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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/29/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim(s) 1-2 has been rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. in view of Shapiro et al.
The applicants state that “however, the marking device does not move independently from the cutting tool as the marking device is arranged on the tool slide ‘on a separate tool head (not shown) which moves together with the cutting tool head in a program-controlled manner’” on page 5. The examiner believes the applicants are citing a description related to the embodiment of figure 1, which has one carriage 7. However, the embodiment of figure 3, which was used in the rejection, clearly shows two carriages, that is carriage 7 and second carriage 14. Even though not expressly stated, the use of two carriages as opposed to one clearly suggests the independent movement of each of the cutting tool carrier head 9 and the marking device 10.
Furthermore, the applicants state that “it is a stretch to indicate that etching a mark for physical cutting of glass is the same as a print head for printing on a substrate and then cutting the substrate to separate the printed area from the substrate” (emphasis added) on page 6. This argument is moot since this limitation is not in the claims.
Furthermore, the applicants state that “moreover, in Vollbracht, the device is not controlled in the same manner as a bridge simply moves over the exposed cutting table and the tool carriages moved on the bridge over the glass plate” (emphasis added) on page 6. The applicants need to cite specific limitations of controlling the claimed print and cut gantry that are different from the cutting bridge 5 as described in figure 3 of Vollbracht. The claimed limitations are clearly mapped to Vollbracht starting paragraph 8 below.
Furthermore, the applicants state that “this is not possible to fit within a housing as claimed and moreover, such modification would actually prevent the accurate marking as desired in Vollbracht as such visual markings would be obscured” (emphasis added) on page 6. First, the applicants have failed to explain why it is not possible to fit the marking and cutting system of figure 3 of Vollbracht within a housing. The examiner believes such housing to enclosed a system to prevent dust from interfering with the operation is well-known in the art. Second, the argument regarding the visual markings being obscured is moot since such limitation is not in the claims.
Furthermore, the applicants state that “the alleged modification of Vollbrecht in view of Shapiro does not actually make obvious a printer that can print and cut media in a single operation, let alone one where the media is fed into a housing where it is print and cut” on page 6. First, both Vollbrecht and Shapiro teach digitally controlled systems. As such, the systems can be controlled to perform different tasks in a single operation. Second, Vollbrecht suggests that the medium to be marked and cut would first have to be fed onto the cutting table. In the case there is a housing surrounding the system, the medium would first have to be fed into the housing.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brodsky et al. For the same reasons as stated above for claims 1-2, the examiner believes the rejection of claim 3 is proper.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. and Brodsky et al. as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jerman et al. For the same reasons as stated above for claims 1-3, the examiner believes the rejections of claims 4-5 are proper.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oguchi et al. For the same reasons as stated above for claim 1, the examiner believes the rejections of claims 6-7 are proper.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokushima et al. For the same reasons as stated above for claim 1, the examiner believes the rejection of claim 8 is proper
Response to Amendment
Applicant’s Amendment filed on 07/29/2025 regarding claims 1-12 is fully considered. Of the above claims, claims 9-12 have been withdrawn; claim 2 has been amended.
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.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. (WO 2004/113242 A1) in view of Shapiro et al. (US 2017/0045877 A1).
Vollbracht et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 1, an assembly for printing and cutting print media (marking and cutting system; FIG. 3) comprising:
a print and cut gantry (laterally supported cutting bridge 5; FIG. 3) configured to support linearly movable print and cut assemblies thereon (the tool carriage 7 carries a cutting tool head 9; line 212; the second tool carriage 14 is arranged on, on or in the cutting bridge 5 so as to be movable in the direction of the double arrow 8 and supports the marking device 10; lines 235-237; FIG. 3); and
wherein the print and cut assemblies comprise:
a laser printing assembly (marking device 10; FIG. 3; a marking device that works with a laser device is also known; line 48; a marking device is used which uses a laser beam; line 112) and a digital die cutting assembly (cutting tool head 9; FIG. 3; a cutting tool arranged on a cutting head, which is arranged on a cutting bridge on a carriage, is placed on the surface of the raw glass sheet and driven in a program-controlled manner in such a way that the cutting tool scratches dividing cuts on the raw glass sheet surface; lines 19-22; after completing a cutting pattern, the cutting tool is raised; lines 22-23), the laser printing assembly and the digital die cutting assembly being independently operable for independent movement (the tool carriage 7 and the second tool carriage 14 can be independently move in directions 8; FIG. 3) and both the laser printing assembly and the digital die cutting assembly being disposed on the print and cut gantry such that the laser printing assembly and the digital die cutting assembly independently move across a width of the print media in substantially a same area (the tool carriage 7 and the second tool carriage 14 can be independently move in directions 8; FIG. 3).
Regarding claim 2, the laser printing assembly is configured to print content onto smokeless media and wherein the printing assembly does not require a filtration system (the marking device 10 is capable of printing content onto a smokeless media, such as a flat glass pane; further, the marking device 10 does not require a filtration system to operate).
Vollbracht et al. do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 1, a housing and the print and cut gantry configured to support the linearly movable print and cut assemblies thereon within the housing, and the laser printing assembly and the digital die cutting assembly independently move across the width of the print media in substantially the same area of the housing.
Shapiro et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 1, a housing and a gantry configured to support a head assembly thereon with the housing, and the head assembly move across the width of a media in substantially a same area of the housing (the CNC machine 100 can have a housing surrounding an enclosure or interior area defined by the housing; [0050]; one type of openable barrier can be a lid 130 that can be opened or closed to put material 140 on the material bed 150 on the bottom of the enclosure; [0051]; FIG. 1) for the purpose of preventing harmful light from escaping to the exterior of the housing.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate a housing and the print and cut gantry configured to support the linearly movable print and cut assemblies thereon within the housing, and the laser printing assembly and the digital die cutting assembly independently move across the width of the print media in substantially the same area of the housing, as taught by Shapiro et al., into Vollbracht et al. for the purpose of preventing harmful light from escaping to the exterior of the housing.
