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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on January 27, 2026 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed January 27, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
Pavlov fails to teach or suggest each and every feature of independent Claim 1: This argument is not found to be persuasive. As set forth in previous correspondence, Pavlov is used in an obviousness type rejection and teaches a system for machining materials by means of laser beam (“laser beam” Col 2 Line 11), comprising: a deflection device (“deflection device (galvanometer scanner)” Col 4 Line 13) for deflecting the laser beam; and a wobble device (“The wobble oscillation is created by a… device” Col 4 Lines 12-13 through a “processing scheme” Col 3 Line 60) configured to superimpose a wobble movement of said laser beam with a wobble figure and a wobble frequency onto a feed movement of said laser beam (“ oscillation movement can be superimposed to the linear movement” Col 7 Lines 35-37) corresponding to a machining path (Pavlov discloses a “scanning track” Col 3 Line 65 which defines the machining path of the disclosed invention) by controlling said deflection device (Col 4 Lines 5-30 discloses that the machining path is defined by the control of the deflection device); wherein; said wobble device (“The wobble oscillation is created by a… device” Col 4 Lines 12-13) is configured for carrying out the wobble movement, to control said deflection device (“deflection device (galvanometer scanner)” Col 4 Line 13) according to a compensated wobble movement (The prior art further teaches that the wobble movement and deflection device are controlled by means of a “processing scheme” Col 3 Line 60 which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a compensated wobble movement ). While some limitations are not explicitly taught by Pavlov, the prior art does teach that “the wobble oscillation parameters, namely the frequency and amplitude are adjusted [in order to control] the linear displacement… [of the] beam” Col 4 Lines 24-25 which would be understood, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to compensate for amplitude reduction and shape deviation of the wobble figure) ; and controlling said deflection device (“beam deflection device [creates wobble oscillation and ] is also used for linear positioning movement” Col 4 Line 10-17) according to the compensated wobble movement comprises compensating for a shape distortion (the examiner interprets linear displacement as shape distortion) as well as that “frequency and the amplitude, and the linear movement parameter (position of the beam along the “path” during the linear translational movement of the beam” Col 3 Line 52-55) are adjusted such that the linear displacement of the high energy beam [is controlled dependent on position]” Col 4 Lines 24-29.Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Pavlov such that the control values, frequency, position, amplitude, and path speed are adapted as functions of each other in order to achieve “a much more uniform irradiation” (Col 5 Line 43) as it has been held that routine optimization, requires only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.IV A.
Pavlov does not discuss shape deviation: The examiner respectfully disagrees. Based on the scope of Pavlov, the examiner maintains that “linear displacement” of the beam constitutes the shape deviation of the wobble movement as claimed. The linear displacement occurs in an oscillatory fashion which, by broadest reasonable interpretation, is in line with the wobble movement of the claim language as the shape of oscillation is widely known in the art. Furthermore, the amplitude control of Pavlov reads on the control values as claimed which are adapted in tandem with, and therefore as a function of, the frequency which further reads on the limitation of the claims.
“Targeted amplification of movement components depending on the position in the wobble figure “goes far beyond a controller making adjustments to achieve the preset parameters of amplitude and frequency: This argument is not found to be persuasive. The prior art of Pavlov teaches that the amplitude is actively adjusted to control the linear displacement (Col 4 Lines 24-25). As such, the prior art performs the targeted amplification movement of components depending on position in the wobble figure, as currently claimed, as the amplitude and movement are actively adjusted in relation to each other.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitations are as follows:
“a deflection device for deflecting the laser beam…” in Claim 1 further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “deflection device, such as a scanner” [0010]
“a wobble device configured to superimpose a wobble movement…” in Claim 1 which is further defined by the applicant’s specifications as “For example, the wobble device may be implemented as a program, e.g., as software or a computer program. The wobble device may be part of the control device. The control device may, for example, be configured to carry out the function of the wobble device [0034]”
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1,4-6 and 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlov et al (US Patent No. 10,337,335 B2):
Regarding Claim 1: Pavlov teaches a system for machining materials by means of laser beam (“laser beam” Col 2 Line 11), comprising: a deflection device (“deflection device (galvanometer scanner)” Col 4 Line 13) for deflecting the laser beam; and a wobble device (“The wobble oscillation is created by a… device” Col 4 Lines 12-13 through a “processing scheme” Col 3 Line 60) configured to superimpose a wobble movement of said laser beam with a wobble figure and a wobble frequency onto a feed movement of said laser beam (“ oscillation movement can be superimposed to the linear movement” Col 7 Lines 35-37) corresponding to a machining path (Pavlov discloses a “scanning track” Col 3 Line 65 which defines the machining path of the disclosed invention) by controlling said deflection device (Col 4 Lines 5-30 discloses that the machining path is defined by the control of the deflection device); wherein; said wobble device (“The wobble oscillation is created by a… device” Col 4 Lines 12-13) is configured for carrying out the wobble movement, to control said deflection device (“deflection device (galvanometer scanner)” Col 4 Line 13) according to a compensated wobble movement (The prior art further teaches that the wobble movement and deflection device are controlled by means of a “processing scheme” Col 3 Line 60 which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art as a compensated wobble movement ).
