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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
The claim to priority filled on 04/18/2023 acknowledged in the instant application.
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, under claim 3, the “beam combining device frame”, “visible light source fixing plate”, “reduction screws with spring” and “adjusting screws”. and under claim 9, the “photoelectric receiver fixing plate” and “beam splitting mirror holder” 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 Limitation
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
A. Claim limitation “the combined beam and the first reflection combination device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “combined beam… reflection combination” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 6, Figs 2-3, 6-7, the combined beam and the first reflection combination device 2.
B. Claim limitation “the second reflection combination device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “reflection combination” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 6, Figs 2, 6-7, the second reflection combination device 3.
C. Claim limitation “the beam combination device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “beam combination” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 2 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 7, Figs 2-3, 6-7, the beam combination device 21.
D. Claim limitation “the beam splitting device” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “device” coupled with functional language “beam splitting” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 8 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. page 7, Figs 2, 4, the beam splitting device 411.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
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.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the adjustment and protection device” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the laser engraving machine frame” in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the CO2 laser light source” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the Y-axis guide rail” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the X-axis guide rail” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the frame of the laser engraving machine” in line 5. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the combined beam and the first reflection combination device” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the second reflection combination device” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the beam splitting and engraving head assembly” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the combined beam and first reflection combination device” in various places rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between these “the combined beam and first reflection combination device” and the combined beam and the first reflection combination device mentioned in line 6 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the CO2 laser light source beam” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the direction of travel” in line 12. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-10 recite the limitation “A laser engraving machine with the adjustment and protection device” in line 1 respectively rendering these claims indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between these “A laser engraving machine with the adjustment and protection device” and A laser engraving machine with the adjustment and protection device mentioned in claim 1 line 1 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the beam combining device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the first reflecting mirror assembly” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the assembly support” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 2 recites the limitation “the beam traveling direction” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 3 recites the limitation “reduction screws with spring” in line 5, rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “reduction screws with spring” and reduction screws with spring mentioned in line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the surface of the beam combining lens” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the beam emitted from the visible light source” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the reflection rate” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “the beam emitted from the CO2 laser light source” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the surface of the beam combining lens” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the reflectivity” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the transmittance” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the wavelength of the visible light source” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the red-light laser” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the visible light source is the red-light laser with 650nm” in line 2, rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what this 650nm of the red-light laser stand for? Appropriate correction/clarification is required.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the beam splitting device” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 8 recites the limitation “the laser engraving head assembly” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “beam splitting device” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite because it is unclear what the relation between this “beam splitting device” and the beam splitting device mentioned in claim 8 line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the third reflecting mirror” in line 6. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. Without mentioned first/ second reflecting mirrors previously, it is unclear where this third reflecting mirror came from? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “the focusing lens” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the beam from the visible light source” in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the beam from the CO2 laser light source” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 10 recites the limitation “the transmittance” in line 4. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubens et al. (US 2021/0121985 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 5,293,566).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Rubens et al. disclose a laser engraving machine with the adjustment and protection device (a desktop laser cutter 1, [0047], Figs 1-7), comprising the laser engraving machine frame (a laser cutter housing 2, [0047], Fig 1), the CO2 laser light source (the laser 20 is a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser, [0049], Fig 2), the Y-axis guide rail (a pair of fixed rails 61(1), 61(2), [0054], Fig 2), the X-axis guide rail (a movable rail 65, [0055], Fig 2); wherein the Y-axis guide rail and X-axis guide rail are provided fixedly on the laser engraving machine frame (see Figs 1-2), the Y-axis guide rail and X-axis guide rail are provided in the vertical relationship (see Fig 2), and the CO2 laser light source is provided fixedly on the frame of the laser engraving machine (laser 20 is supported on the rear side 4(2) of the laser cutter housing 2, for example via brackets, [0053]); wherein further comprising the combined beam and the first reflection combination device (a fixed optical device 42, [0060], Figs 2-4), the second reflection combination device (a first movable optical device 45, [0060], Figs 2-4), the beam splitting and engraving head assembly (a cutting head 80, [0047], Figs 2-4), the combined beam and first reflection combination device is provided fixedly on the frame of the laser engraving machine (42 is provided fixedly on the frame of the laser engraving machine, Figs 2-4), the second reflection combination device is provided on the Y-axis guide rail (45 is provided on 61(1), 61(2), Figs 2-4), the beam splitting and engraving head assembly is provided on the X-axis guide rail (80 is provided on 65, Figs 2-4); the combined beam and first reflection combination device is provided in front of the CO2 laser light source beam in the direction of travel (42 is provided in front of 20 in the direction of beam 23 travel, Figs 2-4), the second combination reflection device is provided in front of the CO2 laser light source beam reflected by the combined beam and first reflection combination device in the direction of travel (45 is provided in front of 20 reflected by 42 in the direction of beam 23 travel, Figs 2-4), and the beam splitting and engraving head assembly is provided in front of the CO2 laser light source beam reflected by the second reflection combination device in the direction of travel (80 is provided in front of 20 reflected by 45 in the direction of beam 23 travel, Figs 2-4);
Rubens et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose an OR gate device; and the OR gate device is electrically connected to the beam splitting and engraving head assembly.