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. (WO 2004/113242 A1) as modified by Shapiro et al. (US 2017/0045877 A1) as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Brodsky et al. (US 6,489,985 B1).
Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 3, the laser printing assembly comprises a plurality of laser diodes.
Brodsky et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 3, a laser printing assembly comprises a plurality of laser diodes (laser marking system 30 comprises semiconductor laser source 32 which may be comprised of a laser diode array; FIG. 2; column 7, lines 50-67) for the purpose of being able to provide electrical modulation of a high-power laser beam.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the laser printing assembly comprises a plurality of laser diodes, as taught by Brodsky et al., into Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. for the purpose of being able to provide electrical modulation of a high-power laser beam.
Claim(s) 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. (WO 2004/113242 A1) as modified by Shapiro et al. (US 2017/0045877 A1) and Brodsky et al. (US 6,489,985 B1) as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Jerman et al. (US 2012/0268548 A1).
Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. and Brodsky et al. do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 4, wherein the laser printing assembly further comprises a positioning block for aligning optical fibers through which laser beams are transmitted, a mirror and a focusing lens for directing the laser beams to the print media.
Regarding claim 5, wherein the laser printing assembly is tilted with respect to the print media to vary a spacing between pixels being formed on the print media so as to control print resolution.
Jerman et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 4, a laser printing assembly further comprises a positioning block for aligning optical fibers through which laser beams are transmitted (alignment block 59A; fibers 18, 19; Figs 1A-1C), a mirror and a focusing lens for directing the laser beams to a print media (mirror 50, another lens 62; Figs 1A-1C) for the purpose of aligning, directing and focusing the laser beams from the laser diodes.
Further regarding claim 5, a laser printing assembly is tilted with respect to a print media to vary a spacing between pixels being formed on the print media so as to control print resolution (assembly of fibers 18 ad 19 is tilted with respect to edge of the tape 26; Figs 2A-2C) for the purpose of being able to print image dots at a pitch smaller than the diameter of the fibers.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate wherein the laser printing assembly further comprises a positioning block for aligning optical fibers through which laser beams are transmitted, a mirror and a focusing lens for directing the laser beams to the print media; wherein the laser printing assembly is tilted with respect to the print media to vary a spacing between pixels being formed on the print media so as to control print resolution, as taught by Jerman et al., into Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. and Brodsky et al. for the purposes of aligning, directing and focusing the laser beams from the laser diodes; being able to print image dots at a pitch smaller than the diameter of the fibers.
Claim(s) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. (WO 2004/113242 A1) as modified by Shapiro et al. (US 2017/0045877 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Oguchi et al. (US 2022/0334367 A1).
Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 6, wherein the laser printing assembly comprises a single mirror and a single focusing lens for directing laser beams to the print media.
Regarding claim 7, beam spots of the laser beams are directed from the single focusing lens to the print media such that the laser printing assembly does not have a collimating lens.
Oguchi et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 6, a laser printing assembly further comprises a single mirror and a single focusing lens for directing laser beams to a print media (a single second mirror 24 for scanning the laser beams in the Y direction and a single third condensing lens 25 for directing the laser beams; FIG. 9; only one of first mirror 23 and second mirror 24 may be provided; [0110]) for the purpose of forming tight spots on the medium without the use of bulky lens optics.
Further regarding claim 7, beam spots of the laser beams are directed from the single focusing lens to the print media such that the laser printing assembly does not have a collimating lens (FIG. 9) for the purpose of forming tight spots on the medium without the use of bulky lens optics.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the laser printing assembly further comprises a single mirror and a single focusing lens for directing laser beams to the print media; beam spots of the laser beams are directed from the single focusing lens to the print media such that the laser printing assembly does not have a collimating lens, as taught by Oguchi et al., into Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. for the purpose of forming tight spots on the medium without the use of bulky lens optics.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Vollbracht et al. (WO 2004/113242 A1) as modified by Shapiro et al. (US 2017/0045877 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tokushima et al. (US 2016/0046132 A1).
Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. do not teach the following claimed limitations:
Regarding claim 8, wherein the print media is provided as a continuous web of print media fed through the housing for printing and cutting and wherein the assembly further comprises a sheet cutter for separating sheets or a small roll from a web of the print media.
Tokushima et al. teach the following claimed limitations:
Further regarding claim 8, a print media is provided as a continuous web of print media fed through for printing and cutting and wherein a printing assembly further comprises a sheet cutter for separating sheets or a small roll from a web of the print media (label roll 100R, take-up shaft 8; FIG. 1) for the purpose of printing and processing on a continuous label and wound up by a take-up shaft.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to incorporate the print media is provided as a continuous web of print media fed through the housing for printing and cutting and wherein the assembly further comprises a sheet cutter for separating sheets or a small roll from a web of the print media, as taught by Tokushima et al., into Vollbracht et al. as modified by Shapiro et al. for the purpose of printing and processing on a continuous label and wound up by a take-up shaft.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KENDRICK X LIU whose telephone number is (571)270-3798. The examiner can normally be reached MWFSa 10am-8pm.
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, Douglas X Rodriguez can be reached on (571) 431-0716. 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.
4 October 2025
/KENDRICK X LIU/Examiner, Art Unit 2853
/DOUGLAS X RODRIGUEZ/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2853