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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 10/22/2025 is acknowledged.
Drawings
Color photographs and color drawings are not accepted in utility applications unless a petition filed under 37 CFR 1.84(a)(2) is granted. Any such petition must be accompanied by the appropriate fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(h), one set of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if submitted via the USPTO patent electronic filing system or three sets of color drawings or color photographs, as appropriate, if not submitted via the via USPTO patent electronic filing system, and, unless already present, an amendment to include the following language as the first paragraph of the brief description of the drawings section of the specification:
The patent or application file contains at least one drawing executed in color. Copies of this patent or patent application publication with color drawing(s) will be provided by the Office upon request and payment of the necessary fee.
Color photographs will be accepted if the conditions for accepting color drawings and black and white photographs have been satisfied. See 37 CFR 1.84(b)(2).
The drawings are objected to because the reference lines and numerals are faint. So that the structures are being identified in drawing are unclear.
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
“controller” in claim 10
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Regarding claims10-13 the claimed invention is directed to Abstract idea without significantly more. The claim 10 recites a controller configured to perform a method comprising “a. identifying and keeping a record of the physical position of every individual pixel i on every individual scanning arc, the arc having a total number of pixels Parc; where said arcs are spaced by a predetermined distance D from the center of the arcs; b. calculating, either prior to or during scanning. the laser power required for a next individual pixel on the arc utilizing the relation: … where PIO represents the laser power at the center of the arc, i is the pixel index running along the arc length, and Parc is the total number of pixels along the arc length, with the center pixel defined at either i = 0 or i =Parc/2 depending on the indexing convention; and c. outputting a power adjustment of a laser source based on the individual pixel power as calculated.”. This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim does not recite additional elements. Hence, it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea and would fall within the “Mental Processes” groupings of abstract ideas. Nothing in the claim language precludes the steps of the preformed method from practically being performed in the mind.
The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the claim does not recite any additional element. Thus, the claim is not patent eligible.
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 10-13 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.
Regarding claims 10-13, each method in claims 10-13 is a complex function and it appear requires a specific program or algorithm executed by the control unit . The specification does not disclose any algorithm to perform the claimed function.
Regarding claims 14-15, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on an rejected claim as shown above.
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 10-15 is 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.
Regarding claims 10-15, the claims are rejected as failing to define the invention in the manner required by 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The claim(s) are narrative in form and replete with indefinite language. The structure which goes to make up the device must be clearly and positively specified. The structure must be organized and correlated in such a manner as to present a complete operative device. The claim(s) must be in one sentence form only. Note the format of the claims in the patent(s) cited.
Regarding claim 10, the limitations
"the laser power" in line 2,
“the physical position” in line 6,
“the arc” in line 7,
“the center of the arcs” in line 8,
“the center of the arc” in line 13,
“the pixel index” in line 13,
“the arc length” in line 14,
“the center pixel” in line 15,
“the indexing convention” in claim 15,
“the individual pixel power” in claim 17
are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “wherein scanning is performed in a series of arcs whose centers are located along a line, the controller being further configured to perform a method comprising: a. identifying and keeping a record of the physical position of every individual pixel i on every individual scanning arc, the arc having a total number of pixels Parc; where said arcs are spaced by a predetermined distance D from the center of the arcs; b. calculating, either prior to or during scanning. the laser power required for a next individual pixel on the arc utilizing the relation: … where PIO represents the laser power at the center of the arc, i is the pixel index running along the arc length, and Parc is the total number of pixels along the arc length, with the center pixel defined at either i = 0 or i =Parc/2 depending on the indexing convention; and c. outputting a power adjustment of a laser source based on the individual pixel power as calculated.” is indefinite. 1) The structure for performing the scanning function is unclear. 2) Since there is no scanning function is introduced before, the particular structure or function recited by the “wherein” clause is unclear. 3) what structure defines the series of arcs? 4) It is unclear what is physical structure of the pixel of the arc, since a physical position should be defined by a physical structure. 5) How to obtain the pixel? 6) The definition of “a next individual pixel” is unclear. 7) The definition of “pixel index” is unclear. 8) The definition of “pixel index” is unclear. 9) The definition of “indexing convention” is unclear. 10) The relationship between the power adjustment and the individual pixel power is unclear, and therefore it is unclear how to determine the power adjustment.
Regarding claim 11, the limitations
"the size of the scan area" in line 5,
“the areas” in line 6,
“the relation” in line 8,
“the radius of curvature of the scanning arc” in line 10,
“the laser striking points” in line 12,
“the mutual distances” in line 12,
“the pervious step” in line 13
are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “a. a. decomposing a complete scan area into a plurality of passes, each pass consisting of individual arcs; b. fixing. depending on the size of the scan area, a total number of pixels per arc; c. marking and defining virtual areas bounded by adjacent pixels, wherein the areas are parallelograms formed between neighboring pixels on adjacent arcs: and d. determining mutual distances ΔSi between adjacent pixels according to the relation … where R is the radius of curvature of the scanning arc, i is the pixel index along the arc length, and Parc is the total number of pixels along the arc length: and e. adiusting the laser striking points on the work plane depending on the mutual distances AS. as calculated in the previous step, while keeping the laser power constant.” is indefinite. 1) What are “plurality of passes”? It is unclear whether each pass consists of a single arc or multiple arcs. 2) It is unclear how to fix the total number of pixels. 3) The definition of “a next individual pixel” is unclear. 4) The definition of “neighboring pixels” is unclear. 5) It is unclear the “scanning arc” refer to which arc of the series of arcs. 6) How to adjust the laser striking points, since the claims does not disclose laser strike a work plane. 7) The relationship between the laser striking points and the mutual distances is unclear, and therefore it is unclear how to determine the laser striking points.
Regarding claim 12, the limitations
"the same arc" in line 6,
“the pixels” in line 7,
“the inter-arc separation” in line 7,
“the previous step” in line 8
are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “a. slicing multiple parallel chords along an x-axis across arcs whose centers are located along a line and spaced by a predetermined distance D; b. calculating a distance v between pixels on adjacent arcs to maintain a constant distance Ax between adjacent pixels on the same arc; and c. scanning the work plane in arcs with the pixels as well as the inter-arc separation as defined in the previous step, while keeping the laser power constant” is indefinite. 1) It is unclear whether the arc is a physical structure. 2) How to slice the arc? 3) It is unclear the “the same arc” refer to which arc of the series of arcs. 4) The definition of “adjacent pixels” is unclear. 5) The definition of “inter-arc separation” is unclear, and the claim does not define “inter-arc separation”.
Regarding claim 13, the limitations
“the laser beam” in line 4,
"the relation" in line 4,
“the incident energy” in line 11,
“the center of the work plane” in line 11,
“the radius of the scanning arc” in line 12,
“the number of rotations per second of the primary reflector” in line 12,
are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “b. determining an individual laser energy Evi required for a pixel i on the arc by using the relation: … where Pi is the laser power at pixel i. Ev0 is the incident energy at the center of the work plane. Lh is a layer thickness, R is the radius of the scanning arc, f is the number of rotations per second of the primary reflector (such that v = 2rr- R*f): and c. using a mechanism to vary the laser power on every individual pixel on an arc as determined by the steps above” is indefinite. It is unclear the “scanning arc” refer to which arc of the series of arcs.
Regarding claim 14, the limitation “the reflected beam” in line 6 is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
The limitation “it” is indefinite, because it is unclear what structure that the term “it” refer to.
Regarding claim 15, the limitations
“the primary reflector” in line 2,
“the center of mass of the combined structure of the primary reflector” in line 3
are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Examiner’s note: The patentability of the subject matter in the claims cannot be determined. Examiner cannot conduct proper search due to the invention is only defined by nonsensical limitation in the claims. Examiner suggests applicant to amend the claims to clearly define invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761