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 Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 12/29/2025. Claims 1-11 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1-11 have been amended.
With respect to Specification Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Abstract filed 12/29/2025 have overcome the Specification Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/01/2025. However, the amendments have created another Specification Objections. See details below in the Specification Objections section.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed 12/29/2025 have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/01/2025. However, the amendments have created another Claim Objections. See details below in the Claim Objections section.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed 12/29/2025 have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/01/2025, except for the limitation “storage unit (33a) configured to store said identification mark to be engraved” previously recited in claim 11 because this limitation is cancelled in the amendments.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed 12/29/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(a) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/01/2025.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed 12/29/2025 have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 10/01/2025. However, the amendments have created another 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections. See details below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Specifically, Applicant alleged that the prior arts on record do not teach the newly added limitations “wherein said laser marking assembly comprises: at least one laser source adapted to generate a laser beam; at least one deflecting device adapted to direct said laser beam towards said profiled element to engrave said identification mark; and at least one electronic processing and control unit operationally connected to said laser marking assembly, wherein said electronic processing and control unit comprises a distortion offset unit adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to a deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam by said deflecting device, thereby offsetting distortions in the engraved mark without requiring an F-theta lens.” as recited in the independent claim 1 (lines 17-26) – see details in the Remarks dated 12/29/2025 on pages 8-11. Examiner would like to note that the previously cited prior art Park (KR 102044349 B1, previously cited) properly discloses the limitation “wherein said laser marking assembly comprises: at least one laser source adapted to generate a laser beam” as recited in the independent claim 1 because Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below. Furthermore, regarding the newly added limitations “at least one deflecting device adapted to direct said laser beam towards said profiled element to engrave said identification mark; and at least one electronic processing and control unit operationally connected to said laser marking assembly, wherein said electronic processing and control unit comprises a distortion offset unit adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to a deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam by said deflecting device, thereby offsetting distortions in the engraved mark without requiring an F-theta lens” as recited in the independent claim 1, the newly cited prior art Muller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0035616 A1, newly cited) is applied to teach these limitations, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Applicant’s arguments for dependent claims are the same as for independent claim. Therefore, the Examiner’s response to the arguments with respect to the independent claim 1 generally applies to dependent claims 2-11.
Therefore, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 12/29/2025 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments.
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper content of an abstract of the disclosure.
A patent abstract is a concise statement of the technical disclosure of the patent and should include that which is new in the art to which the invention pertains. The abstract should not refer to purported merits or speculative applications of the invention and should not compare the invention with the prior art.
If the patent is of a basic nature, the entire technical disclosure may be new in the art, and the abstract should be directed to the entire disclosure. If the patent is in the nature of an improvement in an old apparatus, process, product, or composition, the abstract should include the technical disclosure of the improvement. The abstract should also mention by way of example any preferred modifications or alternatives.
Where applicable, the abstract should include the following: (1) if a machine or apparatus, its organization and operation; (2) if an article, its method of making; (3) if a chemical compound, its identity and use; (4) if a mixture, its ingredients; (5) if a process, the steps.
Extensive mechanical and design details of an apparatus should not be included in the abstract. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph within the range of 50 to 150 words in length.
See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract filed on 12/29/2025 is not limited to a single paragraph.
Appropriate correction is required. See MPEP § 608.01(b) for guidelines for the preparation of patent abstracts.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-11 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said basic structure” in lines 5, 7, 8, 13-14. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one basic structure” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 3).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said profiled element” in lines 19-20. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one profiled element” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 4).
Claim 1 recites the limitations “said identification mark” in line 20, “the identification mark” in line 23, and “the engraved mark” in line 25. These limitations should be changed to “said at least one identification mark” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 15).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said electronic processing and control unit” in line 22. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one electronic processing and control unit” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 21).
Claim 1 (lines 24-25), claim 7 (lines 8, 9), claim 8 (lines 2, 3-4, 4), claim 11 (line 10) recite the limitation “said deflecting device”. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one deflecting device” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 19).
Claim 1 (lines 17, 21-22), claim 2 (lines 5-6), claim 3 (line 3), claim 4 (line 2), claim 5 (line 2), claim 6 (line 2), claim 7 (line 2), claim 10 (line 2), claim 11 (line 3) recite the limitation “said laser marking assembly”. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one laser marking assembly” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 13).
Claim 2 (lines 5, 6), claim 3 (lines 3, 3-4) recite the limitation “said line of movement”. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one line of movement” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 4).
Claim 4 (lines 2-3), claim 5 (line 3), claim 6 (line 3) recite the limitation “said cutting assembly”. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one cutting assembly” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 1 (line 8).
Claim 7 recites the limitation “said laser source” in lines 8 and 9. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one laser source” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 7 (line 3).
Claim 9 (line 2), claim 10 (line 3), claim 11 (lines 7, 8) recite the limitation “said focusing device”. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one focusing device” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 7 (line 7).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said movement device” in line 8. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one movement device” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 10 (line 2).
Claim 11 recites the limitation “said deflecting elements” in line 11. This limitation should be changed to “said at least one pair of deflecting elements” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 8 (line 2).
Claims 2-11 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 3 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
Claims 8-11 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
Claims 10-11 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 9.
