DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 07/09/2026. Claims 12-26 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 12-15 have been amended; claims 1-11 cancelled; claims 16-26 have been newly added.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/09/2026 have overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/10/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/09/2026 have created another Claim Objections, see detail below in the Claim Objections section.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) Claim Interpretation set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/10/2026.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 02/10/2026. However, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/09/2026 have created another 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections, see detail below in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections:
Regarding independent claim 12, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but are moot. Specifically, Applicant’s amendments to the Claims filed on 07/09/2026 have changed the scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. In view of the amendments to the Claims filed on 07/09/2026, the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections regarding claim 12 set forth in the previously office action dated 02/10/2026 are withdrawn.
Regarding independent claim 14, Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 07/09/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding independent claim 14 – see detail on page 11 of the Remarks dated 07/09/2026)
Applicant alleged: “Guo does not disclose how the supporting base 140 is mounted to the base transport mechanism 156. (Guo, [0026]). The Action views holes shown in FIG. 1 as screw holes. (Action, p. 28). If screws are used in Guo as alleged, the screws are seated on the supporting base 140, not the other way around as claimed. Therefore, Li, Guo, and Kim, alone or in combination, do not disclose, teach, or suggest amended claim 14. Thus, amended claim 14 is allowable over the cited references.” – see detail on page 11 of the Remarks dated 07/09/2026
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “the supporting base 140 is mounted to the base transport mechanism 156”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). In this case, claim 14 does not require the plate to be mounted to the biaxial track structure; in contrast, claim 14 recites: “a plate capable of being removably seated on multiple threaded adjusters within the open-bottom housing adjacent to the biaxial track structure for supporting objects to be engraved by the beam” in lines 13-15. Therefore, the claim only requires the plate to be adjacent to the biaxial track structure, there is nowhere in claim 14 requires that the plate is mounted to the biaxial track structure as alleged by the Applicant. In this case, Li in view of Guo properly teaches the limitation “a plate capable of being removably seated on multiple threaded adjusters within the open-bottom housing adjacent to the biaxial track structure for supporting objects to be engraved by the beam” as recited in claim 14 (lines 13-15), see detail in the rejection of claim 14 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below. Accordingly, Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 14 are not persuasive.
Furthermore, in response to Applicant’s arguments regarding claim 15 – see detail on pages 11-12 of the Remarks dated 07/09/2026, Examiner would like to note that Applicant’s amendments to claim 15 have changed scope of the claim; therefore, the claim interpretation has been changed. The newly cited references Rotary Solutions EMEA (YouTube: “Opel Lifting Table” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx54xdoxzX4], Published on 09/20/2016, newly cited) and Grizzly (NPL, MODEL G0872 60W 17" X 23" CNC LASER CUTTER/ENGRAVER OWNER'S MANUAL, Published 03/2021, newly cited, Document is attached) are added to this office action to reject claim 15, see detail in the rejection of claim 15 in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following features must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
“a second plate removably mounted in the housing on the biaxial track structure” as recited in claim 12 (lines 13-14),
“the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure” as recited in claim 17 (lines 1-2),
“the second plate being mounted in the open-bottom housing by means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” as recited in claim 18 (lines 1-3),
“the multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in as recited in claim 23 (lines 1-2),
“the second plate is mounted in the open-bottom housing by means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in as recited in claim 26 (lines 1-3).
It is noted that Figs.3, 5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application shows that the plate 36 is mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. Thus, the Drawings do not show that the second plate 36 is mounted on the tracks 30, and do not show that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. No new matter should be entered.
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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
Claim Objections
Claim 12-26 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the housing” in line 13. This should be changed to “the open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 12 (line 2).
Claims 13, 18-26 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the housing” in line 6. This should be changed to “the open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 14 (line 2).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the laser tower” in line 11. This should be changed to “the galvanometer laser tower” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 14 (line 9).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the beam” in line 15. This should be changed to “the engraving beam” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 14 (line 11).
Claims 15-17 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 14.
Claim 24 recites the limitation “the track” in line 4. This should be changed to “the biaxial track structure” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 12 (line 8).
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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the side panels of the open-bottom housing for manually varying a height and an angle of the open-bottom housing relative to the carriage” in claim 12 (lines 5-7). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “for manually varying a height and an angle of the open-bottom housing relative to the carriage” (Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “multiple threaded adjusters” (fails Prong C). Therefore, this limitation does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
“means of multiple threaded adjusters for manually varying a height and an angle of the table relative to the height adjustable top panel” in claim 13 (lines 5-7). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “for manually varying a height and an angle of the table relative to the height adjustable top panel” (Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “multiple threaded adjusters” (fails Prong C). Therefore, this limitation does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
“means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the side panels of the housing for manually varying an angle of the open-bottom housing relative to the carriage” in claim 14 (lines 5-7). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “for manually varying an angle of the open-bottom housing relative to the carriage” (Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “multiple threaded adjusters” (fails Prong C). Therefore, this limitation does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
“means of multiple threaded adjusters for manually varying a height and an angle of the table relative to the height adjustable top panel” in claim 15 (lines 4-6). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “for manually varying a height and an angle of the table relative to the height adjustable top panel” (Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “multiple threaded adjusters” (fails Prong C). Therefore, this limitation does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
“means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure for manually varying a height and an angle of the second plate relative to the open-bottom housing” in claim 18 (lines 2-4). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “for manually varying a height and an angle of the second plate relative to the open-bottom housing” (Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “multiple threaded adjusters” (fails Prong C). Therefore, this limitation does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
“means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in claim 26 (lines 2-3). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is not modified by functional language (fails Prong B); and the term “means” is modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function “multiple threaded adjusters” (fails Prong C). Therefore, this limitation does NOT invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), and it will be interpreted under broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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 12-13, 17-26 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.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a second plate removably mounted in the housing on the biaxial track structure” in lines 13-14. This limitation was not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the plate 36 is mounted on the tracks 30. Accordingly, claim 12 is 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.
Claims 13, 18-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure” in lines 1-2. This limitation was not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. Accordingly, claim 17 is 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.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the second plate being mounted in the open-bottom housing by means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in lines 1-3. This limitation was not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. Accordingly, claim 18 is 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.
Claims 19-20, 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 18.
Claim 22 recites the limitation “the first plate is mounted between the second plate and a bottom of the open-bottom housing” in lines 1-2. This limitation was not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application. There is nowhere in the Specification indicating that the first plate is mounted between the second plate and a bottom of the open-bottom housing. Furthermore, according to MPEP 2125 II., “When the reference does not disclose that the drawings are to scale and is silent as to dimensions, arguments based on measurement of the drawing features are of little value. See Hockerson-Halberstadt, Inc. v. Avia Group Int’l, 222 F.3d 951, 956, 55 USPQ2d 1487, 1491 (Fed. Cir. 2000) (The disclosure gave no indication that the drawings were drawn to scale. “[I]t is well established that patent drawings do not define the precise proportions of the elements and may not be relied on to show particular sizes if the specification is completely silent on the issue.”). However, the description of the article pictured can be relied on, in combination with the drawings, for what they would reasonably teach one of ordinary skill in the art. In re Wright, 569 F.2d 1124, 1127-28, 193 USPQ 332, 335-36 (CCPA 1977).”. See MPEP 2125 II. In this case, the drawings of the Instant Application do not identify that the first plate is mounted between the second plate and a bottom of the open-bottom housing, and the specification of the Instant Application does not indicate that figures are drawn to scale, nor does the written description provide dimensions, measurements, tolerances, or other disclosure establishing that the first plate is mounted between the second plate and a bottom of the open-bottom housing. Accordingly, claim 22 is 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.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in lines 1-2. This limitation was not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. Accordingly, claim 23 is 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.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the second plate is mounted in the open-bottom housing by means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in lines 1-3. This limitation was not described in the specification or in the drawings of the Instant Application. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. Accordingly, claim 26 is 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 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 12-13, 17-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a second plate removably mounted in the housing on the biaxial track structure” in lines 13-14. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how the second plate removably mounted in the housing on the biaxial track structure. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the plate 36 is mounted on the tracks 30. Therefore, it is unclear how the second plate removably mounted in the housing on the biaxial track structure.
Claims 13, 18-26 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 12.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. Therefore, it is unclear how the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “the second plate being mounted in the open-bottom housing by means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in lines 1-3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. Therefore, it is unclear how the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure.
Claims 19-20, 23 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 18.
