DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on May 12, 2026 has been entered.
Claim Status:
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 9-13 are pending.
Claims 2-3, 5 and 8 are cancelled.
Claims 10-13 are newly added.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 9 are amended.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 9-13 are examined as follow:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In claim 11 and 13, the newly cited limitation “…wherein the at least two adjacent segments are configured to be activated at different times…” is not supported by the specification, the specification only citing that each different segment activated based on the position of the laser head and not by times (emphasized and more explain in 112b), such that the newly amended limitation constitute as new matter.
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 11 and 13 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.
In claim 11 and 13, the new matter of “…wherein the at least two adjacent segments are configured to be activated at different times…” is indefinite, because of the lack of description and clarification in the specification of what is actually “times” in the new matter, it is unclear such “times” is implying a time as clocked time or time as cycling on and off as how many cycled times. Clarification is required.
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.
Claims 1, 4 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukhman et al (US2009/0223944A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Sukhman, in view of KUROSU et al (US2014/0105238A1 previously cited) herein set forth as KUROSU, further in view of CN103170741A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN70741A. and further in view of Lindblad et al (US8940218B1 previously cited).
Regarding claim 1, Sukhman discloses a laser plotter (#100, fig.1A) for processing a job for cutting, engraving, marking and/or lettering a flat workpiece (#102, fig.1A) having at least one housing (#150, fig.1A) with a processing chamber (refer to the interior space of the housing #150 in fig.1A) formed for positioning a workpiece (#102, fig.1A), at least one irradiation source (#121, fig. 1A) in the form of a laser (#122, #124a, #124b and 124c in fig.1A), a sledge(#128, fig.1A), and a controller (#104, fig.1A) for controlling the sledge (#128, fig.1A), which is operated via a rail (#114a and b, fig.1A), with a laser head (#128, fig.1A) having at least one lens (#126d, fig.1A) and beam deflecting optics (#126d, fig.1A) arranged movably (refer to X and Y – AXIS shown in fig.1A) thereon the sledge (#128, fig.1A), and wherein arranged between the sledge (#112, fig.1A) and a processing surface (refer to the surface of #102 in fig. 1A) of the processing chamber (refer to the interior space of the housing #150 in fig.1A) there is an extraction bar (#132, fig. 1A) for extracting the exhaust gases or vapors (refer to “air flow” shown in fig.1A), respectively, produced during the processing of the workpiece (#102, fig.1A) by a laser beam (#122, fig. 1A), wherein one extraction opening (#138, fig.1A) of the extraction bar (#132, fig. 1A) are arranged or aligned, respectively, parallel to the processing surface (refer to the surface of #102 in fig. 1A) for generating a horizontal extraction flow (refer to the orientation of “air flow” shown in fig.1A), wherein the extraction bar (#132, fig.1A) is attached to the sledge (#112 and #114, fig.1A) and is formed L- shaped (refer to “L-shape” annotated in fig.1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Sukhman does not explicitly disclose wherein the chamber has at least one irradiation source and a computer with software; a plurality of extraction openings; the extraction openings are electronically controlled and are divided into a plurality of segments wherein the segments are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the focusing unit, but the segments not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head are configured to be deactivated to close; the sledge via belt drive.
In the field of laser processing apparatus, KUROSU discloses wherein this chamber (#280, fig.4) has at least one irradiation source (#250, fig.4) and controller (#240, #160 and #150, fig.4).
PNG
media_image2.png
476
697
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 have modified Sukhman’s invention with wherein this chamber has at least one irradiation source and controller, as taught by KUROSU, in order to provide a more compact, smaller laser plotter, such that would be less special requirement for installation.
KUROSU does not disclose a computer with software; a plurality of extraction openings; the extraction openings are electronically controlled wherein the segments are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the laser head, but the segments not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head are configured to be deactivated to close; sledge via belt driven.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, CN70741A discloses a plurality of extraction openings (refer to the “multi-cavity” cited in abstract); the extraction openings (refer to the “multi-cavity” cited in abstract) are electronically controlled and are divide into a plurality of segments (refer to the two segments of cavities where the laser is located and not located), wherein the segments (refer to the two segments of cavities where the laser is located and not located) are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the laser head (refer as “actual position of the laser cutting head” in abstract), but the segments (refer to “corresponding air door” in abstract) not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head (refer as “actual position of the laser cutting head” in abstract) are configured to be deactivated to close (refer to Abstract cited: “…a large-breadth laser cutter partition and dust removing device, the device adopts multi-cavity type dust removing system, controlling the corresponding air door opening and closing according to the actual position of the laser cutting head of numerical control system to the region for producing the dust of dust, and dust absorbing air door capable of opening and closing independently…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sukhman’s laser plotter with the extraction openings are electronically controlled and are divided into a plurality of segments wherein the segments are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the focusing unit, but the segments not located in a vicinity of the position of the focusing unit are configured to be deactivated to close, as taught by CN70741A, in order to provide the capability to focus and maintain dust removing efficiency into a small area and increase dust removal rate (refer to abstract).
CN70741A does not disclose the controller as a computer with software; the sledge via belt driven.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, Lindblad discloses a computer with software (refer to Col 3 Line 14-22 cited: “…The programmable controller 114 is coupled to the rails, carriage member, and laser head for controlling overall operation of the laser etching system. The programmable controller may be a computing arrangement that includes a processor, memory, and retentive storage. The control and operations described herein may be implemented by programming the controller 114 to power, focus, and move the laser head, as well as move the stencil 116 when needed …”); sledge via belt driven (refer to Col 3 line 30-32 cited: “…a belt-drive (not shown) moves the laser head along the carriage member, and a screw-drive moves the carriage member along the rails…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sukhman’s laser plotter with a computer with software; belt driven sledge, as taught by Lindblad, in order to provide a fast and high rate of speed movement for the laser head, increasing the laser processing speed (refer to Col 3 line 33-35 cited: “…The laser head can be moved along the x-axis at a high rate of speed, and the x-axis may be referred to as the high-speed axis…”).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Sukhman, KUROSU, CN70741A and Lindblad discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Sukhman further discloses wherein the extraction openings (#138, fig.1A) are formed one longitudinal channels (refer to the rectangle shape of #138 in fig.1c), which are positioned to generate the extraction flow (refer to the “air flow” shown in fig.1A) aligned parallel to the processing table (#102, fig.1A).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Sukhman, KUROSU, CN70741A and Lindblad discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, Sukhman further discloses wherein an extraction cap (#168 a-c, fig.1C) is arranged on the laser head (#128, fig.1A), respectively, for controlling the extraction flow (refer to “air flow” shown in fig.1A).
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Sukhman, KUROSU, CN70741A and Lindblad discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Sukhman does not explicitly disclose the at least one segments includes multiple extraction openings.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, CN70741A discloses the at least one segments includes multiple extraction openings (refer as “multiple-cavity” in Abstract cited: “…a large-breadth laser cutter partition and dust removing device, the device adopts multi-cavity type dust removing system, controlling the corresponding air door opening and closing according to the actual position of the laser cutting head of numerical control system to the region for producing the dust of dust, and dust absorbing air door capable of opening and closing independently…”)..
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sukhman’s laser plotter with the extraction openings are electronically controlled and are divided into a plurality of segments wherein the segments are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the focusing unit, but the segments not located in a vicinity of the position of the focusing unit are configured to be deactivated to close, as taught by CN70741A, in order to provide the capability to focus and maintain dust removing efficiency into a small area and increase dust removal rate (refer to abstract).
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Sukhman, KUROSU, CN70741A and Lindblad discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7, CN70741A already disclosed the limitation “…multiple extraction openings in the segments …” in claim 1 rejection. Sukhman, KUROSU or Lindblad does not explicitly disclose wherein at least two adjacent segments include multiple extraction openings in the segments, and wherein the at least two adjacent segments are configured to be activated at different times.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, CN70741A further discloses wherein at least two adjacent segments include multiple extraction openings in the segments, and wherein the at least two adjacent segments are configured to be activated at different times. (refer as “multiple-cavity” in Abstract cited: “…a large-breadth laser cutter partition and dust removing device, the device adopts multi-cavity type dust removing system, controlling the corresponding air door opening and closing according to the actual position of the laser cutting head of numerical control system to the region for producing the dust of dust, and dust absorbing air door capable of opening and closing independently…”)(Examiner note: CN70741A clearly discloses at least two segments of different cavities, at least one segment of multi-cavity that is closed because the laser head is not in the position, then the segment that is open because the laser head is in those multi-cavity’s position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sukhman’s method with wherein at least two adjacent segments include multiple extraction openings in the segments, and the method further comprising activating the at least two adjacent segments at different times for controlling the extraction flow, as taught by CN70741A, in order to provide the capability to focus and maintain dust removing efficiency into a small area and increase dust removal rate (refer to abstract).
Claims 7, 9 and 12-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukhman et al (US2009/0223944A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Sukhman, in view of Robb et al (US5906760 previously cited) herein set forth as Robb, further in view of CN103170741A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN70741A, and further in view of Lindblad et al (US8940218B1 previously cited).
Regarding claim 7, Sukhman discloses A method for operating a flatbed laser plotter (#100, fig.1A) for processing flat workpieces (#102, fig.1A) for a job to be processed for cutting, engraving, marking and/or lettering a workpiece or a blank (#102, fig.1A), respectively, in which at least one irradiation source (#121, fig.1A) in the form of a laser (#122, #124a, #124b and 124c in fig.1A) is used, which acts on the workpiece (#102, fig.1A) to be processed, wherein the workpiece (#102, fig.1A) is deposited in a defined manner (referring the orientation of the #102 in fig.1A) in a processing chamber (refer to the interior space of the housing #150 in fig.1A) and a laser beam (#122, #124a, #124b and 124c in fig.1A) emitted by the irradiation source (#121, fig.1A) is sent via deflecting elements (#126 a-c, fig.1A) to a laser head (#128, fig.1A) having at least one lens (#126d, fig.1A) and beam deflecting optics (#126d, fig.1A), respectively, by which the laser beam (#122, #124a, #124b and 124c in fig.1A) is deflected in the direction of the workpiece (#102, fig.1A) and focused (referring #124d in fig.1A) for processing, wherein the position control of the workpiece (#102, fig.1A) is provided by a control unit (#104, fig.1A) such that the workpiece (#102, fig.1A) is processed, line by line, by moving of a sedge (#112 and #114, fig.1A) via a rail (#114a and b, fig.1A) to in the X-Y direction (refer to X and Y – AXIS shown in fig.1A), and in that on an external component, which is transferred to the control unit (#104, fig. 1A) of the laser plotter (#100, fig.1A) and is processed by the control unit (#104, fig. 1A) in the form of one or more jobs, wherein a horizontal extraction flow is generated by an extraction bar (#132, fig. 1A) between the sledge (#112 and #114, fig.1A) and a processing table (refer the platform where #102 is on in fig.1A), wherein the extraction bar (#132, fig.1A) is attached to the sledge (#112 and #114, fig.1A) and is formed L- shaped (refer to “L-shape” annotated in fig.1A).
PNG
media_image1.png
472
646
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
497
468
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Sukhman does not explicitly disclose the control unit is a computer with software; the laser source is in the housing of the laser plotter and an external component transfer control information; the extraction bar has a plurality of electronically controllable extraction openings wherein the segments are not only activated to open in dependence on the position of the laser head, but the segments which are not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head are deactivated to close; via belt driven.
In the field of laser machining apparatus, Robb discloses a computer with software (refer to “C” annotated in fig.1) the laser source (#19, fig.1) is in the housing (#21, fig.1) of the laser plotter (#10, fig.1) and external component (refer to “C” shown in fig.1) transfer control information.
PNG
media_image4.png
560
533
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 have modified Sukhman’s method with the laser source is in the housing of the laser plotter and an external component transfer control information, as taught by Robb, in order to provide a more lean and compacted invention, and also able to utilize network for control information to transfer.
Robb does not explicitly disclose the extraction bar has a plurality of electronically controllable extraction openings wherein the segments are not only activated to open in dependence on the position of the focusing unit, but the segments which are not located in a vicinity of the position of the focusing unit are deactivated to close; via belt driven.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, CN70741A discloses a plurality of extraction openings (refer to the “multi-cavity” cited in abstract); the extraction openings (refer to the “multi-cavity” cited in abstract) are electronically controlled and are divide into a plurality of segments (refer to the two segments of cavities where the laser is located and not located), wherein the segments (refer to the two segments of cavities where the laser is located and not located) are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the laser head (refer as “actual position of the laser cutting head” in abstract), but the segments (refer to “corresponding air door” in abstract) not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head (refer as “actual position of the laser cutting head” in abstract) are configured to be deactivated to close (refer to Abstract cited: “…a large-breadth laser cutter partition and dust removing device, the device adopts multi-cavity type dust removing system, controlling the corresponding air door opening and closing according to the actual position of the laser cutting head of numerical control system to the region for producing the dust of dust, and dust absorbing air door capable of opening and closing independently…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sukhman’s method with the extraction bar has a plurality of electronically controllable extraction openings wherein the extraction openings are divided into several segments and wherein the segments are not only activated to open in dependence on the position of the focusing unit, but the segments which are not located in a vicinity of the position of the focusing unit are deactivated to close, as taught by CN70741A, in order to provide the capability to focus and maintain dust removing efficiency into a small area and increase dust removal rate (refer to abstract).
CN70741A does not disclose via belt driven.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, Lindblad discloses via belt driven (refer to Col 3 line 30-32 cited: “…a belt-drive (not shown) moves the laser head along the carriage member, and a screw-drive moves the carriage member along the rails…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sukhman’s method with belt driven laser head, as taught by Lindblad, in order to provide a fast and high rate of speed movement for the laser head, increasing the laser processing speed (refer to Col 3 line 33-35 cited: “…The laser head can be moved along the x-axis at a high rate of speed, and the x-axis may be referred to as the high-speed axis…”).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Sukhman, Robb, CN70741A and Lindblad discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 7, Sukhman further discloses wherein an extraction cap (#168 a-c, fig.1C) is arranged on the laser head(#128, fig.1A), respectively, for controlling the extraction flow (refer to “air flow” shown in fig.1A).
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Sukhman, KUROSU, CN70741A and Lindblad discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7, Sukhman further discloses wherein one segment (#138, fig.1A).
Sukhman does not explicitly disclose the at least one segments includes multiple extraction openings.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, CN70741A discloses the at least one segments includes multiple extraction openings (refer as “multiple-cavity” in Abstract cited: “…a large-breadth laser cutter partition and dust removing device, the device adopts multi-cavity type dust removing system, controlling the corresponding air door opening and closing according to the actual position of the laser cutting head of numerical control system to the region for producing the dust of dust, and dust absorbing air door capable of opening and closing independently…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sukhman’s method with the extraction openings are electronically controlled and are divided into a plurality of segments wherein the segments are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the focusing unit, but the segments not located in a vicinity of the position of the focusing unit are configured to be deactivated to close, as taught by CN70741A, in order to provide the capability to focus and maintain dust removing efficiency into a small area and increase dust removal rate (refer to abstract).
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Sukhman, KUROSU, CN70741A and Lindblad discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 7, CN70741A already disclosed the limitation “…multiple extraction openings in the segments …” in claim 1 rejection. Sukhman, KUROSU or Lindblad does not explicitly disclose wherein at least two adjacent segments include multiple extraction openings in the segments, and the method further comprising activating the at least two adjacent segments at different times for controlling the extraction flow.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, CN70741A further discloses wherein at least two adjacent segments include multiple extraction openings in the segments, and the method further comprising activating the at least two adjacent segments at different times for controlling the extraction flow (refer as “multiple-cavity” in Abstract cited: “…a large-breadth laser cutter partition and dust removing device, the device adopts multi-cavity type dust removing system, controlling the corresponding air door opening and closing according to the actual position of the laser cutting head of numerical control system to the region for producing the dust of dust, and dust absorbing air door capable of opening and closing independently…”)(Examiner note: CN70741A clearly discloses at least two segments of different cavities, at least one segment of multi-cavity that is closed because the laser head is not in the position, then the segment that is open because the laser head is in those multi-cavity’s position).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Sukhman’s method with wherein at least two adjacent segments include multiple extraction openings in the segments, and the method further comprising activating the at least two adjacent segments at different times for controlling the extraction flow, as taught by CN70741A, in order to provide the capability to focus and maintain dust removing efficiency into a small area and increase dust removal rate (refer to abstract).
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12, 2026 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action.
With respect to the Notification of 112f: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12, 2026 overcame the Notification of 112f in the previous office action.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12, 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of 112b Rejection.
With respect to the Rejection 112a: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on May 12, 2026 that overcame the Rejection 112a in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of 112a Rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed May 12, 2026 have been fully considered but found to be unpersuasive for the reason below.
The applicants argue: “…Applicant respectfully traverses the rejection for at least the following reasons.
Claim 1 describes a combination of features including, but not limited to, the features of:
wherein a plurality of extraction openings of the extraction bar are arranged or aligned, respectively, parallel to the processing surface for generating a horizontal extraction flow, wherein in that the extraction bar is attached to the sledge and is formed L-shaped, and the extraction openings are electronically controllable and are divided into a plurality of segments, wherein the segments are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the laser head, but the segments not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head are configured to be deactivated to close.
Claim 7 describes a combination of features including, but not limited to, the features of:
wherein the extraction bar is attached to the sledge, is formed L-shaped, and has a plurality of electronically controllable extraction openings, wherein the extraction openings are divided into several segments, and wherein the segments are not only activated to open in dependence on the position of the laser head, but the segments which are not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head are deactivated to close.…”, Remark Page 6.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, both claim 1 and 7, Sukhman discloses “…parallel to the processing surface for generating a horizontal extraction flow, wherein in that the extraction bar is attached to the sledge and is formed L-shaped..”, CN70741A discloses “…wherein a plurality of extraction openings of the extraction bar are arranged or aligned, respectively …” and also “…the extraction openings are electronically controllable and are divided into a plurality of segments, wherein the segments are not only configured to be activated to open in dependence on a position of the laser head, but the segments not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head are configured to be deactivated to close…”.
Regarding “L-shape”,
It is expressed that there is no limitation cited in the rejected claims that the L-shape is located at where or what such “L-shape” relative position or structurally to the actual “extraction openings” or the “extraction bar”, such that it would be reasonable to interpret that the limitation “L-shape” can be anywhere on the extraction bar such as annotated in prior art Sukhman.
Regarding “a plurality of electronically controllable extraction openings … divided into several segments” and “…where the segments are both “activated to open in dependence on the position of the laser head” and those segments “not located in a vicinity of the position of the laser head are configured to deactivated to close…”,
It is noted that CN70741A discloses such limitation, because each multi-cavity of CN70741A is one of the electronically controllable extraction openings, furthermore, there is not limitation of the rejected claims to further restrict the interpretation of what is considered as segments, such that the segment for CN70741A are the segment where the cavity are closed, and the other segment are the cavity are opened depend on the position of the laser head.
The applicants argue: “…As noted in Applicant's Specification, the localized control of the claimed segments of extraction openings provides "the advantage that low extraction power is required for this purpose, since it is not necessary for the entire extraction bar 20 to generate an extraction flow 22 over the entire processing width of the laser plotter 1 all the time, but only in that area where the laser head 12 or the focusing unit 12, respectively, is currently located." (page 9, lines 10-14). This advantage of lower "extraction power" is not recognized or described in the cited art such as CN70741A, which merely teaches improving the dust removal rate. Additional advantages of the claimed segments of extraction openings that are not recognized in the cited art are described on page 9 of Applicant's Specification (e.g., generating a certain width of exhaust gas flow and having high exhaust gas output).…”, Remark Page 6.
The examiner's response: The applicant's arguments above are not persuasive.
It is noted that the features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim. Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitation from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (refer to MPEP 2145. VI). In this case, the limitation citing the advantages of the cited limitation.
Furthermore, Since Prior art of record CN70741A also teaches the same limitation of opening cavity air door when the laser head, there would be no reason why CN70741A’s teaching would not be able to achieve the same advantages. It is suggested that to amend or clarify the cited limitation that is distinct from prior art of record to make such argument have ground to argue.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
HADANO et al (US2019/0375052A1) discloses a smoke and dust collecting system for laser processing apparatus, that only teach on some of cited limitation in the claims.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is 571-272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 September 27, 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
