DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant’s submission filed on 01/23/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
This action is responsive to the RCE filed 01/23/2026. Claims 12-15 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 12-13 have been amended; claims 1-11 cancelled; claims 14-15 have been newly added.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawings Objections previously set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/26/2025.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/26/2025. Therefore, the Claim Objections are maintained in this Office Action.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112 (a) and 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Final Office Action dated 11/26/2025. However, Applicant’s amendments to Claims filed on 12/17/2025 have created another 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) Claim Rejections, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 12/17/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive for the following reasons:
Applicant(s)’ Argument: (Regarding the independent claim 12 – see details on pages 4-5 of the Remarks dated 12/17/2025)
Applicant alleged that the secondary reference Guo is unrelated art and thus, it is not obvious to add a teaching from Guo to Li to provide the missing elements of the claimed invention. Specifically, Applicant alleged: “It is further beyond question that Guo is not in or reasonably related to the laser engraving art. It is stated several times that the Guo invention is in the field of "precision manufacturing" and seeks to provide a machine that supports a number of printer tools without crowding. It provides electric contacts for drills and the like, but never mentions engravers.
Of equal significance is the fact that none of the prior art relied by the Examiner, including Guo, teaches a combination of upper housing and lower carriage together with an arrangement that allows a "tool" in the upper housing to perform operations on a target in either the housing or the lower carriage as is the case in Applicant's invention.
The law is clear, the reference must be in or clearly related to the art of the claimed invention to be a viable reference in a 103 combination. In re Clay, 966 F. 2nd 656 (fed Cir 1992); The reference must "suggest" the combination; In re Geiger, 815 F. 2nd 686 (Fed Cir 1987). In short, a PHOSITA is only theoretically familiar with knowledge of elements reasonably pertinent to the claimed invention. Guo does not meet these clear tests.”, see details on pages 4-5 of the Remarks dated 12/17/2025.
Examiner’s Response:
In response to Applicant’s argument that the secondary reference Guo (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0047099 A1, previously cited) is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, the prior art Guo is analogous art because it is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor, which is laser engraving system. Specifically, Guo Fig.1 and Par.0022 teaches a machine 100 comprising a tool 124, and Par.0022 of Guo further 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.”. Therefore, the prior art Guo teaches a laser engraving machine and thus, it is in the field of the inventor’s endeavor. Accordingly, the prior art Guo is analogous art.
Furthermore, since the primary reference Li and the secondary reference Guo are directed to the same field of laser engraving, thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine them.
Given above reasons, Li in view of Guo properly teaches all limitations recited in the independent claim 12, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Claim Objections
Claims 12-15 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said open bottom housing” in line 4. This should read “said open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 12 (line 2).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said carriage top panels” in line 4. This should read “said top panels of said carriage” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 12 (line 3).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said housing side panels” in line 5. This should read “said side panels of said open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 12 (line 2).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said track structure” in lines 8 and 12. This should read “said biaxial track structure” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 12 (line 7).
Claim 12 recites the limitation “said housing” in line 12. This should read “said open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 12 (line 2).
Claim 13 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 13.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “The laser engraving system” in line 1. This should read “The galvanometer laser engraving system” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 12 (line 1).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said carriage side panels” in line 4. This should read “said side panels of said carriage” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 12 (line 3).
Claim 13 recites the limitation “said open bottom housing” in lines 4-5. This should read “said open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 12 (line 2).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said carriage top panels” in line 4. This should read “said top panels of said carriage” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 14 (line 3).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said housing side panels” in line 5. This should read “said side panels of said open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 14 (line 2).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said open bottom housing” in lines 4, 9. This should read “said open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 14 (line 2).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said laser tower” in line 10. This should read “said galvanometer laser tower” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 14 (line 8).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said housing” in lines 10, 12, 14. This should read “said open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 14 (line 2).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said track structure” in line 12. This should read “said biaxial track structure” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 14 (line 7).
Claim 14 recites the limitation “said beam” in line 13. This should read “said engraving beam” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 14 (line 10).
Claim 15 is objected by virtue of its dependence on claim 14.
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said carriage side panels” in line 3. This should read “said side panels of said carriage” to properly refer to the corresponding limitations recited previously in claim 14 (line 3).
Claim 15 recites the limitation “said open bottom housing” in line 3. This should read “said open-bottom housing” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 14 (line 2).