Claim 11 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 10.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 limitation(s) is/are:
“cutting assembly associated with said basic structure, arranged along said direction of movement and adapted to cut said at least one profiled element according to at least one angle of width comprised between 10° and 170° with respect to a longitudinal direction to obtain at least two portions of said at least one profiled element” in claim 1 (lines 8-12) and “cutting assembly” in claim 4 (lines 2-3), claim 5 (line 3), claim 6 (line 3). These limitations use generic placeholder “assembly” (Prong A); the term “assembly” is modified by functional language “adapted to cut said at least one profiled element according to at least one angle of width comprised between 10° and 170° with respect to a longitudinal direction to obtain at least two portions of said at least one profiled element” / “cutting” (Prong B); and the term “assembly” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “cutting assembly” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “cutting assembly” will be interpreted as “disc blade” or “hot blade” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 9 lines 17-26: “Conveniently, the cutting assembly 5 comprises at least one working head 19 provided with at least one cutting tool 20. In more detail, the working head 19 comprises at least one supporting base 21, associated with the basic structure 2, and supporting the cutting tool 20. The cutting tool 20 is preferably of the type of a disc blade or the like and is movable in rotation around a respective axis to carry out the cutting operation; alternative embodiments cannot however be ruled out in which the cutting tool is different and consists e.g. of a hot blade cutting element which, when heated, is capable of at least partly melting the profiled element P along the cutting plane.”.
“deflecting device adapted to direct said laser beam towards said profiled element to engrave said identification mark” in claim 1 (lines 19-20) and “deflecting device” in claim 1 (line 25), claim 7 (lines 4, 8, 9), claim 8 (lines 2, 3-4, 4), claim 11 (line 10). These limitations use generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “adapted to direct said laser beam towards said profiled element according to at least one identification mark to be engraved” / “deflecting” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “deflecting device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “deflecting device” will be interpreted as “mirror” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 13 lines 23-25: “In particular, the deflecting device 25 comprises at least one deflecting element 26, of the type of a mirror, movable in rotation around a respective axis to vary the direction of emission of the laser beam R.”.
“electronic processing and control unit” in claim 1 (lines 21, 22). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “electronic processing and control” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “electronic processing and control unit” will be interpreted as “microcontroller or microprocessor” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 16 lines 14-17: “Conveniently, the control unit 33b, the actuating unit 33c and possibly the offset unit 33d too may be integrated into an individual microcontroller/microprocessor and may consist e.g. of a plurality of software instructions of a computer program.”.
“distortion offset unit adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to a deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam by said deflecting device, thereby offsetting distortions in the engraved mark without requiring an F-theta lens” in claim 1 (lines 23-26). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to a deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam by said deflecting device, thereby offsetting distortions in the engraved mark without requiring an F-theta lens” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “distortion offset unit” will be interpreted as “software” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 16 lines 4-8: “Therefore, the station 1 according to the present invention is provided with the offset unit 33d which, by means of a special software, is adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to the deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam R by the deflecting device 25, without requiring devices such as F-theta lenses.”.
“deflecting elements” in claim 8 (line 2) and claim 11 (line 11). This limitation uses generic placeholder “elements” (Prong A); the term “elements” is modified by functional language “deflecting” (Prong B); and the term “elements” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “deflecting elements” will be interpreted as “mirrors” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 13 lines 23-25: “In particular, the deflecting device 25 comprises at least one deflecting element 26, of the type of a mirror, movable in rotation around a respective axis to vary the direction of emission of the laser beam R.”.
“focusing device of said laser beam placed between said laser source and said deflecting device and adapted to focus said laser beam leaving said laser source towards said deflecting device” in claim 7 (lines 7-9) and “focusing device” in claim 9 (line 2), claim 10 (line 3), claim 11 (lines 7, 8). These limitations use generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “adapted to focus said laser beam (R) leaving said laser source (24) towards said deflecting device (25)” / “focusing” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “focusing device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “focusing device” will be interpreted as “lens” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 14 lines 14-15: “The focusing device 27 is of the type of a lens and is suitably made to obtain a converging radiation laser beam R.”.
“movement device associated with said focusing device and adapted to move said focusing device along said focusing direction” in claim 10 (lines 2-4) and “movement device” in claim 11 (line 8). These limitations use generic placeholder “device” (Prong A); the term “device” is modified by functional language “adapted to move said focusing device (27) along said focusing direction (F)” / “deflecting” (Prong B); and the term “device” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, the limitation “movement device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “movement device” will be interpreted as to comprise motor, rotatable shaft and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 15 lines 3-8: “the movement device 28 comprises: - a supporting element 29 of the focusing device 27 associated with the basic framework 23 by interposition of at least one guidance element 30 extending along the focusing direction F; and - at least one motor element 31 adapted to set in rotation a shaft 32, of the worm type, associated with the supporting element 29.”.
“control unit of said focusing device operationally connected to said movement device and configured to move said focusing device along said focusing direction” in claim 11 (lines 7-9). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to move said focusing device along said focusing direction” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “control unit” will be interpreted as “part of the microcontroller or microprocessor” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 16 lines 14-17: “Conveniently, the control unit 33b, the actuating unit 33c and possibly the offset unit 33d too may be integrated into an individual microcontroller/microprocessor and may consist e.g. of a plurality of software instructions of a computer program.”.
“actuating unit of said deflecting device configured to actuate said deflecting elements so as to emit said laser beam according to an identification mark to be engraved” in claim 11 (lines 10-12). This limitation uses generic placeholder “unit” (Prong A); the term “unit” is modified by functional language “configured to actuate said deflecting elements so as to emit said laser beam according to an identification mark to be engraved” (Prong B); and the term “unit” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “actuating unit” will be interpreted as “microcontroller/microprocessor and may consist e.g. of a plurality of software instructions of a computer program” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification on page 16 lines 14-17: “Conveniently, the control unit 33b, the actuating unit 33c and possibly the offset unit 33d too may be integrated into an individual microcontroller/microprocessor and may consist e.g. of a plurality of software instructions of a computer program.”.