Claim 23 recites the limitation “the multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in lines 1-2. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. Therefore, it is unclear how the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure.
Claim 26 recites the limitation “the second plate is mounted in the open-bottom housing by means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the biaxial track structure” in lines 1-3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure. Specifically, Par.0021 of the Specification of the Instant Application describes: “a second adjustment feature is provided by a plate 36 removably mounted on screw shaft adjusters 38 attached to and within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30.”, this is also shown in Figs.5-6 of the Drawings of the Instant Application. Thus, based on the Specification and the Drawings of the Instant Application, the plate 36 is removably mounted on the adjusters 38, the adjusters 38 are attached to the laser housing 10, and the adjusters 38 are positioned within the laser housing 10 adjacent the lower interior sides of the laser housing below the tracks 30. There is no indication in the Drawings or in the Specification describing that the adjusters 38 are attached to the tracks 30. Therefore, it is unclear how the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0174789 A1, previously cited) in view of Guo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0047099 A1, previously cited), and further in view of 김재도 et al. (KR 101055682 B1, previously cited, hereinafter KR’682).
Regarding claim 14, Li discloses a galvanometer laser engraving system (laser engraving system 10E, Li Figs.8-10) comprising:
an open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) (the enclosure 20E is an open bottom housing because the enclosure 20E comprises opening 26, as shown in Li Fig.8) with laterally spaced apart side panels (side panels of the enclosure 20E, Li annotated Fig.8 below);
a carriage (cart 80E, Li Fig.8) having laterally spaced apart top panels (top panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) and laterally spaced apart side panels (side panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below);
the open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) being mounted on the top panels (top panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) of the carriage (cart 80E, Li Fig.8) by means of multiple threaded adjusters (adjustable devices 24’, Li Fig.8) attached to the side panels (side panels of the enclosure 20E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) of the housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) for manually varying an angle of the open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) relative to the carriage (cart 80E, Li Fig.8) (Li Pars.0047-0048 disclose adjustable devices 24 for manually varying the angle of the enclosure 20E relative to the cart 80E; it is noted that adjustable devices 24’ shown in Li Fig.8 are similar to adjustable devices 24, as indicated by Li Par.0057: “the adjustment devices 24′ of the enclosure 20E may also be motorized and automated in a similar manner”, and Li Par.0048 discloses the adjustable devices 24 for manually varying the angle because Li Par.0048 discloses: “adjustment system 22 may comprise any known adjustment device or system and further, may be manually configured or automatically adjusted as is known in the art.” – it is noted that the adjustment system 22 comprises the adjustable devices 24 as shown in Li Fig.1; therefore, Li discloses adjustable devices 24’ attached to side panels of the enclosure 20E for manually varying the angle of the enclosure 20E relative to the cart 80E);
a biaxial track structure (biaxial track structure, Li annotated Fig.8 below) disposed within the open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8);
a laser (engraving device 40, Li Fig.7) (Li Par.0046 discloses the engraving device 40 is laser; thus, it generates and directs laser beam) directing an engraving beam (Li Par.0046 discloses the engraving device 40 is laser; thus, it generates and directs laser beam) downwardly through the open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) when actuated (see the position of the worksurface 4 in Li Fig.7; thus, the laser 40 is configured to direct the laser beam downwardly through enclosure 20E in order to engrave the workpiece)
PNG
media_image1.png
833
1068
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li does not explicitly disclose:
a galvanometer laser tower and head mounted on the biaxial track structure for biaxial movement within the open-bottom housing;
a plate capable of being removably seated on multiple threaded adjusters within the open-bottom housing adjacent to the biaxial track structure for supporting objects to be engraved by the beam;
the plate being removable from the open-bottom housing to allow the engraving beam to engrave articles disposed between the side panels of the carriage.