Pavlov does not explicitly teach that control values for a deflection of said laser beam along the wobble figure are adapted as a function of the wobble frequency or a path speed of the wobble movement that varies along the wobble figure is adapted as a function of a position of said laser beam in the wobble figure and as a function of the wobble frequency control values for a deflection of said laser beam along the wobble figure are adapted as a function of the wobble frequency or a path speed of the wobble movement that varies along the wobble figure is adapted as a function of a position of said laser beam in the wobble figure and as a function of the wobble frequency; and controlling said deflection device according to the compensated wobble movement comprises compensating for a shape distortion of at least a portion of the wobble figure as a function of the wobble frequency by targeted amplification of movement components depending on the position in the wobble figure.
However, Pavlov does teach that “the wobble oscillation parameters, namely the frequency and amplitude are adjusted [in order to control] the linear displacement… [of the] beam” Col 4 Lines 24-25 which would be understood, by one of ordinary skill in the art, to compensate for amplitude reduction and shape deviation of the wobble figure) ; and controlling said deflection device (“beam deflection device [creates wobble oscillation and ] is also used for linear positioning movement” Col 4 Line 10-17) according to the compensated wobble movement comprises compensating for a shape distortion (the examiner interprets linear displacement as shape distortion) as well as that “frequency and the amplitude, and the linear movement parameter (position of the beam along the “path” during the linear translational movement of the beam” Col 3 Line 52-55) are adjusted such that the linear displacement of the high energy beam [is controlled dependent on position]” Col 4 Lines 24-29
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Pavlov such that the control values, frequency, position, amplitude, and path speed are adapted as functions of each other in order to achieve “a much more uniform irradiation” (Col 5 Line 43) as it has been held that routine optimization, requires only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.IV A.
Regarding Claim 4: Pavlov further teaches that the control values for a deflection of said laser beam along the wobble figure are stored in a memory or in a table for different wobble frequencies (the invention, as taught by Pavlov, is used in tandem with a “SLM machine” Col 3 Line 46 which one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize as storing control values and figures in a table. Therefore, given the prior art inherently anticipates the limitations of the claim). All of the limitations of claim 4 are taught by Pavlov.
Regarding Claim 5: Pavlov further teaches that the deflection device comprises a first deflection device and a second deflection device (“a pair of…mirrors” Col 4 Line 14), wherein said first deflection device is configured to deflect said laser beam in a first direction (“transverse” direction” Col 3 Line 55) , said second deflection device (“deflection device” Col 4 Line 13) is configured to deflect said laser beam in a second direction (“longitudinal direction” Col 3 Line 56), and wherein said first deflection device and said second deflection device have the same dynamic characteristics (“the relative movement [of the deflection devices] allows for much higher dynamics of the movements” Col 4 Lines 19-20 the phrasing of which implies substantially the same dynamic characteristics as does the phrasing of the word “pair”). All of the limitations of claim 5 are taught by Pavlov.
Regarding Claim 6: Pavlov further teaches that the first deflection device and said second deflection device are configured identically (“Pair of small, lightweight mirrors which are mounted in a stationary …device” Col 4 Lines 12-15 which would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to have an identical configuration). All of the limitations of claim 6 are taught by Pavlov.
Regarding Claim 8: Pavlov further teaches that wobble device is configured to control a power modulation of said laser beam (Pavlov discloses that the “power of the energy beam” Col Lines 44-45 is a parameter essential to the invention disclosed and is well known in the art. Therefore, it follows that, inherently, the wobble device disclosed is configured to control power modulation of the laser beam)
Pavlov does not explicitly teach that the power modulation of said laser beam is controlled as a function of a position of said laser beam in the wobble figure.
However, Pavlov does disclose that the “power of the energy beam” Col Lines 44-45 is modulated in tandem with the “frequency and the amplitude, and the linear movement” Col 4 Lines 24-29. It follows that, the wobble device disclosed is configured to control power modulation of the laser beam.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to control the power modulation as a function of a position in order routinely optimize the method as it has been held that routine optimization, requires only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.IV A.