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 § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a laser beam” in line 18. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 1 previously recites “at least one laser marking assembly associated with said basic structure and adapted to emit at least one laser beam” in lines 13-14. Therefore, it is unclear if “a laser beam” recited in claim 1 (line 18) and “at least one laser beam” recited in claim 1 (line 14) are the same laser beam or different laser beams. For examination purposes, the limitation “a laser beam” recited in claim 1 (line 18) will be interpreted as to refer to the “at least one laser beam” recited in claim 1 (line 14).
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the deflection” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no “deflection” recited previously.
Claim 2-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “wherein said at least one profiled element comprises at least two main faces and two lateral faces that extend along said longitudinal direction and are mutually opposite and contiguous to each other” in lines 2-4. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Specifically, it is unclear if all of the two main faces and the two lateral faces extend along the longitudinal direction, or only the two lateral faces extend along the longitudinal direction. Furthermore, it is unclear if the two lateral faces are mutually opposite and contiguous to each other, or the two main faces are mutually opposite and contiguous to the two lateral faces. Moreover, it is unclear how faces are mutually opposite and contiguous to each other at the same time. Because two faces are mutually opposite mean these two faces are parallel to each other and face each other. While contiguous means two faces have to share the same edge. Therefore, it is unclear how faces are mutually opposite and contiguous to each other at the same time. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “wherein said at least one profiled element comprises at least two main faces and two lateral faces that extend along said longitudinal direction and are mutually opposite and contiguous to each other” as recited in claim 2 (lines 2-4) will be interpreted as “wherein said at least one profiled element comprises at least two main faces and two lateral faces that extend along said longitudinal direction; wherein said two main faces are mutually opposite, said two lateral faces are mutually opposite; and wherein at least one of said two main faces and at least one of said two lateral faces are contiguous to each other”.
Claim 3 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 2.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “wherein said laser marking assembly comprises: at least one laser source adapted to generate said laser beam” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 7 depends on claim 1; however, claim 1 already recites “wherein said laser marking assembly comprises: at least one laser source adapted to generate a laser beam” in lines 17-18. Therefore, it is unclear why these limitations are repeated in claim 7.
Claims 8-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
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 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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102044349 B1, previously cited) in view of Muller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0035616 A1, newly cited).
Regarding claim 1, Park discloses a cutting station (automatic processing device 1000, Park Figs.1-2 & Translated Par.0030) for profiled elements, particularly for window and door frames (Park discloses the automatic processing device 1000 is for cutting profiled elements, particularly for window and door frames because Park Translated Par.0001 [see the Translated Document in the attachment] discloses: “The present invention relates to an automatic window aggregate cutting device capable of cutting a material for forming a window frame to a set length and angle (one side, two sides, etc.) and automatically forming a logo and a drainage hole on the surface of the material by laser, and simultaneously performing smooth recovery of the processed product.”), comprising:
at least one basic structure (basic structure, Park annotated Fig.2 below; it is noted that the basic structure is the base frame of the automatic processing device 1000);
at least one line of movement (bed 121 with rollers 122 & 123, Park Fig.3) of at least one profiled element (“materials”, Park Translated Par.0018 [see the Translated Document in the attachment]) associated with said basic structure (basic structure, Park annotated Fig.2 below; it is noted that the basic structure is the base frame of the automatic processing device 1000) and adapted to displace said at least one profiled element (“materials”, Park Translated Par.0018 [see the Translated Document in the attachment]) along a direction of movement (direction of movement, Park annotated Fig.2 below) with respect to said basic structure (basic structure, Park annotated Fig.1 below; it is noted that the basic structure is the base frame of the automatic processing device 1000) (Park Translated Par.0018 [see the Translated Document in the attachment] discloses: “a horizontal guide roller and a positioning guide roller are provided on the bed to transport the materials to a cutting means”. Therefore, the bed 121 with rollers 122 & 123 adapt to displace materials direction of movement with respect to the base of the automatic processing device 1000 because bed 121 with rollers 122 & 123 are parts of the automatic processing device 1000); and
at least one cutting assembly (cutting means 300, Park Figs.1-2, 4) associated with said basic structure (basic structure, Park annotated Fig.2 below; it is noted that the basic structure is the base frame of the automatic processing device 1000), arranged along said direction of movement (direction of movement, Park annotated Fig.2 below) and adapted to cut said at least one profiled element (“material”, Park Translated Par.0037) according to at least one angle of width (the width herein is interpreted as the width of the material) comprised between 10° and 170° with respect to a longitudinal direction (longitudinal direction of the material) (Park Translated Par.0037 discloses: “The attached drawing, Figure 4, is a drawing for explaining a cutting means (300) that cuts both sides or one side of the input material at a 45° or right angle”; therefore, Park discloses the cutting assembly adapted to cut said the material according to at least one angle of width comprised 45° or 90° [right angle] with respect to said longitudinal direction. It is noted that 45° or 90° [right angle] disclosed by the prior art Park is “between 10° and 170°” as required by the claim) to obtain at least two portions of said at least one profiled element (since the cutting means 300 cuts the input material at a 45° or right angle by the left-side cutter 310a, the right-side cutter 310b, or the right-angle cutter 320 as indicated by Park Translated Pars.0037, 0040-0042 and shown in Park Fig.4, therefore, the material is cut into at least two portions);
at least one laser marking assembly (marking means 200 includes the marking machine 210, Park Figs.1-3; it is noted that the marking means 200 is laser marking because Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”) associated with said basic structure (basic structure, Park annotated Fig.2 below; it is noted that the basic structure is the base frame of the automatic processing device 1000) and adapted to emit at least one laser beam (since Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser”; therefore, the marking means 200 adapted to emit laser beam because the marking means 200 is a laser) towards said at least one profiled element (“material”, Park Translated Par.0030) in order to engrave at least one identification mark (“logo”, Park Translated Par.0030) on said at least one profiled element (“material”, Park Translated Par.0030) (Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”);
wherein said laser marking assembly (marking means 200 includes the marking machine 210, Park Figs.1-3; it is noted that the marking means 200 is laser marking because Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”) comprises:
at least one laser source adapted to generate a laser beam (marking means 200 includes at least one laser source adapted to generate a laser beam because Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”);
PNG
media_image1.png
508
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Park does not explicitly disclose:
at least one deflecting device adapted to direct said laser beam towards said profiled element to engrave said identification mark; and
at least one electronic processing and control unit operationally connected to said laser marking assembly, wherein said electronic processing and control unit comprises a distortion offset unit adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to a deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam by said deflecting device, thereby offsetting distortions in the engraved mark without requiring an F-theta lens.
Muller teaches a laser marking system (laser marking system, Muller annotated Fig.3 below), comprising:
at least one laser source (laser beam source 1, Muller Fig.3) adapted to generate a laser beam (laser beam 2, Muller Fig.3);
at least one deflecting device (deflection mirrors 3b, 4b, 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b; Muller Fig.3) adapted to direct said laser beam (laser beam 2, Muller Fig.3) towards said profiled element (object 10, Muller Fig.3) to engrave said identification mark (Muller Fig.3 and Pars.0040-0042 teaches deflection mirrors 3b, 4b, 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b adapted to direct the laser beam 2 towards the object 10 to engrave mark because as shown in Muller Fig.3, and Muller Par.0040 teaches: “The laser beam 2 generated by a laser beam source 1 is deflected in the x and y directions by means of a freely programmable controller 30 operating the deflection mirrors 3 b and 4 b attached on the axes 3 a and 4 a of the galvanometer scanners 3 and 4, and is focused in a focal plane by means of a subsequent focusing lens 7. On the output side of the lens 7 is a mirror-type optical reflector assembly 31 by means of which the laser beam 2 exiting the lens 7 at different angles, depending on the upstream x and y deflection, is deflected into at least two different second fields 5 a and 5 b.”, Muller Par.0041 teaches: “When, for example, two deflection mirrors 31 a and 31 b are used in the mirror system 31 define a given angle, for example 90°, and form a prism-shaped reflector, for example, a laser beam 2 incident on the mirrored surface 31 a or 31 b is deflected either in direction 32 a or 32 b, depending on the previous deflection, so that in this example two marking cones 5 a and 5 b result that form different second fields.”, and Muller Par.0042 teaches: “By means of the respective third reflector assembly, composed of deflection mirrors 33 a and 33 b, provided downstream, these marking cones 5 a and 5 b are deflected in such a way that the surface of the object 10 to be inscribed, composed of different third fields, is marked in the partial areas 34 a and 34 b such that the partial areas combine to form a common marking surface 34.”); and
at least one electronic processing and control unit (programmable controller 30, Muller Fig.3) operationally connected to said laser marking assembly (laser marking system, Muller annotated Fig.3 below), wherein said electronic processing and control unit (programmable controller 30, Muller Fig.3) comprises a distortion offset unit (see the Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “distortion offset unit”; in this case, the distortion offset unit is interpreted as “software”, Muller Par.0016) adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to a deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam (laser beam 2, Muller Fig.3) by said deflecting device (deflection mirrors 3b, 4b, 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b; Muller Fig.3), thereby offsetting distortions in the engraved mark without requiring an F-theta lens (Muller Par.0016 teaches: “the image of a marking may be created beforehand in a higher-level control system, for example by use of a graphics program on a computer. Such an image may be stored as a vector graphic, for example. If desired, the image created on a monitor that typically is essentially flat may be distorted by means of software as a function of a curved surface of an object to be marked, such that after the marking, the curved surface when viewed from only one direction does not appear to have a distorted appearance to the observer.”; it is noted that lens 7 shown in Muller Fig.3 is a focusing lens, as indicated by Muller Par.0037, thus lens 7 is not an F-theta lens because the focusing lens and F-theta lens are different; furthermore, Muller Par.0046 further teaches: “It may also be practical to omit a marking lens 7.”; therefore, Muller teaches the programmable controller 30 comprises the software adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to a deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam 2 by deflection mirrors 3b, 4b, 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b, thereby offsetting distortions in the engraved mark without requiring an F-theta lens).
PNG
media_image2.png
808
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park, by adding deflecting mirrors adapted to direct said laser beam towards said profiled element to engrave said identification mark, and adding electronic processing and control unit operationally connected to said laser marking assembly, wherein said electronic processing and control unit comprises a software adapted to deform the identification mark to be engraved in a complementary way to a deformation caused by the deflection of the laser beam by said deflecting mirrors, thereby offsetting distortions in the engraved mark without requiring F-theta lens, as taught by Muller, in order to control and deliver the concentrated laser beam to the desired location on the profiled element in order to engrave desired pattern on the profiled element, and to allow for high-precision, non-linear distortion correction without requiring a specialized F-theta lens. The modification can replace expensive, bulky F-theta lenses with software-based, digital correction, enabling accurate marking over large areas or complex shapes while lowering hardware costs and increasing design flexibility.
Regarding claim 4, Park in view of Muller teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Park also discloses:
wherein said laser marking assembly (marking means 200 includes the marking machine 210, Park Figs.1-3; it is noted that the marking means 200 is laser marking because Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”) is placed in a proximity of said cutting assembly (cutting means 300, Park Figs.1-2) (Park Figs.1-2 shows that the marking means 200 is placed in proximity of the cutting means 300).
Regarding claim 6, Park in view of Muller teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Park also discloses:
wherein said laser marking assembly (marking means 200 includes the marking machine 210, Park Figs.1-3; it is noted that the marking means 200 is laser marking because Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”) is placed along said direction of movement (direction of movement, Park annotated Fig.2 below) upstream of said cutting assembly (cutting means 300, Park Figs.1-2).
PNG
media_image1.png
508
802
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 7, Park in view of Muller teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, Muller also teaches:
wherein said laser marking assembly (laser marking system, Muller annotated Fig.3 below) comprises:
at least one laser source (laser beam source 1, Muller Fig.3) adapted to generate said laser beam (laser beam 2, Muller Fig.3);
at least one deflecting device (deflection mirrors 3b, 4b, 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b; Muller Fig.3 – as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) adapted to direct said laser beam (laser beam 2, Muller Fig.3) towards said at least one profiled element (object 10, Muller Fig.3) according to at least one identification mark to be engraved (Muller Fig.3 and Pars.0040-0042 teaches deflection mirrors 3b, 4b, 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b adapted to direct the laser beam 2 towards the object 10 according to at least one identification mark to be engraved as shown in Muller Fig.3, and Muller Par.0040 teaches: “The laser beam 2 generated by a laser beam source 1 is deflected in the x and y directions by means of a freely programmable controller 30 operating the deflection mirrors 3 b and 4 b attached on the axes 3 a and 4 a of the galvanometer scanners 3 and 4, and is focused in a focal plane by means of a subsequent focusing lens 7. On the output side of the lens 7 is a mirror-type optical reflector assembly 31 by means of which the laser beam 2 exiting the lens 7 at different angles, depending on the upstream x and y deflection, is deflected into at least two different second fields 5 a and 5 b.”, Muller Par.0041 teaches: “When, for example, two deflection mirrors 31 a and 31 b are used in the mirror system 31 define a given angle, for example 90°, and form a prism-shaped reflector, for example, a laser beam 2 incident on the mirrored surface 31 a or 31 b is deflected either in direction 32 a or 32 b, depending on the previous deflection, so that in this example two marking cones 5 a and 5 b result that form different second fields.”, and Muller Par.0042 teaches: “By means of the respective third reflector assembly, composed of deflection mirrors 33 a and 33 b, provided downstream, these marking cones 5 a and 5 b are deflected in such a way that the surface of the object 10 to be inscribed, composed of different third fields, is marked in the partial areas 34 a and 34 b such that the partial areas combine to form a common marking surface 34.”); and
at least one focusing device (focusing lens 7, Muller Fig.3) of said laser beam (laser beam 2, Muller Fig.3) placed between said laser source (laser beam source 1, Muller Fig.3) and said deflecting device (deflection mirrors 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b; Muller Fig.3) and adapted to focus said laser beam (laser beam 2, Muller Fig.3) leaving said laser source (laser beam source 1, Muller Fig.3) towards said deflecting device (deflection mirrors 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b; Muller Fig.3) (Muller Fig.3 & Pars.0040-0042 teaches the focusing lens 7 adapted to focus the laser beam 2 leaving the laser beam source 1 towards deflection mirrors 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b as shown in Muller Fig.3, and Muller Par.0040 teaches: “The laser beam 2 generated by a laser beam source 1 is deflected in the x and y directions by means of a freely programmable controller 30 operating the deflection mirrors 3 b and 4 b attached on the axes 3 a and 4 a of the galvanometer scanners 3 and 4, and is focused in a focal plane by means of a subsequent focusing lens 7. On the output side of the lens 7 is a mirror-type optical reflector assembly 31 by means of which the laser beam 2 exiting the lens 7 at different angles, depending on the upstream x and y deflection, is deflected into at least two different second fields 5 a and 5 b.”, Muller Par.0041 teaches: “When, for example, two deflection mirrors 31 a and 31 b are used in the mirror system 31 define a given angle, for example 90°, and form a prism-shaped reflector, for example, a laser beam 2 incident on the mirrored surface 31 a or 31 b is deflected either in direction 32 a or 32 b, depending on the previous deflection, so that in this example two marking cones 5 a and 5 b result that form different second fields.”, and Muller Par.0042 teaches: “By means of the respective third reflector assembly, composed of deflection mirrors 33 a and 33 b, provided downstream, these marking cones 5 a and 5 b are deflected in such a way that the surface of the object 10 to be inscribed, composed of different third fields, is marked in the partial areas 34 a and 34 b such that the partial areas combine to form a common marking surface 34.”).
PNG
media_image2.png
808
842
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Muller, by further adding focusing lens placed between the laser source and the deflection mirrors and adapted to focus the laser beam leaving the laser source towards the deflection mirrors, as taught by Muller, in order to precisely manage the laser beam’s diameter and divergence to ensure the laser beam is properly conditioned before the deflection mirrors, thus, resulting in a smaller spot size, higher power concentration, and improved engraving quality and speed.
Claims 2-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102044349 B1, previously cited) in view of Muller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0035616 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Ruggie et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2010/0183822 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 2, Park in view of Muller the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein said at least one profiled element comprises at least two main faces and two lateral faces that extend along said longitudinal direction and are mutually opposite and contiguous to each other and at least one of said at least two main faces and two lateral faces is placed resting on said line of movement, said laser marking assembly being placed in a proximity of said line of movement and being adapted to emit said laser beam towards at least one of said two lateral faces.
Examiner’s Note: See 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections section above for the limitation “wherein said at least one profiled element comprises at least two main faces and two lateral faces that extend along said longitudinal direction and are mutually opposite and contiguous to each other” above. For examination purposes, as best understood, the limitation “wherein said at least one profiled element comprises at least two main faces and two lateral faces that extend along said longitudinal direction and are mutually opposite and contiguous to each other” as recited in claim 2 (lines 2-4) will be interpreted as “wherein said at least one profiled element comprises at least two main faces and two lateral faces that extend along said longitudinal direction; wherein said two main faces are mutually opposite, said two lateral faces are mutually opposite; and wherein at least one of said two main faces and at least one of said two lateral faces are contiguous to each other”. Therefore, in this case,
Ruggie teaches a laser marking system for door and window frames (laser marking system as shown in Ruggie Fig.8, additionally, Ruggie Par.0003 teaches: “Such products find various applications, including interior uses, such as for interior passageway doors and door skins, drywall, countertops, kitchen cabinets, wainscoting, flooring, wall panels, ceiling tiles, interior trim components, and exterior uses, such as for entry doors, decking, siding, trim, fencing, and window frames.”):
wherein said profiled element (door structure 300, Ruggie Fig.8) comprises at least two main faces (main faces, Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below; it is noted that one of the main face is the front face of the door structure 300, and the other main face is the back face of the door structure, see Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below) and two lateral faces (upper and lower lateral faces, Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below; it is noted that the upper lateral face is the top face of the door structure 300, and the lower lateral face is the bottom face of the door structure 300, see Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below) that extend along said longitudinal direction (longitudinal direction as shown in Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below); wherein said two main faces (main faces, Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below) are mutually opposite (Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below shows that the two main faces are mutually opposite), said two lateral faces (lateral faces, Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below) are mutually opposite (Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below shows that the two lateral faces are mutually opposite); and wherein at least one of said two main faces (main faces, Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below) and at least one of said two lateral faces (lateral faces, Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below) are contiguous to each other (Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below shows that at least one of the two main faces and at least one of the two lateral faces are contiguous to each other in a way that at least one of the main face and at least one of the lateral face share a common edge) and
at least one of said two main faces and two lateral faces (the lower lateral face as shown in Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below) is placed resting on said line of movement (platform/bed 716, Ruggie Figs.8-9),
said laser marking assembly (laser marking assembly includes workstation computer 702, laser controller 704, laser 706, laser scanner 710; Ruggie Figs.7-8) being placed in a proximity of said line of movement (platform/bed 716, Ruggie Figs.7-9) and being adapted to emit said laser beam (laser beam 708a, Ruggie Figs.7-8) towards at least one of said two lateral faces (upper lateral face, Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below).
PNG
media_image3.png
786
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Muller, by making the profiled element comprises at least two main faces and two lateral faces; wherein said two lateral faces extend along the longitudinal direction; wherein said two main faces are mutually opposite, said two lateral faces are mutually opposite; and wherein said two main faces and said two lateral faces contiguous to each other; and at least one of said at least two main faces and two lateral faces is placed resting on said line of movement, said laser marking assembly being placed in the proximity of said line of movement and being adapted to emit said laser beam towards at least one of said two lateral faces, as taught by Ruggie, in order to engrave/mark the desired pattern on the lateral face of the profiled element. An advantage of the modification is that a logo and/or other branding element that are marked by the laser marking system would be on the most visible face for marketing purposes, rather than hidden on the narrow faces of the profiled element.
Regarding claim 3, Park in view of Muller and Ruggie teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 2, and also teaches
wherein at least one of said at least two main faces is placed resting on said line of movement (Ruggie teaches main faces of the door structure 300 being placed resting on the platform/bed 716, as shown in Ruggie annotated Fig.8 below, and as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2 above; therefore, in combination, Park in view of Muller and Ruggie teaches at least one of said main faces is placed resting on said line of movement, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 2 above), said laser marking assembly (Park discloses the marking means 200 includes the marking machine 210, Park Figs.1-2; it is noted that the marking means 200 is laser marking because Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”) being placed laterally to said line of movement (bed 121 with rollers 122 & 123, Park Fig.3) (Park Translated Par.0035 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo or the like on the upper part of the material is provided on the side of the material supply means (100) (between the material supply means and the cutting means)”; Park Par.0036 discloses: “The marking means (200) is configured to lower the marking machine (210) by the raising and lowering operation of the upper cylinder (211) to mark the upper part of the material and then rise to return to its original state.”; therefore, according to Park Pars.0035-0036 and Park Fig.3, Park discloses marking means 200 includes the marking machine 210 being placed laterally to the bed 121 with rollers 122 & 123; to be more specific, when the marking machine 210 comes in contact with the upper surface of the material on the bed 121 for the marking process, the marking machine is placed laterally to the bed 121)
PNG
media_image3.png
786
799
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102044349 B1, previously cited) in view of Muller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0035616 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Arippol (WO 2017063061 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Park in view of Muller teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 1, but does not teach:
wherein said laser marking assembly is placed along said direction of movement downstream of said cutting assembly.
Arippol teaches a cutting and laser marker assembly (Arippol Fig.3):
wherein said laser marking assembly (laser marker 90, Arippol Fig.3) is placed along said direction of movement (direction of movement, Arippol annotated Fig.3 below) downstream of said cutting assembly (cutting assembly 20, Arippol Fig.3) (Arippol Translated Abstract [see attachment] teaches: “a variable data laser marker (90) located next to the cutting assembly (20), upstream or downstream thereof, above the conveyor belt (30)”; Arippol Translated Par.020 [see attachment] teaches: “the laser variable data marker 90 is located after the cutting assembly 20, between it and the conveyor outlet end 30, located at the applicator outlet 40 (Figs. 34)”; and Arippol Fig.3 shows that the laser marker 90 is placed along the direction movement downstream of the cutting assembly 20).
PNG
media_image4.png
695
938
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Muller, by placing the laser marking assembly along the direction of movement downstream of the cutting assembly, as taught by Arippol, in order to engrave/mark the desired pattern/logo/label on all cut portions of the profiled element; therefore, all portions of the profiled element can have information regarding manufacturer, applications suggestions on them such as variable data marking, for example: date of manufacture and product validity, manufacturing batch number; codes like: tracking code, price code and others. Additionally, in the case when one of the cut portions gets defects during manufacturing process, that portion can be marked for further processing step.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102044349 B1, previously cited) in view of Muller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0035616 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Dinauer et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0198622 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 8, Park in view of Muller teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 7, Muller also teaches:
wherein said deflecting device (deflection mirrors 3b, 4b, 31a, 31b, 33a, 33b; Muller Fig.3 – as cited and incorporated in the rejections of claim 1 above) comprises at least one pair of deflecting elements (three pairs including 3b & 4b, 31a & 31b, and 33a & 33b; Muller Fig.3) arranged together (as shown in Muller Fig.3).
Park in view of Muller does not teach:
one pair of deflecting elements arranged together in such a way that said laser beam leaving said deflecting device is substantially parallel to said laser beam entering said deflecting device.
Dinauer teaches a laser marking assembly (Dinauer Fig.3A):
wherein said deflecting device (beam changing optics 306, Dinauer Fig.3A & Par.0033) comprises at least one pair of deflecting elements (beam changing elements, Dinauer annotated Fig.3A below) arranged together (as shown in Dinauer annotated Fig.3A below) in such a way that said laser beam (laser beam 307, Dinauer Fig.3A) leaving said deflecting device (beam changing optics 306, Dinauer Fig.3A) is substantially parallel to said laser beam (laser beam 301, Dinauer Fig.3A) entering said deflecting device (beam changing optics 306, Dinauer Fig.3A) (Dinauer Fig.3A shows that the laser beam 307 leaving the beam changing optics 306 is substantially parallel to the laser beam 301 entering the beam changing optics 306).
PNG
media_image5.png
784
804
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the rotation angle of each of the first pair of deflecting elements of Muller (see the rotation angle of each of the two mirrors 3b & 4b in Muller Fig.3) with the rotation angle of each of deflecting elements of Dinauer (see the rotation angle of each of the two beam changing elements of the beam changing optics 306 in Dinauer Fig.3A), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of steering the laser beam. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102044349 B1, previously cited) in view of Muller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0035616 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Schmid (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0031299 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Park in view of Muller teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 7, but does not explicitly teach:
wherein said focusing device is movable along a focusing direction substantially parallel to said laser beam to vary a focal length of said laser beam.
Schmid teaches a laser marking assembly (Schmid Fig.1 & Par.0103; specifically, Schmid Par.0103 teaches: “The present invention can be used for laser-based material processing. This may comprise, for example, one or more of the following processes: marking, inscribing, material processing involving ablation and/or structuring, cutting, drilling, additive manufacturing and welding.”; therefore, Schmid teaches laser marking system):
wherein said focusing device (focusing device 4b, Schmid Fig.1; Schmid Par.0052 teaches the focusing device 4b can be a lens) is movable along a focusing direction (focusing direction indicated by the double arrow in Schmid Fig.1 or see the annotated Fig.1 of Schmid below) (Schmid Par.0052 teaches: “In FIG. 1, the focusing device 4 b is represented by a lens, but it can also comprise several lenses, for example. Where applicable, a lens of the focusing device 4 b can be moved along the axis of the laser beam as indicated by the double arrow. This allows the position of the focal point of the laser beam to be selected or changed.”) substantially parallel to said laser beam (laser beam 3, Schmid Fig.1) to vary a focal length of said laser beam (laser beam 3, Schmid Fig.1) (Schmid Fig.1 shows the focusing direction indicated by the double arrow substantially parallel to the laser beam 3; additionally, Schmid Par.0052 teaches: “In FIG. 1, the focusing device 4 b is represented by a lens, but it can also comprise several lenses, for example. Where applicable, a lens of the focusing device 4 b can be moved along the axis of the laser beam as indicated by the double arrow. This allows the position of the focal point of the laser beam to be selected or changed.”; it is noted that since the focal point varies, the focal length also varies; therefore, Schmid teaches the focusing device 4b is movable along the focusing direction substantially parallel to the laser beam 3 to vary the focal length of the laser beam 3).
PNG
media_image6.png
691
652
media_image6.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Muller, by making the focusing device movable along focusing direction substantially parallel to the laser beam to vary the focal length of the laser beam, as taught by Schmid, in order to control and adjust the focal length of the laser beam, thus, achieving different effects and applications, such as finer details with short focal lengths for engraving or deeper cuts with longer focal lengths for cutting thicker materials. Different materials also require adjustments of focal length because different materials absorb and respond to the laser differently at varying focal depths, necessitating constant adjustment for high-quality results. Therefore, the modification would optimize how the material interacts with the laser, ensuring consistent marking or engraving quality across various materials.
Claims 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Park (KR 102044349 B1, previously cited) in view of Muller et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2008/0035616 A1, newly cited), Schmid (U.S. Pub. No. 2021/0031299 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Hu et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0321395 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Park in view of Muller and Schmid teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 9, but does not explicitly teach wherein said laser marking assembly comprises
at least one movement device associated with said focusing device and adapted to move said focusing device along said focusing direction.
Hu teaches a laser assembly (laser machining system 10, Hu Fig.1) comprising:
at least one movement device (“focusing assembly actuator (not shown)”, Hu Par.0016) associated with said focusing device (focusing element 75, Hu Fig.1 & Par.0016) (Hu Par.0016 teaches: “Focusing assembly 45 may include a focusing assembly actuator (not shown), which may move a focusing element 75.”) and adapted to move said focusing device (focusing element 75, Hu Fig.1 & Par.0016) along said focusing direction (focusing direction, Hu annotated Fig.1 below) (the focusing direction is represented by the two ways arrow as shown in Hu annotated Fig.1 below because Hu Par.0019 teaches the focusing assembly actuator associated with focusing element 75 configured to move focusing element 75 relative to work piece 20, and furthermore, Hu Figs.1 and 3 show that the focusing element 75 is being moved closer to the workpiece 20 [Hu Fig.3] or further away from the workpiece 20 [Hu Fig.1] in horizontal direction in order to have the laser beam focused approximately on a first machining surface of the workpiece 20 [Hu Fig.1] or on a second machining surface of the workpiece 20 [Hu Fig.3], according to Hu Pars.0008 & 0010).
PNG
media_image7.png
714
820
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Muller and Schmid, by adding focusing assembly actuator configured to move the focusing element, wherein the focusing assembly actuator associated with the focusing element and adapted to move the focusing element along the focusing direction, as taught by Hu, in order to control the movement of the focusing device; thus, the focal length can be controlled, adjusted and optimized. Adjusting the focal length of the laser beam is critical because it would achieve different effects and applications, such as finer details with short focal lengths for engraving or deeper cuts with longer focal lengths for cutting thicker materials. Different materials also require adjustments of focal length because different materials absorb and respond to the laser differently at varying focal depths, necessitating constant adjustment for high-quality results.
Regarding claim 11, Park in view of Muller, Schmid and Hu teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 10, Park in view of Muller and Schmid also teaches wherein said cutting station (automatic processing device 1000, Park Figs.1-2 & Translated Par.0030) comprises at least one electronic processing and control unit (programmable controller 30, Muller Fig.3; as cited and incorporated in the rejections of claim 1 above) operationally connected to said laser marking assembly (marking means 200 includes the marking machine 210, Park Figs.1-3; it is noted that the marking means 200 is laser marking because Park Translated Par.0030 discloses: “a marking means (200) for marking a logo on the surface of the supplied material using a laser or high frequency”) and comprising:
at least one actuating unit (program of the programmable controller 30, Muller Fig.3; as cited and incorporated in the rejections of claim 1 above) [see the 112(f) Claim Interpretation section above for the interpretation of the limitation “actuating unit”] of said deflecting device (deflection mirrors 3b & 4b, Muller Fig.3; as cited and incorporated in the rejections of claim 1 above) configured to actuate said deflecting elements (deflection mirrors 3b & 4b, Muller Fig.3; as cited and incorporated in the rejections of claim 8 above) so as to emit said laser beam (laser beam 2, Muller Fig.3) according to an identification mark to be engraved (as shown in Muller Fig.3, and Muller Par.0040 teaches: “The laser beam 2 generated by a laser beam source 1 is deflected in the x and y directions by means of a freely programmable controller 30 operating the deflection mirrors 3 b and 4 b attached on the axes 3 a and 4 a of the galvanometer scanners 3 and 4, and is focused in a focal plane by means of a subsequent focusing lens 7. On the output side of the lens 7 is a mirror-type optical reflector assembly 31 by means of which the laser beam 2 exiting the lens 7 at different angles, depending on the upstream x and y deflection, is deflected into at least two different second fields 5 a and 5 b.”, Muller Par.0041 teaches: “When, for example, two deflection mirrors 31 a and 31 b are used in the mirror system 31 define a given angle, for example 90°, and form a prism-shaped reflector, for example, a laser beam 2 incident on the mirrored surface 31 a or 31 b is deflected either in direction 32 a or 32 b, depending on the previous deflection, so that in this example two marking cones 5 a and 5 b result that form different second fields.”, and Muller Par.0042 teaches: “By means of the respective third reflector assembly, composed of deflection mirrors 33 a and 33 b, provided downstream, these marking cones 5 a and 5 b are deflected in such a way that the surface of the object 10 to be inscribed, composed of different third fields, is marked in the partial areas 34 a and 34 b such that the partial areas combine to form a common marking surface 34.”)
Park in view of Muller and Schmid does not teach:
at least one control unit of said focusing device operationally connected to said movement device and configured to move said focusing device along said focusing direction
Hu teaches a laser assembly (laser machining system 10, Hu Fig.1) comprising:
at least one control unit (controller 35, Hu Fig.1) of said focusing device (focusing element 75, Hu Fig.1) operationally connected to said movement device (“focusing assembly actuator (not shown)”, Hu Par.0016; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10 above) and configured to move said focusing device (focusing element 75, Hu Fig.1) along said focusing direction (focusing direction, Hu annotated Fig.1 below; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 10 above) (Hu Par.0019 teaches: “controller 35 may communicate with the focusing assembly actuator or another actuator associated with focusing element 75 or base 25 to move focusing element 75 relative to work piece 20”)
PNG
media_image7.png
714
820
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Park in view of Muller, Schmid and Hu, by further making the controller operationally connected to the focusing assembly actuator and configured to move the focusing element along the focusing direction, as taught by Hu, in order to electronically control and adjust the movement of the focusing element; thus, the focal length can be electronically controlled, adjusted and optimized based on user’s desire and applications; thus, increasing efficiency and productivity. Adjusting the focal length of the laser beam is critical because it would achieve different effects and applications, such as finer details with short focal lengths for engraving or deeper cuts with longer focal lengths for cutting thicker materials. Different materials also require adjustments of focal length because different materials absorb and respond to the laser differently at varying focal depths, necessitating constant adjustment for high-quality results.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Roell (U.S. Patent No. 8,939,337 B2) discloses an apparatus and to a method for the industrial production of elastically deformable large-surface-area glass plates in high quantities.
Inoue et al. (U.S. Patent No. 7,894,163 B2) discloses laser beam irradiation areas are provided in a load curve portion and an angle adjustment portion of a suspension. The laser beam irradiation areas are oriented in a direction in which the suspension is to be bent. A laser beam having a predetermined length and a predetermined shape is irradiated onto each laser beam irradiation area.
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 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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/16/2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner,
Art Unit 3761