Guo teaches a laser engraving system (machine 100, Guo Fig.1; Guo Par.0022 teaches: “the tool 124 may be a laser engraving tool, and the machine 100 may be adapted to be employed as a laser engraving workstation.”) comprising an opening-bottom housing (frame 110, Guo Fig.1):
a biaxial track structure (transport mechanism 150 includes the first support bar or first track 152 and the second support bar or second track 154, Guo Fig.1 & Par.0025) disposed within said open-bottom housing (frame 110, Guo Fig.1);
a galvanometer laser tower (Guo teaches the laser tower as shown in Guo annotated Fig.1 below because the definition of tower is “a building or structure typically higher than its diameter and high relative to its surroundings” – according to Merriam-Webster dictionary [https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tower, accessed on 09/09/2026], and Guo annotated tower shows its height is higher than its diameter and the tower is high relative to its surrounding. It is further noted that the annotated tower and head are the tool 124 because Guo Par.0031 teaches: “A number of base station tool holders 134, e.g., extruder station tool holders 306, are mounted on the station platform 302, for releasably holding, i.e., for storing, extruders 124 not in use.”, and it is further noted that tool 124 is laser engraving tool because Guo Par.0022 teaches: “the tool 124 may be a laser engraving tool, and the machine 100 may be adapted to be employed as a laser engraving workstation.”) and head (head, Guo annotated Fig.1 below) (it is noted that the annotated tower and head are the tool 124 because Guo Par.0031 teaches: “A number of base station tool holders 134, e.g., extruder station tool holders 306, are mounted on the station platform 302, for releasably holding, i.e., for storing, extruders 124 not in use.”) mounted on the biaxial structure (transport mechanism 150 includes the first support bar or first track 152 and the second support bar or second track 154, Guo Fig.1 & Par.0025) for biaxial movement within the open-bottom housing (frame 110, Guo Fig.1) (Guo teaches the laser tower and head mounted on the transport mechanism 150 including the first support bar or first track 152 and the second support bar or second track 154 for biaxial movement within the frame 110 because Guo Par.0022 teaches: “the tool 124 may be a laser engraving tool, and the machine 100 may be adapted to be employed as a laser engraving workstation.”, and Guo Par.0025 teaches: “A first support bar or first track 152 is movably mounted to a second support bar or second track 154. The first support bar 152 (x-bar) is movable along the length of the second support bar 154 (y-bar). The movable platform 120 is mounted on, and movable along the length of, the first support bar 152. The second support bar 154 (y-bar) is mounted to the frame.”); and
a plate (supporting base 140, Guo Fig.1) capable of being removably (Guo Par.0026 teaches: “the supporting base 140 may be mounted to a base transport mechanism 156”, and Guo Fig.1 shows holes for screws for mounting the supporting base 140; thus, the supporting base 140 removable mounted in the frame 110) seated within said housing (frame 110, Guo Fig.1) (Guo Par.0026 teaches: “the supporting base 140 may be mounted to a base transport mechanism 156”, and Guo Fig.1 shows holes for screws for mounting the supporting base 140; thus, the supporting base 140 capable of being removably seated within the frame 110) adjacent to the biaxial track structure (transport mechanism 150 includes the first support bar or first track 152 and the second support bar or second track 154, Guo Fig.1 & Par.0025) (Guo Par.0026 teaches: “the supporting base 140 may be mounted to a base transport mechanism 156, such as illustrated in FIG. 1, that can move the supporting base 140 along the z-direction up or down (or more generally a direction that is not parallel to the plane defined by the x-bar 152 and the y-bar 154)”, and the definition of adjacent is “next to or very near a specified location” – according to Oxford Languages dictionary; in this case, since the supporting base 140 can be moved up, thus, the supporting base 140 can be next to or very near to the transport mechanism 150 includes the first support bar or first track 152 and the second support bar or second track 154; therefore, Guo teaches the supporting base 140 is adjacent to the transport mechanism 150 includes the first support bar or first track 152 and the second support bar or second track 154) for supporting objects to be engraved (Guo Par.0023 teaches: “a work item held on supporting base 140”) by the beam (the laser beam generated by the laser 124, see laser 124 in Guo Fig.1), and
the plate (supporting base 140, Guo Fig.1) being removable (Guo Par.0026 teaches: “the supporting base 140 may be mounted to a base transport mechanism 156”, and Guo Fig.1 shows holes for screws for mounting the supporting base 140; thus, the supporting base 140 removable mounted in the frame 110) from the open-bottom housing (frame 110, Guo Fig.1) to allow the engraving beam (the laser beam generated by the laser 124, see laser 124 in Guo Fig.1) to engrave articles disposed between the side panels of the carriage (it is noted that in combination, by substituting the Li laser system and the Li workpiece supporting platform (see the Li laser system comprising the annotated biaxial track structure in Li annotated Fig.8 above and the laser 40 in Li Fig.1; and the Li “platform” for supporting the workpiece 2 in Li Par.0052 (Li Par.0052 discloses “platform such that work surface 4 is adjacent opening 26 of the enclosure”)) with the Guo laser system and the Guo workpiece supporting platform (see the Guo laser system comprising the transport mechanism 150 includes the first support bar or first track 152 & the second support bar or second track 154, the platform 120, laser holder 122 and laser 124; and the Guo supporting base 140 and base transport mechanism 156 in Guo Fig.1), Li in view of Guo teaches the plate being removable to allow said engraving beam to engrave articles disposed between the side panels of said carriage (see the Li side panels of said carriage in Li annotated Fig.8 above)).
PNG
media_image2.png
744
911
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 substitute the Li laser system and the Li workpiece supporting platform (see the Li laser system comprising the annotated biaxial track structure in Li annotated Fig.8 above and the laser 40 in Li Fig.1; and the Li “platform” for supporting the workpiece 2 in Li Par.0052 (Li Par.0052 discloses “platform such that work surface 4 is adjacent opening 26 of the enclosure”)) with the Guo laser system and the Guo workpiece supporting platform (see the Guo laser system comprising the transport mechanism 150 includes the first support bar or first track 152 & the second support bar or second track 154, the platform 120, laser holder 122 and laser 124; and the Guo supporting base 140 and base transport mechanism 156 in Guo Fig.1), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would have yield a predictable result of controlling/adjusting positions of the laser and the workpiece within the laser housing in order for the laser to engrave the workpiece. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Li in view of Guo does not teach:
the plate capable of being removably seated on multiple threaded adjusters;
KR’682 teaches a laser system (KR’682 Figs.4-6) comprising:
the plate (support plate 50, KR’682 Figs.3-4, 6) capable of being removably seated on multiple threaded adjusters (multiple inclined means 40 as shown in KR’682 Figs. 4, 6; structure of each of inclined means 40 is shown in KR’682 Fig.5, and KR’682 Translated Document on page 4 – paragraphs 10-14 teaches: “the inclination means 40 located at the lower edge of the upper support plate 50 is operated after interposing a material such as metal or glass on the upper support plate 50. Then, the rotational force generated by the operation of the motor 41 is transmitted to the gear 41a via the motor shaft and then interlocked with the rotation gear 43b formed on the movable shaft 43 via the gear 41a. do. At this time, the movable shaft 43 is to rotate in place about the fixed shaft 42. Next, as the movable shaft 43 rotates in place, the movable shaft 43 is raised and lowered, that is, the rotary shaft 44 has a protrusion 44a, which is screwed, along the thread of the coupling groove 43a. As you rotate in one direction, you will descend and rotate in the opposite direction.”; therefore, each of the inclined means 40 is threaded adjuster) (KR’682 Translated Document on page 3 – paragraph 7 teaches: “the upper support plate 50 is mounted on the upper portion of the inclined means 40”; KR’682 Translated Document on page 3 – paragraphs 7-11 describes in detail the mounting process of the support plate 50, thus, the support plate 50 capable of being removably seated on multiple inclined means 40);
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser engraving system of Li in view of Guo, by adding multiple threaded adjusters such that the plate capable of being removably seated on multiple threaded adjusters, as taught by KR’682, in order to maintain a consistent focal distance, preventing distortion on tapered or conical objects, and ensuring the surface remains parallel to the laser beam. This technique keeps the engraving focused and properly sized. Furthermore, the modification would allow the system to process curved surface workpiece, thus, enable high-precision engraving on complex 3D shapes, such as bottles, pens, and curved machinery parts.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0174789 A1, previously cited) in view of Guo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0047099 A1, previously cited), 김재도 et al. (KR 101055682 B1, previously cited, hereinafter KR’682), and further in view of Rotary Solutions EMEA (YouTube: “Opel Lifting Table” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx54xdoxzX4], Published on 09/20/2016, newly cited) and Grizzly (NPL, MODEL G0872 60W 17" X 23" CNC LASER CUTTER/ENGRAVER OWNER'S MANUAL, Published 03/2021, newly cited, Document is attached).
Regarding claim 15, Li in view of Guo and KR’682 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 14, and Li also discloses further including
a cart (base 60 with wheels 66, Li Fig.10) with a top panel (upper surface of the base 60, Li annotated Fig.10 below) adapted to support articles to be engraved (Li Par.0049 discloses the base 60 is adapted to retain work piece to be engraved);
said cart (base 60 with wheels 66, Li Fig.10) being sized to fit between the side panels of the carriage (side panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.10 below) and under the open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8).
PNG
media_image3.png
831
1204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li in view of Guo and KR’682 does not teaches:
a height adjustable top panel and a table, the table being mounted on the height adjustable top panel by means of multiple threaded adjusters for manually varying a height and an angle of the table relative to the height adjustable top panel
Rotary Solutions EMEA teaches a cart (see Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure captured from the YouTube video below):
a cart (cart, Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure below) with a height adjustable top panel (top panel, Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure below) (YouTube: “Opel Lifting Table” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx54xdoxzX4] from 1:03 – 1:10 shows the top panel is height adjustable top panel) and a table (table, Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure below), the table (table, Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure below) being mounted on the height adjustable top panel (top panel, Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure below) by means of multiple adjusters (adjuster, Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure below; it is noted that one on each side of the cart) for manually varying a height and an angle of the table (table, Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure below) relative to the height adjustable top panel (top panel, Rotary Solutions EMEA annotated figure below) (Rotary Solutions EMEA (YouTube: “Opel Lifting Table” [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx54xdoxzX4] from 2:00 – 2:20 shows manually varying a height and an angle of the table relative to the height adjustable top panel).
PNG
media_image4.png
714
1279
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 substitute the Li cart (see the Li base 60 with wheels 66 in Li Fig.10) with the Rotary Solutions EMEA cart (see the Rotary Solutions EMEA cart in Rotary Solutions EMEA Fig.1), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of providing a movable cart for supporting workpiece to be engraved. MPEP 2143 I (B).
Li in view of Guo, KR’682 and Rotary Solutions EMEA does not explicitly teaches
the adjusters are threaded adjusters.
Grizzly teaches:
the adjusters are threaded adjusters (Grizzly on page 42 under the “Z-Axis Table Lift” section, teaches: “The Model G0872 table is raised manually with a hand crank. At each corner of the table, a leadscrew nut threaded with a leadscrew raises and lowers the table depending on which direction the hand crank is rotated. All four leadscrews are timed with one another by a synchronous belt and pulley (see Figure 73).”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser engraving system of Li in view of Guo, KR’682 and Rotary Solutions EMEA, by making adjusters are threaded adjusters, as taught by Grizzly, in order to incrementally adjust and maintain at a selected position. The modification would provide more precise height/level adjustment while positively retaining the selected position under the weight of the platform and/or load, thereby reducing unintended movement or slippage that may occur with a smooth sliding adjuster.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0174789 A1, previously cited) in view of Guo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0047099 A1, previously cited), 김재도 et al. (KR 101055682 B1, previously cited, hereinafter KR’682), and further in view of Grizzly (NPL, MODEL G0872 60W 17" X 23" CNC LASER CUTTER/ENGRAVER OWNER'S MANUAL, Published 03/2021, newly cited, Document is attached).
Regarding claim 16, Li in view of Guo and KR’682 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 14, and also teaches:
wherein the multiple threaded adjusters (inclined means 40, KR’682 Figs.4-6) adjust an angle of the plate (support plate 50, KR’682 Figs.3-4, 6) (angle of the support plate 50 is adjusted as shown in KR’682 Fig.6). Therefore, by adding the KR’682 inclined means 40 to the support structure of the plate of the Li in view of Guo laser engraving system (see the Guo supporting base 140 and its support structure in Guo Fig.1), in combination, Li in view of Guo and KR’682 teaches the multiple threaded adjusters adjust an angle of the plate relative to the open-bottom housing (since the Guo supporting base 140 and its support structure is located in the housing, as cited and incorporated above in the rejection of claim 14; thus, in combination, Li in view of Guo and KR’682 teaches multiple threaded adjusters adjust an angle of the plate relative to the open-bottom housing)
Li in view of Guo and KR’682 does not teach:
wherein the multiple threaded adjusters are adjusted manually.
Grizzly teaches a laser system (laser system as shown in front page):
wherein the multiple threaded adjusters are adjusted manually (Grizzly on page 42 under the “Z-Axis Table Lift” section, teaches: “The Model G0872 table is raised manually with a hand crank. At each corner of the table, a leadscrew nut threaded with a leadscrew raises and lowers the table depending on which direction the hand crank is rotated. All four leadscrews are timed with one another by a synchronous belt and pulley (see Figure 73).”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser engraving system of Li in view of Guo and KR’682, by adding the teachings of the multiple threaded adjusters are adjusted manually, as taught by Grizzly, in order to provide manual adjustment to allow operator to directly and incrementally set the heigh of each inclination means according to the pitch of the threaded engagement. The modification would provide the same controlled raising and lowering of the respective support points while simplifying the structure and eliminating components associated with powered actuation, such as motor, gearing, wiring, and associated controls. The modification would reduce manufacturing cost, system complexity, weight, and maintenance requirements while still permitting operator to independently set the heigh of each support and thereby establish the desired inclination of the workpiece for laser processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 12-13, 17-26 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Specifically, regarding independent claim 12, the closest prior art Li (U.S. Pub. No. 2011/0174789 A1, previously cited) discloses a galvanometer laser engraving system comprising: an open-bottom housing with laterally spaced apart side panels; a carriage having laterally spaced apart top panels and laterally spaced apart side panels; the open-bottom housing being mounted on top panels of the carriage by means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to the side panels of the open-bottom housing for manually varying a height and an angle of the open-bottom housing relative to the carriage; a biaxial track structure disposed within the open-bottom housing; a laser for directing a laser beam downwardly through the open-bottom housing.
Furthermore, the prior art Guo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0047099 A1, previously cited) discloses a laser engraving system comprising an opening-bottom housing; a biaxial track structure disposed within the open-bottom housing; a first plate mounted on the biaxial track structure; a galvanometer laser tower mounted on the first plate for biaxial movement within the open-bottom housing; and a second plate removable mounted in the opening-bottom housing adjacent the biaxial track structure for supporting objects to be engraved in a path of the laser beam. However, Guo does not disclose that the second plate is mounted on the same biaxial track structure.
Therefore, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 12 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 12 recites: “a second plate removably mounted in the housing on the biaxial track structure for supporting objects to be engraved in a path of the laser beam”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 12 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Claims 13, 18-26 would be allowable by virtue of their dependence on claim 12 if claim 12 is rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Regarding claim 17, Li in view of Guo and KR’682 teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 14, however, none of Li, Guo, nor KR’682, alone or in combination, teaches:
wherein the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure.
It is noted that the biaxial track structure is the same biaxial track structure that the galvanometer laser tower and head are mounted on, as required by independent claim 14.
Therefore, when consider Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, Applicant(s)’ claim 17 encompasses an invention that the prior art does not disclose, teach, or otherwise render obvious. More specifically, Applicant(s)’ claim 17 recites: “wherein the multiple threaded adjusters are attached to the biaxial track structure”.
Within the context of Applicant(s)’ claimed invention as a whole, these limitations do not appear to be disclosed, taught, nor otherwise rendered obvious by the prior art, alone or in combination.
Accordingly, claim 17 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph and 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Fazeny (U.S. Patent No. 7,652,225 B2) discloses a processing device for processing a composite component with at least a support device and a stamp pad having at least one operating head of a material-removing unit. At least one processing head of a material-removing unit and the composite component are moved relative to one another by means of a handling unit which is controlled and/or regulated by a control unit, in particular in an XY plane, and material is removed from the composite component by means of the material-removing unit, as well as a processing device, comprising at least a material-removing unit and a handling unit, whereby at least one processing head of the material-removing unit can be adjusted, in particular displaced, in an XY plane, and the handling unit is and/or can be connected to a control unit for control and/or regulation purposes.
Lai (U.S. Patent No. 6,881,924 B2) discloses a laser-cutting/carving machine, a structure of a platform and an air-collecting bin, wherein the machine body is provided therein with a laser-carving mechanism, the platform for a work piece and the air-collecting bin, the platform for the work piece is composed of a plurality of upright folded thin plates, and can contact with the work piece in a net-line contacting mode to enhance removing crumbs and smoke as well as fixing the work piece and fast heat sinking by air pressure acting downwards from above.
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, STEVEN 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 09/19/2026
Prosecution Insights