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 .
Claim Status:
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 9 are pending.
Claims 2-3, 5 and 8 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 9 are amended.
Claims 1, 4, 6-7 and 9 are examined as follow:
Claim Objections
Claim 4 objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 4, the preamble of “The laser plotter according to claim 3…”, should change to “The laser plotter according to claim 1…”, because claim 3 had been cancelled.
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:
Claim limitation “control unit” in claims 1 and 7 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “…for controlling…” or “…provided by…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “Control unit" has been described in Page 10 cited: “…in particular a computer 15a or a control unit, a graphic and/or a text is generated via a commercially available software, such as for example CoreIDRAW, Paint, etc.…”.
Claim limitation “focusing unit” in claims 1 and 7 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit" coupled with functional language “…focusing…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “focusing unit" has been described in Page 3 cited: “…a splash protection for the optical elements of the focusing unit or the laser head, respectively, in particular the lens, will be created with a correspondingly strong extraction flow, so that the focusing unit or the laser head.…”.
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 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 1, 4, 6-7 and 9 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 1, 4 and 7, the newly amended term of “…carriage…” is not used or described in the specification in anyway or form. Such that this amendment constitute new matters.
Claims 6 and 9 are dependent claims of 1 or 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 (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 from IDS and the written opinion) 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 (newly cited) herein set forth as CN70741A. and further in view of Lindblad et al (US8940218B1 newly 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) and a control unit (#104, fig.1A) for controlling a carriage (#128, fig.1A), which is operated via a rail (#114a and b, fig.1A), with a focusing unit (#126d, fig.1A, refer to Paragraph 0022 cited: “…a focusing element 126d positioned to focus the laser beam 122 toward the material processing area 102…”) arranged movably (refer to X and Y – AXIS shown in fig.1A) thereon, and wherein arranged between the carriage (#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 or more extraction openings (#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 carriage (#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 control unit; 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; carriage 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 a control unit (#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 a control unit, 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 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; carriage via belt driven.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, CN70741A discloses 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 (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 carriage via belt driven.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, Lindblad discloses carriage 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 belt driven carriage, 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 focusing unit (#128, fig.1A) or on the laser head, respectively, for controlling the extraction flow.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sukhman et al (US2009/0223944A1 previously cited from IDS and the written opinion) herein set forth as Sukhman, in view of Robb et al (US5906760 previously cited) herein set forth as Robb, further in view of CN103170741A (newly cited) herein set forth as CN70741A, and further in view of Lindblad et al (US8940218B1 newly 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 focusing unit (#128, 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 carriage (#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 carriage (#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 laser source is in the housing of the laser plotter and an external component transfer control information; the extraction bar ahs 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; via belt driven.
In the field of laser machining apparatus, Robb discloses 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 invention 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 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; via belt driven.
In the similar field of laser processing apparatus, CN70741A discloses 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 (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 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 laser plotter 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 focusing unit (#128, fig.1A) or on the laser head, respectively, for controlling the extraction flow (refer to “air flow” shown in fig.1A).
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on September 18th 2025 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim raised new Claim Objection.
With respect to the Rejection 112b: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on September 18th 2025 that overcame the Rejection 112b in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of 112b Rejection.
the applicant’s amendment filed on September 18th 2025 has raised new issue of 112a Rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed September 18th 2025 have been fully considered but moot in view of the new grounds of rejection with the newly cited secondary Prior art CN103170741A(newly cited) and Lindblad et al (US8940218B1 newly cited).
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 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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 January 6th 2026
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761