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”). Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“means for adjusting the angle of said plate relative to said housing” in claim 14 (line 14). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “for adjusting the angle of said plate relative to said housing” (Prong B); and the term “means” is not modified by sufficient structures, materials or acts for performing the claimed function (Prong C). Therefore, this limitation invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f). For examination purposes, the limitation “means” will be interpreted as “screw shaft adjusters” and equivalents, as indicated by Specification Par.0021: “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.”, and as shown in Fig.4 [item 38] of the Instant Application.
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.
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 said housing side panels for manually varying the height and angle of said open-bottom housing relative to said carriage” in claim 12 (lines 4-6). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “for manually varying the height and angle of said open-bottom housing relative to said 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, the limitation “means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to said housing side panels for manually varying the height and angle of said open-bottom housing relative to said carriage” 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 said housing side panels for manually varying the angle of said open-bottom housing relative to said carriage” in claim 14 (lines 4-6). This limitation uses the term “means” (Prong A); the term “means” is modified by functional language “for manually varying the angle of said open-bottom housing relative to said 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, the limitation “means of multiple threaded adjusters attached to said housing side panels for manually varying the angle of said open-bottom housing relative to said carriage” 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 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 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top and side panels” in line 3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear if this limitation means a carriage having laterally spaced apart top panels and laterally spaced apart side panels, or this limitation means the top panel of the carriage and the side panel of the carriage are laterally spaced apart. For examination purposes, the limitation “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top and side panels” recited in claim 12 (line 3) will be interpreted as “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top panels and laterally spaced apart side panels”.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the height and angle” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no height and angle recited previously.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “the path of said laser beam” in line 13. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no path of said laser beam recited previously.
Claim 13 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 12.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top and side panels” in lines 3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear if this limitation means a carriage having laterally spaced apart top panels and laterally spaced apart side panels, or this limitation means the top panel of the carriage and the side panel of the carriage are laterally spaced apart. For examination purposes, the limitation “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top and side panels” recited in claim 14 (line 3) will be interpreted as “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top panels and laterally spaced apart side panels”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation “the angle” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no angle recited previously.
Claim 15 is rejected by virtue of its dependence on claim 14.
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.
Claim 12 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).
Regarding claim 12, 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 (top panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) and side panels (side panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above for the limitation “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top and side panels”; in this case, the limitation “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top and side panels” is interpreted as a carriage having laterally spaced apart top panels and laterally spaced apart side panels);
said open bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) being mounted on said carriage top panels (top panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) by means of multiple threaded adjusters (adjustable devices 24’, Li Fig.8) attached to said housing side panels (side panels of the enclosure 20E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) for manually varying the height and angle of said open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) relative to said carriage (cart 80E, Li Fig.8) (Li Pars.0047-0048 disclose adjustable devices 24 for manually varying the height and 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 height and 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 height and angle of the enclosure 20E relative to the cart 80E);
a biaxial track structure (biaxial track structure, Li annotated Fig.8 below) disposed within said 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) for directing a laser beam (Li Par.0046 discloses the engraving device 40 is laser; thus, it generates and directs laser beam) downwardly through said open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) (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 first plate mounted on said track structure;
a galvanometer laser tower and head mounted on said first plate for biaxial movement within said open-bottom housing; and
a second plate removably mounted in said housing adjacent said track structure for supporting objects to be engraved in the path of said laser beam.
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 first plate (platform 120, Guo Fig.1) mounted on said 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.0025 teaches: “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.”);
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 02/02/2026], 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 said first plate (platform 120, Guo Fig.1) (Guo teaches the tool 124 mounted on the platform 120 because Guo Par.0023 teaches: “Each of the platform tool holders 122 is for selecting and holding a tool 124, such as an extruder or a laser cutting tool. When the movable platform 120 is moved relative to the frame 110, the tool 124 held by the platform tool holder 122 is carried by the movable platform and relocated to a different position relative to the frame.”) for biaxial movement within said open-bottom housing (frame 110, Guo Fig.1) (Guo teaches the laser tower and head mounted on the platform 120 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 second plate (supporting base 140, Guo Fig.1) removable mounted in 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 removable mounted in the frame 110) adjacent said 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”) in the path of said laser beam (since the work item is held on supporting base 140 for laser engraving; thus, the supporting base 140 in the path of the laser beam generated by the laser 124).
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).
Claim 13 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 Miao (CN 210291309 U, previously cited).
Regarding claim 13, Li in view of Guo teaches the apparatus set forth in claim 12, and also teaches 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) for supporting articles to be engraved (Li Par.0049 discloses the base 60 is adapted to retain work piece to be engraved) when said second plate (supporting base 140, Guo Fig.1; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12 above) is removed (it is noted that Li discloses different positions for placing the workpiece, and the Guo supporting base 140 is position within the open-bottom housing and the Guo supporting base 140 can be removable, as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 12 above; thus, in combination, Li in view of Guo teaches the Li base 60 with wheels for supporting articles to be engraved when the Guo supporting base 140 is removed);
said cart (base 60 with wheels 66, Li Fig.10) being sized to fit between said carriage side panels (side panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.10 below) and under said open bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8).
PNG
media_image3.png
831
1204
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Li in view of Guo does not teaches:
the cart with a height and angle adjustable top panel
Miao teaches a supporting cart used in laser engraving system (Miao Fig.1):
the cart (cart, Miao annotated Fig.1 below) with a height and angle adjustable top panel (top panel 2, Miao Fig.1) (the Miao cart shown in Miao Fig.1 has six independent adjustable legs, thus, the top panel 2 of the Miao art is a height and angle adjustable top panel since the angle and height of the top panel 2 can be adjusted by adjusting the six legs as shown in Miao Fig.1)
PNG
media_image4.png
420
569
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 Miao cart (see the Miao cart in Miao 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).
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, newly 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 (top panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) and side panels (side panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) (see the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) rejections above for the limitation “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top and side panels”; in this case, the limitation “a carriage having laterally spaced apart top and side panels” is interpreted as a carriage having laterally spaced apart top panels and laterally spaced apart side panels);
said open bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) being mounted on said carriage top panels (top panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) by means of multiple threaded adjusters (adjustable devices 24’, Li Fig.8) attached to said housing side panels (side panels of the enclosure 20E, Li annotated Fig.8 below) for manually varying the angle of said open-bottom housing (enclosure 20E, Li Fig.8) relative to said 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 said 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 a am engraving beam (Li Par.0046 discloses the engraving device 40 is laser; thus, it generates and directs laser beam) downwardly through said 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 said biaxial structure for biaxial movement within said open bottom housing;
a plate in said housing adjacent said track structure for supporting objects to be engraved by said beam;
means for adjusting the angle of said plate relative to said housing;
said plate being removable to allow said engraving beam to engrave articles disposed between the side panels of said 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 02/02/2026], 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 said 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 said 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) in 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 removable mounted in the frame 110) adjacent said 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 said beam (the laser beam generated by the laser 124, see laser 124 in Guo Fig.1), and
said 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) to allow said 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 said 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:
means for adjusting the angle of said plate relative to said housing;
KR’682 teaches a laser system (KR’682 Figs.4-6) comprising:
means (inclined means 40, KR’682 Figs.4-6) for adjusting the angle of said 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
means for adjusting the angle of said plate relative to said housing relative to said housing (since the Guo supporting base 140 and its support structure is located in the housing, as cited and incorporated above; thus, in combination, Li in view of Guo and KR’682 teaches means for adjusting the angle of said plate relative to said housing relative to said housing)
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 means for adjusting the angle of said plate, 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, newly cited, hereinafter KR’682) and further in view of Miao (CN 210291309 U, previously cited).
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 said carriage side panels (side panels of the cart 80E, Li annotated Fig.10 below) and under said 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:
the cart with a height and angle adjustable top panel
Miao teaches a supporting cart used in laser engraving system (Miao Fig.1):
the cart (cart, Miao annotated Fig.1 below) with a height and angle adjustable top panel (top panel 2, Miao Fig.1) (the Miao cart shown in Miao Fig.1 has six independent adjustable legs, thus, the top panel 2 of the Miao art is a height and angle adjustable top panel since the angle and height of the top panel 2 can be adjusted by adjusting the six legs as shown in Miao Fig.1)
PNG
media_image4.png
420
569
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 Miao cart (see the Miao cart in Miao 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).
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Momany et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,262,612 A) discloses a laser engraving system having a laser with the precise motion control required in order to cut or engrave a detailed design or pattern.
Lai (U.S. Pub. No. 2003/0106880 A1) discloses a laser cutting/engraving machine.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571) 272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, HELENA KOSANOVIC can be reached on (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 02/06/2026