpf and/or Huonker. No additional evidence was found to reasonably render a case of obviousness against the claimed invention.
Response to Amendment/Response to Arguments
The amendment of 05/18/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant's arguments filed 05/18/2026 have been fully considered but newly added claim 40 has been necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to VY T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571) 272-6015. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday approx. 9:00 am-5:00 pm ET.
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 on (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.
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights