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
The amendment filed 12 November 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Specification have been helpful in overcoming the Drawing objection. However, there is still an additional edit that is required of the Specification in order to overcome this objection. Therefore, the Drawing objection still stands.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim objections. However, new Claim objections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome some of the past 35 USC 112b rejections. However, there are still 35 USC 112b rejections that have not been addressed. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 112b still stand.
Applicant’s arguments filed 12 November 2025 with respect to the rejection of claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, additional references were identified, which teach the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 35 USC 112b rejections were overcome.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 12 November 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-15 have been amended. Claims 2, 4-5, and 7 have been cancelled.
Claims 1, 3, 6, and 8-15 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: surface 11. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Although the Instant Application is a 371 (National Stage) Application, for international applications, there is a similar requirement, where “reference signs not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings, and vice versa” (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13).
Claim Objections
Claims 12-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 12, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…and further comprising the portable and operatively connected to the laser source.”
In claim 13, recommend amending the claim to recite: “…generating the laser bundle” (line 3).
Appropriate correction is required.
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, 3, 6, and 8-15 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.
Claims 1 and 13 recite a “touch pattern.” It is unclear what is meant in claiming a “touch pattern.” Initially, the examiner understood a “touch pattern” to be a human touch motion that is used to set a specific scanning pattern. For example, claim 1 recites “…a scanning system for deflecting the laser bundle according to a one-dimensional or two-dimensional touch pattern...” Similarly, claim 13 recites “deflecting the laser bundle according to a one-dimensional or two-dimensional touch pattern.” These limitations suggest that the scanning pattern is set according to a touch pattern. Furthermore, pages 5 and 12 of the Specification describe certain touch patterns such as square touch patterns, which produce square projections on the surface. Meanwhile, other touch patterns, such as oblique forward touch patterns, result in enlarged projections.
However, the Instant Application also suggests that a “touch pattern” is synonymous with a “scanning pattern.” For example, claim 4 recites “mirroring and aiming the deflected laser bundle [scanning the laser bundle] with the aforementioned touch pattern.” Page 5 of the Specification initially refers to a “touch pattern” and then refers to this same pattern as being a “scanning pattern” in a following sentence. The examiner further notes that none of the drawings show the claimed “touch pattern” and that a term “touch pattern” has never been used in a previous patent application in relevant CPCs based on search results in PE2E. For the purpose of the examination, the claimed “touch pattern” will be interpreted under its broadest reasonable interpretation as having the same meaning as a scanning pattern.
Claims 1 and 13 recite “wherein the mirror surface is arranged to receive the laser bundle from the casing, essentially parallel to the rotation axis.” It is unclear how the mirror surface 12 is arranged to be “essentially parallel” to the rotation axis 20. Instead of the mirror surface 12 being parallel to the rotation axis, the drawings show the mirror surface 12 at an angle of 45 degrees relative to the rotation axis 20 (figs. 3A-3B). The Specification also discloses that the mirrors 28 (fig. 4) are “essentially parallel” to the axis of rotation. However, this limitation in the claims is attributed to the “mirror surface” and not the “rotatable mirrors,” which are the mirrors 28 in the Specification. Based on the orientation of the mirror surface 12 shown in figs. 3A-B, it appears that the laser bundle is “essentially parallel to the rotation axis.” For the purpose of the examination, this limitation will be interpreted as: “wherein the mirror surface is arranged to receive the laser bundle from the casing, wherein the laser bundle is essentially parallel to the rotation axis.”
Claims 3, 6, 8-12, and 14-15 are rejected based on their dependency to the independent claims.
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.
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, 3, 6, 8, 10, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov et al. (US-20180369964-A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP-2019104049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Park et al. (KR-20110032991-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Grapov teaches a laser treatment head (laser cutting head 110, fig. 1) comprising:
a casing (modules 120 and 130, fig. 1; collimator module 320 and wobbler module 330, fig. 3; these same modules are the module that includes the “collimator” and the “first and second movable mirrors,” paras 0025 and 0035; fig. 1) with an input (input end 321, fig. 3) for a laser bundle (output fiber 111, fig. 1; the Instant Application describes a “laser bundle 5” as being the laser beam), further provided with a scanning system (movable mirrors 131 and 134, fig. 1; “galvanometer mirrors,” paras 0026-0027; construed as a scanning system) for deflecting (“pivoting the beam,” para 0027) the laser bundle according to a one-dimensional or two-dimensional touch pattern (different 2D scanning patterns are shown in figs. 2A-2D; para 0034), wherein the scanning system includes mirrors (movable mirrors 131 and 134, fig. 1) configured with respect to mutually orthogonal axes of rotation (axes 131 and 133, fig. 1; axes 131 and 133 are perpendicular, fig. 1) and configured to deflect the laser bundle (beam 118, fig. 1) in two different spatial directions independent of each other (axes 2 and 4 in fig. 1 are “perpendicular,” para 0026; axes 2 and 4 are construed as being independent of each other),
wherein having the feature that the laser treatment head further comprises a directional body (core block module 340, fig. 1; corresponds with the “fixed mirror,” para 0040, which is module 140, fig. 1) configurable for deflecting the laser bundle through an exit window (lens 142 is construed as an “exit window;” “delivering a focused beam 118 to the workpiece 102,” para 0023), wherein the directional body includes a mirror surface (surface of fixed mirror 144, fig. 1) for mirroring and aiming the deflected laser bundle with said touch pattern directly out the exit widow (lens 142, fig. 1; para 0023), and wherein the mirror surface is arranged to receive the laser bundle from the casing (fixed mirror 144 receives beam 118 from mirror 134, which is in module 130, fig .1 or module 330, fig. 3), the laser bundle essentially parallel to the rotation axis (the rotation axis is construed as being the axis through aperture 333, fig. 3 annotated below; this axis is parallel to the beam 118 as it travels through the output aperture 333 from the module 330 to the module 340, para 0037).
Grapov, figs. 1 and 3 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
945
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
976
964
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Grapov does not explicitly disclose a lens system for focusing the laser bundle; rotatable mirrors configured to be rotatable; a directional body configurable in relation to the casing between at least a first position and a second position around a rotation axis for variably deflecting the laser bundle through an exit window defined by the directional body according to the said touch pattern in a first emission direction and a second emission direction, respectively, relative to the casing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment devices, Suzuki teaches a lens system for focusing the laser bundle (“excitation light focusing section 113 can be configured with a focusing lens,” para 0049); rotatable mirrors (x-mirror 81 and y-mirror 91, fig. 23) configured to be rotatable (paras 0223 and 0237).
Suzuki, fig. 23
PNG
media_image3.png
346
300
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grapov, in view of the teachings of Suzuki, by placing a focusing lens, as taught by Suzuki, at the input end 321 of the collimator module 320, as taught by Grapov, and by using rotatable mirrors 81 and 91, as taught by Suzuki, as the movable mirrors 131 and 134, as taught by Grapov, in order to use a focusing lens to focus the output fiber beam 111 onto the surface of collimator 122, for the advantage of preventing the light from dispersing by focusing the light after it has the left the optical fiber cable, and for the advantage of using galvanometer mirrors, which are known to be rotatable, enabling two-dimensional scanning patterns that can be set by a control unit as a result of rotating across perpendicular axes (Suzuki, paras 0003-0004, 0049, and 300).
Grapov/Suzuki do not explicitly disclose a directional body configurable in relation to the casing between at least a first position and a second position around a rotation axis for variably deflecting the laser bundle through an exit window defined by the directional body according to the said touch pattern in a first emission direction and a second emission direction, respectively, relative to the casing.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment devices, Park teaches a directional body (vertical rotating part 66, fig. 4) configurable in relation to the casing (rotation connecting part 67, fig. 4) between at least a first position (right drawing, annotated in fig. 4 below) and a second position (two left drawings, annotated in fig. 4 below) around a rotation axis (horizontal axis through the middle of reflector 86, fig. 5) for variably deflecting the laser bundle (laser movement passage 15, fig. 5; para 0018) through an exit window (lens 68, fig. 6; the lens is construed as being an exit window) defined by the directional body according to the said touch pattern (“desired direction to irradiate the laser,” para 0017) in a first emission direction (direction to the right, right drawing, annotated in fig. 4 below) and a second emission direction (direction downwards, two left drawings, annotated in fig. 4 below), respectively, relative to the casing.
Park, fig. 4 (annotated)
PNG
media_image4.png
650
770
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grapov, in view of the teachings of Park, by using a rotation connection 67 able to rotate 360°, as taught by Park, at the connection between aperture 333 and module 340 such that module 340 was rotatable, as taught by Grapov, in order to rotate the beam outlet to any angle in a vertical or horizontal direction instead of strictly having to use only a specific vertical direction, for the advantage of irradiating areas that may be obstructed and that are difficult to reach (Park, paras 0017 and 0028).
Regarding claim 3, the combination of Grapov in view of Suzuki and Park as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 3. Specifically, Park teaches whereby the directional body is configurable between at least the first position that is a first forward position (in annotated fig. 4 above, the “first emission direction” is directed to the right and the “first position” is construed as a “first forward position”) and the second position that is a second downward position (in annotated fig. 4 above, the “second emission direction” is directed downwards and the “second position” is construed as a “second downward position”).
Regarding claim 6, Grapov teaches whereby the rotation axis (horizontal axis through the middle of aperture 333; the axis is annotated in fig. 3 above and is construed as being the same axis along which the beam travels) cuts the mirror surface (“reflected from the fixed mirror 344 inside the core block module and output from the core block module,” para 0040; the beam strikes the mirror 344 obliquely, fig. 1).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Grapov in view of Suzuki and Park as set forth above regarding claim 1 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Park teaches whereby the directional body (vertical rotating part 66, fig. 4) is rotatable over a range of at least 90° (“360°,” para 0017).
Regarding claim 10, Grapov teaches further comprising one or more surface sensors (“camera for monitoring the beam 316,” para 0040; the camera is construed as monitoring the beam on the surface of the workpiece 102, fig. 1), illuminators (illuminators are not explicitly disclosed), extractors and/or spacers mounted on the directional body (extractors and/or spacers are not explicitly disclosed), and directed according to the directional body (“The fixed mirror 344 may be an infrared mirror to allow use with a camera for monitoring the beam 316,” para 0040; the fixed mirror is mounted in the module 340, which is construed as the claimed “directional body”).
Regarding claim 13, Grapov teaches a process for treating a surface (“laser cutting,” para 0002; surface of workpiece 102, fig. 1) by means of a laser bundle (output fiber 111, fig. 1; the Instant Application describes a “laser bundle 5” as being the laser beam), comprising:
generating a laser bundle (output fiber 111, fig. 1; para 0021)
focusing the laser bundle (focused using lens 142, fig. 1; para 0029), and
deflecting the laser bundle the beam is deflected using mirrors 131 and 134, fig. 1; “scanning lens,” para 0005) according to a one-dimensional or two-dimensional touch pattern (different 2D scanning patterns are shown in figs. 2A-2D; para 0034) with a scanning system (movable mirrors 131 and 134, fig. 1; “galvanometer mirrors,” paras 0026-0027; construed as a scanning system), wherein the scanning system includes mirrors (movable mirrors 131 and 134, fig. 1) configured with respect to mutually orthogonal axes of rotation (axes 131 and 133, fig. 1; “perpendicular axes,” para 0026; axes 131 and 133 are perpendicular, fig. 1) and configured to deflect the laser bundle (beam 118, fig. 1) in two different spatial directions independent of each other (axes 2 and 4 in fig. 1 are “perpendicular,” para 0026; axes 2 and 4 are construed as being independent of each other),
wherein the deflected laser bundle with the touch pattern is emitted by means of a further mirroring (mirror 144, fig. 1) in a configurable emission direction (beam is deflected downwards after mirror 144, fig. 1) using a directional body (core block module 340, fig. 1; corresponds with the “fixed mirror,” para 0040, which is module 140, fig. 1) wherein the directional body includes a mirror surface (surface of fixed mirror 144, fig. 1) for the further mirroring of the laser bundle, and wherein the mirror surface is arranged to receive the laser bundle (fixed mirror 144 receives beam 118 from mirror 134, which is in module 130, fig .1 or module 330, fig. 3; the fixed mirror is inside the module 340, fig. 3) essentially parallel to the rotation axis (the rotation axis is construed as being the axis through aperture 333, fig. 3 annotated above; this axis is parallel to the beam 118 as it travels through the output aperture 333 from the module 330 to the module 340, para 0037).
Grapov does not explicitly disclose rotatable mirrors configured to be rotatable; a directional body configurable between at least a first position and a second position around a rotation axis for variably deflecting the laser bundle through an exit window defined by the directional body according to the said touch pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment devices, Suzuki teaches rotatable mirrors (x-mirror 81 and y-mirror 91, fig. 23) configured to be rotatable (paras 0223 and 0237).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grapov, in view of the teachings of Suzuki, by using rotatable mirrors 81 and 91, as taught by Suzuki, as the movable mirrors 131 and 134, as taught by Grapov, for the advantage of using galvanometer mirrors, which are known to be rotatable, enabling two-dimensional scanning patterns that can be set by a control unit as a result of rotating across perpendicular axes (Suzuki, paras 0003-0004, 0049, and 300).
Grapov/Suzuki do not explicitly disclose a directional body configurable between at least a first position and a second position around a rotation axis for variably deflecting the laser bundle through an exit window defined by the directional body according to the said touch pattern.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment devices, Park teaches a directional body (vertical rotating part 66, fig. 4) configurable between at least a first position (right drawing, annotated in fig. 4 above) and a second position (two left drawings, annotated in fig. 4 above) around a rotation axis (horizontal axis through the middle of reflector 86, fig. 5) for variably deflecting the laser bundle (laser movement passage 15, fig. 5; para 0018) through an exit window (lens 68, fig. 6; the lens is construed as being an exit window) defined by the directional body according to the said touch pattern (“desired direction to irradiate the laser,” para 0017).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grapov, in view of the teachings of Park, by using a rotation connection 67 able to rotate 360°, as taught by Park, at the connection between aperture 333 and module 340 such that module 340 was rotatable, as taught by Grapov, in order to rotate the beam outlet to any angle in a vertical or horizontal direction instead of strictly having to use only a specific vertical direction, for the advantage of irradiating areas that may be obstructed and that are difficult to reach (Park, paras 0017 and 0028).
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov et al. (US-20180369964-A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP-2019104049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Park et al. (KR-20110032991-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Sturmer et al. (US-20200276668-A1, effective filing date of 7 September 2017).
Grapov teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the lens system comprises a filter wheel with at least two lens groups.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment devices, Sturmer teaches wherein the lens system (focusing optics 14 and collimation optics 4, fig. 2) comprises a filter wheel (collimation optics changer 3, fig. 4) with at least two lens groups (four collimation optics 4 are shown, fig. 4).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grapov, in view of the teachings of Sturmer, by using a collimation optics 4 on an optics changer 3, as taught by Sturmer, in the collimator module 320, as taught by Grapov, in order to enable quick automatic change of the collimation optics without having to exchange the entire collimation changer or the optics module, for the advantage of increasing the versatility of the machine and reducing the need for maintenance (Sturmer, paras 0015 and 0037).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov et al. (US-20180369964-A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP-2019104049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Park et al. (KR-20110032991-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Liu et al. (CN-107088559-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Grapov teaches a laser treatment device (laser cutting system 100, fig. 1) comprising a laser source (fiber laser 112, fig. 1) adapted for emitting a laser bundle (output of the fiber 111, fig. 1), and further comprising a laser treatment head (laser cutting head 110, fig. 1) in accordance with claim 1 (please see rejection above), which laser treatment head is operatively connected to the laser source (para 0021; fig. 1).
Grapov does not explicitly disclose a portable laser treatment head.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment devices, Liu teaches a portable laser treatment head (laser emitting gun, fig. 2; construed as being portable because of the handle 113, fig. 2).
Liu, fig. 2
PNG
media_image5.png
714
544
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grapov, in view of the teachings of Liu, by attaching a handle 113, as taught by Liu, onto the laser cutting head 110, as taught by Grapov, in order to use a handle with a start button that is convenient to hold and that is convenient to operate with a start and stop button, which greatly improves the system’s safety of use (Liu, paras 0013-0014).
Claims 14-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Grapov et al. (US-20180369964-A1) in view of Suzuki et al. (JP-2019104049-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure), and Park et al. (KR-20110032991-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 13 above and further in view of Coleman et al. (US-20210154709-A1, effective filing date of 27 November 2019).
Regarding claim 14, Grapov teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising collecting a sensor signal associated with a position, an orientation, a speed and/or an acceleration of the laser treatment head relative to the surface, and configuring the emission direction based on the sensor signal.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment, Coleman teaches further comprising collecting a sensor signal (“The camera system 145 may be configured to capture an image,” para 0018) associated with a position (“The actual center and measured offsets may be determined by utilizing the camera system 145,” para 0030), an orientation, a speed and/or an acceleration (not explicitly disclosed) of the laser treatment head relative to the surface (construed as measuring the position of the system 100 relative to the center of a pre-drilled hole, paras 0029-0030), and configuring the emission direction based on the sensor signal (“The light source 150 may be configured to provide a light that is to be directed out of the end piece 170,” para 0018; positioning of the end piece 170 is based on the camera images through the end piece 170, paras 0018 and 0031).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grapov, in view of the teachings of Coleman, by monitoring the positioning of the beam output using a camera and making adjustments, as taught by Coleman, of the scanning mirrors 131 and 134, as taught by Grapov, in order to automate the scanning based on the detection of a camera system to ensure that the cutting is complete and acceptable before moving on to the next cutting operation, for the advantage of using an automated laser system that does not require any manual preparation or labor (Coleman, paras 0002-0004 and 0033; Grapov teaches using a camera, para 0040).
Regarding claim 15, Grapov teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose whereby the touch pattern is compensated for in the configured emission direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser treatment, Coleman teaches whereby the touch pattern (“predefined scanning pattern,” para 0012) is compensated for the configured emission direction (“the allowable tolerance may be from about 0.1 mm to about 4 mm,” para 0030; using a tolerance is construed as compensating for inaccuracies in the positioning of the scanning pattern provided through the end piece 170).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Grapov, in view of the teachings of Coleman, by monitoring the scanning pattern and making adjustments, as taught by Coleman, of the scanning mirrors 131 and 134, as taught by Grapov, in order to automate the scanning based on the detection of a camera system, for the advantage of ensuring that the cutting pattern is within an allowable tolerance such that if it is not within the allowable tolerance, the operation of the laser can be stopped and corrected to ensure consistent quality while cutting the workpiece (Coleman, para 0030).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 9 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims and if the 35 USC 112b rejections were overcome.
Reasons for Allowance
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
The prior art does not anticipate nor render obvious the combination set forth in the independent claims, and specifically does not show:
“wherein the laser treatment head further comprises a directional body configurable in relation to the casing between at least a first position and a second position around a rotation axis … wherein the directional body includes a mirror surface for mirroring and aiming the deflected laser bundle with said touch pattern directly out the exit widow, and wherein the mirror surface is arranged to receive the laser bundle from the casing, essentially parallel to the rotation axis,” as recited in claim 1, “whereby the directional body is configurable between at least the first position that is a first forward position and the second position that is a second downward position,” as recited in claim 3, and “wherein the laser treatment head is equipped with at least one sensor for measuring a sensor signal that is related to a position, an orientation, a speed and/or an acceleration of the laser treatment head with respect to a surface to be cleaned, and further comprising a control for automatic configuration of the directional body between said first forward position and said second downward position, based on the sensor signals,” as recited in claim 9.
The closest prior art of record (Coleman / US20210154709A1) teaches making adjustments of an automated laser system based on detections of camera images of pre-drilled holes, but does not disclose the claimed “rotation axis” as required in claim 1. Instead or rotation, Coleman teaches automated raising or lowering of an end piece.
The examiner was also persuaded by and agrees with the Applicant’s arguments on page 9, filed 12 Nov 2025, regarding the Coleman reference.
Another reference that was considered is Thomas (US10112257B1). Thomas teaches uses sensors to detect when a coating has been ablated. However, Thomas does not teach “a control for automatic configuration of the directional body between said first forward position and said second downward position, based on the sensor signals.” Instead, Thomas only teaches adjusting the amount of energy that is applied to a workpiece based on the sensor detection. Thomas does not teach position change of a directional body.
The examiner relied on pages 7 and 11 of the Specification in order to understand the features required in claim 9.
Thus, for at least the foregoing reasons, the prior art of record neither anticipates nor renders obvious the present invention as set forth in the independent claims.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 12 November 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Objections to the Drawings
Page 8 of the arguments states that the Specification and Claims have been amended to remove the reference numeral 11. The examiner acknowledges that these amendments have been made. However, there is still mention of a reference numeral 11 on the last page of the Specification: “11 Surface (to be treated).” Recommend removing mention of this numeral on the last page of the Specification.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 112
Page 8 of the arguments states that amendments were made to claims 6-8 and 12, and that these amendments have overcome the rejections. The examiner acknowledges that these amendments have overcome the rejections for claims 6, 8, and 12.
However, the rejections for claims 1 and 13 were not addressed in the arguments. The examiner respectfully submits that it is not clear what is meant in claiming a “touch pattern.” As explained in the rejection above, this term has not been used before in a US patent application, and there is confusion about how the term is used in the Specification. As a result, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to understand what this term means and would not know if they were infringing on this limitation. Thus, the meaning of a “touch pattern” should be make clear. As explained in the rejection above, the Applicant can overcome this rejection by reciting a “scanning pattern” instead of a “touch pattern,” which is how this term is being interpreted by the examiner.
The rejection for claim 7 was also not addressed in the arguments. Claim 7 has now been incorporated into claims 1 and 13. Based on the drawings and the amendments, the examiner assumes that what is being claimed is that the “laser bundle” is “essentially parallel to the rotation axis.” The Applicant can overcome this rejection by amending this limitation as set forth in the rejection above.
Claim Rejection – 35 USC § 103
Applicant' s arguments regarding the 103 rejections have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Grapov combined with Suzuki and Park.
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any 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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/31/2026