Regarding Claim 9: Pavlov further teaches a method for material machining by means of a laser beam (“method…for manufacturing [using a laser beam]” Col 4 Line 25), the method comprising the steps of: superimposing a wobble movement of the laser beam (“oscillation movement can be superimposed to the linear movement” Col 7 Lines 35-37) according to a wobble figure and a wobble frequency onto a feed movement of said laser beam (“ oscillation movement can be superimposed to the linear movement” Col 7 Lines 35-37) corresponding to a machining path (“scanning track” Col 3 Line 65 which defines the machining path of the disclosed invention) by deflecting said laser beam by means of a deflection device (“deflection device” Col 4 Line 13); and, controlling, for carrying out the wobble movement, said deflection device according to a compensated wobble movement (“beam deflection device [creates wobble oscillation and ] is also used for linear positioning movement” Col 4 Line 10-17); controlling said deflection device according to the compensated wobble movement comprises compensating (“the wobble oscillation parameters, namely the frequency… [is] adjusted” Col 4 Lines 24-25 according to the linear displacement) for a shape distortion ((the examiner interprets linear displacement as shape distortion) by targeted amplification of movement (linear displacement) components depending on the position in the wobble figure (The prior art teaches that “frequency and the amplitude, and the linear movement parameter are adjusted such that the linear displacement of the high energy beam during one oscillation half period is in the range from 0.01 to 2.0 times of the beam diameter at the surface of the powder bed” Col 4 Lines 24-29 which reads on the limitations of the claim).
Pavlov does not explicitly teach that the control values are adapted as a function of frequency or that path speed s adapted as a function of a position of said laser beam in the wobble figure and as a function of the wobble frequency
However, Pavlov does teach that “frequency and the amplitude, and the linear parameter (position of the beam along the “path” during the linear translational movement of the beam” Col 3 Line 52-55) are adjusted” Col 4 Lines 24-29 as well as the wobble oscillation parameters” Col 4 Lines 24-25. It also teaches that “oscillation movement can be superimposed to the linear movement” Col 7 Lines 35-37
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Pavlov such that the control values, frequency, position, amplitude, and path speed are adapted as functions of each other in order to achieve “a much more uniform irradiation” (Col 5 Line 43) as it has been held that routine optimization, requires only routine skill in the art MPEP 2144.IV A.
Regarding Claim 10: Pavlov further teaches the method further comprising a calibration step that precedes the step of superimposing and the step for controlling said deflection device wherein: in the calibration step, control values for a deflection of said laser beam are determined for a plurality of wobble frequencies such that, when said deflection device is controlled according to the control values (“frequency of the wobble oscillation is in the range from 0.01mm to 20mm” Col 4 Line 23), a deflection of said laser beam corresponds to the desired wobble movement (deflection of laser beam is used to create the wobble movement Col 4), in particular the desired wobble figure, or in the calibration step, a path speed of the wobble movement that varies along the wobble figure is determined for a plurality of wobble frequencies such that, when the wobble movement is carried out with the varying path speed determined for the corresponding wobble frequency, a figure reproduction error is reduced (Col 4 Lines 5-30 discloses that the path speed of the wobble figure is determined for a plurality of frequencies is defined by the control of the deflection device such that figure reproduction error is reduced which anticipates the limitations of the claims).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlov et al (US Patent No. 10,337,335 B2) in further in view of Nagashima (US Patent No. 8.378,255 B2):
Regarding Claim 3: Pavlov teaches that “the wobble oscillation parameters, namely the frequency… [is] adjusted [in order to control] the linear displacement… [of the] beam” Col 4 Lines 24-25.
Pavlov does not explicitly teach that the control values for a deflection of said laser beam along the wobble figure are scaled with a factor dependent on the wobble frequency
However, Nagashima does teach a laser beam irradiation apparatus for machining (Abstract) with a controller programmed to scale the output with a factor (“scaling factor” Col 2 Line 60-61).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Pavlov with a scale factor of Nagashima in order to allow “high machining accuracy [to] be achieved” Col 2 Line 57.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Pavlov et al (US Patent No. 10,337,335 B2) in further in view of Stecker (US Patent No. 9,399,264 B2).
Regarding Claim 7: Pavlov does not teach that the first and second deflection devices are at arranged at an angle of 90 degrees to each other.
However, Stecker teaches that the deflection device comprises a first deflection device (“a housing” Col 15 Line 60) and a second deflection device (“ a reflective substrate” Col 15 Line 60), said first deflection device is configured to deflect said laser beam in a first direction (transparent substrate … for allowing the beam to be directed through the housing” Col 16 Lines 11-12) said second deflection device is configured to deflect said laser beam in a second direction (reflecting the beam of light to the detector Col 16 Lines 5-14), and wherein said first deflection device and said second deflection device are arranged at an angle of 90 degrees to one another (Col 15 “The housing may create a line of sight to the reflective substrate…at an angle of 90 degrees” Lines 61-67).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention disclosed in Pavlov to include the limitations disclosed by Stecker in order to standardize the arrangement of the deflection device and ease use and manufacturing of the invention.
Conclusion
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). 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.
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Chris Liu can be reached at (571) 272-8241. 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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights