DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Objections
Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities:
In claim 1:
The limitation “…by means of the gas pipe…” in line 11, should change to “…by the means of gas pipe…” to resolve antecedent basis issue.
The limitation “…a dustproof nozzle gas inlet…” in line 6, should change to “…[[a]] dustproof nozzle gas inlets….”, such that would not cause 112b issue with the limitation of “…a dustproof nozzle gas inlet is provided on both sides of the dustproof nozzle …”, because one gas inlet can’t be on two different sides. Also, the limitation “…the dustproof nozzle gas inlet…” in 9-10, should change to “…the dustproof nozzle gas inlets…” to inline with the changes above.
The limitation of “…the air…” in line 10, should change to “…an air…” to resolve antecedent basis issue.
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:
In claim 1:
the limitation “means of the gas pipe” has NOT interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph, because it recited sufficient structure to achieve the function.
the limitation “means of a pipeline assembly” has NOT interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph, because it recited sufficient structure to achieve the function.
In claim 2, the limitation “means of the main gas inlet elbow” has NOT interpreted under 35 U.S.C 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C 112, sixth paragraph, because it recited sufficient structure to achieve the function.
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 § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PISANU et al (US2021/0362276A1 newly cited) herein set forth as PISANU, in view of ZHU et al (US2021/0222684A1 newly cited) herein set forth as ZHU.
Regarding claim 1, PISANU discloses a dust removal system (refer to fig.2a and 2b) for a laser cleaning machine (#1 in fig.1), comprising:
a gas pipe (#520, fig.3), and
a dustproof nozzle (#24, fig.3, 9 and 11),
wherein the dustproof nozzle (#24, fig.3, 9 and 11) is fixed on a laser cleaning head (#20, fig.3, 9 and 11), a laser cleaning head gas inlet (refer to “head gas inlet” annotated in fi.3 which is #520 connected on #20 in fig.3) and a laser cleaning head gas outlet (#521, fig.18) are provided on the laser cleaning head (#20, fig.3, 9 and 11);
a dustproof nozzle gas inlet (refer to “nozzle gas inlet/outlet” annotated in fig.12) is provided on two different sides of the dustproof nozzle (#24, fig.3, 9 and 11), a dustproof nozzle gas outlet (#28, fig. 3 and 11) is provided on the front end of the dustproof nozzle (#24, fig.3, 9 and 11), and the laser cleaning head gas outlet (#521, fig.18) is connected to the dustproof nozzle gas inlet (refer to “nozzle gas inlet/outlet” annotated in fig.12) by means of a pipeline assembly (refer to #520, #520a-d in fig. 11);
a compressed air (refer to Paragraph 0085 cited: “…a set of tubular ducts 520, 522, 523, 524 for conveying fluids for assisting laser machining. The set of tubular ducts may be coupled to one or more systems 50 for distributing gases or other machining assist elements …”) reaches the interior of the laser cleaning head (#20, fig.3, 9 and 11) by means of the gas pipe (#520, fig.3), and is blown out of the dustproof nozzle gas outlet (#28, fig.3 and 11) by blowing on both sides (refer to the side of #520a-d in fig.11) of the pipeline assembly (refer to #520, #520a-d in fig. 11) to form an internal positive pressure (refer to Paragraph 0141 cited: “…The coupling thus obtained between the sensor cone 24 and the embodiment itself facilitates increase in the flow rate of the gas at high pressure…”).
Examiner note: PISANU inherently discloses a pressurize gas source.
PNG
media_image1.png
801
620
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
711
448
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
715
547
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image4.png
425
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
750
516
media_image5.png
Greyscale
PISANU does not disclose a filter, a gas pump, one end of the gas pump is connected to the filter, and the other end of the gas pump is connected to the laser cleaning head gas inlet, gas passes through the filter to filter the dust in the air and enters the gas pump for pressurization.
In the field of compress gases generation, ZHU discloses a filter (#26, fig.1), a gas pump (refer to in abstract as “vehicle-mounted electric oil-free compressor” and fig.1), one end (refer to the end where #26 located in fig.1) of the gas pump (refer to in abstract as “vehicle-mounted electric oil-free compressor” and fig.1) is connected to the filter (#26, fig.1), and the other end (refer to the end that #17 in fig.1) of the gas pump (refer to in abstract as “vehicle-mounted electric oil-free compressor” and fig.1) is connected to supply compress gas, gas passes through the filter (#26, fig.1 and referring the “airflow direction” shown in fig.1) to filter the dust in the air and enters the gas pump (refer to in abstract as “vehicle-mounted electric oil-free compressor” and fig.1) for pressurization (refer to the term “compressor”).
PNG
media_image6.png
570
522
media_image6.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 PISANU’s compress air source with ZHU’s air compression system, because the substitution of one known element for another would have yielded predictable results of generating and supplying compressed air or gases, such that to provide a cleaner pressurized gases and oil-free (refer to Paragraph 0020 cited: “…Use of a self-lubricating material piston ring, the guide ring, and a maintenance-free grease lubrication bearing realizes oil-free compression, so that an air source is cleaner …”).
Regarding claim 2, the modification of PISANU and ZHU discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, PISANU further discloses wherein the pipeline assembly (refer to #520, #520a-d in fig. 11) comprises a main gas inlet elbow (refer to “main gas inlet elbow: annotated in fig. 11), bypass three-way pipes (refer to “three way pipes” annotated in fig.11), branch gas pipes on two sides (refer to the side #520a and b in fig.1), and branch gas inlet elbows (refer to “branch air inlet elbow) on two sides (refer to the two sides of 520b and #520a), and the laser cleaning head gas outlet (#521, fig.18) is correspondingly connected to the dustproof nozzle gas inlet (refer to “nozzle gas inlet/outlet” annotated in fig.12) by means of the main gas inlet elbow (refer to “branch air inlet elbow), the bypass three-way pipes (refer to “three way pipes” annotated in fig.11), the branch gas pipes on the two sides (refer to the two sides of 520b and #520a), and the branch gas inlet elbows (refer to “branch air inlet elbow) on the two sides. (refer to the side #520a and b in fig.1).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of PISANU and ZHU discloses substantially all feature set forth in claim 1, PISANU further disclose wherein a seal ring (refer to “seal ring” annotated in fig.12) is provided at a connection end face (refer to fig.12) of the dust-proof nozzle (#24, fig.3, 9 and 11) and the laser cleaning head (#20, fig.3, 9 and 11).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PISANU et al (US2021/0362276A1 newly cited) herein set forth as PISANU, in view of ZHU et al (US2021/0222684A1 newly cited) herein set forth as ZHU, further in view of Paganelli (US2011/0120981A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Paganelli.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of PISANU and Tsai discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, PISANU further discloses wherein one end of the dustproof nozzle (#24, fig.3, 9 and 11) is of a circular structure (refer to “circular” annotated in fig.12) and in connection with a laser cleaning head (#20, fig.3, 9 and 11), and the other end of the dustproof nozzle (#24, fig.3, 9 and 11) is of a flat structure (refer to “flat” annotate din fig.12)
PNG
media_image4.png
425
542
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PISANU does not specifically disclose one end of the dustproof nozzle in bolted connection with a laser cleaning head.
In the field of laser head for laser machining, Paganelli discloses one end (refer to “mounting plate” in paragraph cited below, #7 in fig.1) of the dustproof nozzle (refer to “laser head” in paragraph cited below, #8 in fig.1) in bolted connection (refer to “mounting plate” in paragraph cited below) with a laser cleaning head (refer to #8, #7 and #15-#16 in fig. 1, )(refer to Paragraph 0038 cited: “…The laser head 8 is held pressed against the mounting plate 48 via the face 49 of its frame and is rigidly rotated by said mounting plate by means of three bolts (not shown)…”).
PNG
media_image7.png
574
485
media_image7.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PISANU’s invention with one end of the dustproof nozzle in bolted connection with a laser cleaning head, as taught by PISANU, in order to provide a commonly use connection that widely used, such that would reduce in manufacturing and construction complexity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over PISANU et al (US2021/0362276A1 newly cited) herein set forth as PISANU, in view of ZHU et al (US2021/0222684A1 newly cited) herein set forth as ZHU, and further in view of NPL “A Quick Guide to Air line Couplers and Plugs” by Benjamen (newly cited) herein set forth as QuickGuide.
Regarding claim 5, , the modification of PISANU and ZHU discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, PISANU does not disclose wherein the dustproof nozzle gas inlet is in threaded connection.
In the field of air line coupler, QuickGuide discloses threaded connection for inlet line (refer to NPL figure of “Common Quick connect plug types”, Examiner note: notice that 2 of the inlet plugs are threaded connection).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified PISANU’s dustproof nozzle gas inlet with thread connection, as taught by QuickGuide, in order to provide a more secure, and airtight connection for the gas inlet connection, such that would reduce air leakage and failure to connect.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 July 19th 2025
/HELENA KOSANOVIC/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761