Satoh et al. teach a laser head control system (laser driving circuit 4, Col 4 line 54, Fig 2), and an OR gate device; (an OR gate 21 to be applied to the laser driving circuit 4, Col 4 line 53-54, Fig 2) and the OR gate device is electrically connected to the beam splitting and engraving head assembly (inputted into the laser driving circuit 4 via … the OR gate 21 to modulated the intensity of a laser of the optical head 3, Col 7 line 37-39, Fig 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rubens et al. with Satoh et al.’s further teaching of an OR gate device; and the OR gate device is electrically connected to the beam splitting and engraving head assembly; because Satoh et al. teach, in Col 7 line 35-40, of providing an excellent control system to properly control the intensity of the optical laser head during processing.
Claim 2, wherein the combined beam and first reflection combination device comprises the beam combining device (42 is a beam combining device, Figs 5-6), the first reflecting mirror assembly (first mirror 44, [0061], Figs 5-6), and the assembly support (first mount 43, [0061], Figs 5-6); the first reflecting mirror assembly is provided in front of the beam traveling direction of the beam combining device (44 is provided in front of the beam 23 traveling direction of 42, Fig 6), the beam combining device and the first reflecting mirror assembly are provided on the assembly support (42 and 44 are provided on 43, Figs 5-6).
Claim 8, wherein the beam splitting and engraving head assembly comprises the beam splitting device (The cutting head 80, including the second movable optical device 48, {0062], Figs 3-4) and the laser engraving head assembly (second movable optical device 48 receives the beam 23… and directs it along an axis that is parallel to the Y axis toward the work area 8 which receives the workpiece 30, [0063], Figs 3-4); the laser engraving head assembly is provided in front of the travel direction of the beam emitted by the CO2 laser light source reflected by the beam splitting device (details see Figs 3-6).
Claims 3 and 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubens et al. (US 2021/0121985 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 5,293,566) as applied to claim 2 and further in view of Hunt (US 5,668,660).
Regarding Claims 3 and 6-7, Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 3 and 6-7.
Hunt further teaches a system with a laser source (a laser source 130, Col 4 line 42, Fig 2) and Claim 3, wherein the beam combining device comprises beam combining device frame (a polarizer/analyzer mount 150, Col 4 line 46, Fig 2), visible light source (remote light source/ power supply 110… contains a suitable source of visible illumination light, Col 8 line 32-36, Figs 1-3), beam combining lens (a polarizer 151 and an analyzer 155, Col 10 line 48-61 Figs 4-5), visible light source fixing plate (visible light source is fed via a fiber optic cable 113 to 31A, Col 8 line 38-39, Fig 2), reduction screws with spring (set screws 57a cooperate with the spring 56a, Col 6 line 31, Fig 14), adjusting screws (adjustable stop screw 147, Col 10 line 6, Fig 22); the beam combining lens and visible light source fixing plate are provided fixedly on the beam combining device frame (151, 155 and visible light source are all fixedly on 31A, Fig 2), the visible light source, reduction screws with spring, the adjusting screws are provided fixedly on the visible light source fixing plate (visible light source, 56a, 57a and 147 all fixedly on 31A, Fig 2).
Claim 6, wherein the wavelength of the visible light source is from 400nm to 760nm (remote light source/ power supply 110… contains a suitable source of visible illumination light, Col 8 line 32-36, Figs 1-3). Claim 7, the visible light source is the red-light laser with 650nm (remote light source/ power supply 110… contains a suitable source of visible illumination light, Col 8 line 32-36, Figs 1-3). Note: Hunt do not explicitly disclose that Claim 6, wherein the wavelength of the visible light source is from 400nm to 760nm, and aim 7, the visible light source is the red-light laser with 650nm; however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange the wavelength of the visible light source, since such a configurations would have involved a range change in the visible light source, a change in range of visible light source is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose (see Spec. Page 3 line 24-25).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al. with Hunt’s further teaching of Claims 3 and 6-7; because Hunt teaches, in Col 1 line 65-67 of providing an excellent precision optical inspection apparatus which can vary the magnification without moving any external part of the microscope housing relative to the object being viewed.
Claims 4-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubens et al. (US 2021/0121985 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 5,293,566), Hunt (US 5,668,660) as applied to claim 3 and further in view of Go (US 2002/0071108 A1).
Regarding Claims 4-5, Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al., Hunt teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 4-5.
Go further teach a laser processing system (optical system 12 has an excimer laser light source 16, [0037], Fig 1) and Claim 4, wherein the surface of the beam combining lens (a polarizer 151 and an analyzer 155, Fig 4, taught by Hunt already) has a high reflection function for the beam emitted from the visible light source (remote light source/ power supply 110… contains a suitable source of visible illumination light, Col 8 line 32-36, Figs 1-3, Hunt) with the reflection rate of ≥ 90% (Note: Hunt do not explicitly disclose that “the surface of the beam combining lens has a high reflection function for the beam emitted from the visible light source with the reflection rate of ≥ 90%”; however it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange The beam combining lens with the reflection rate of ≥ 90%, since such a configurations would have involved a range change in the reflection rate, a change in reflection rate is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose; see Spec. Page 3 line 17) and a high transmission function for the beam emitted from the CO2 laser light source with the transmission rate of ≥ 95% (the transmittance with respect to the laser beam LB is changed in a geometrical series in plural steps from 100% to any %, [0040]).
Claim 5, wherein the surface of the beam combining lens (a polarizer 151 and an analyzer 155, Fig 4, taught by Hunt already) has a high reflection function with 650nm laser (oscillation wavelength of 248 nm, [0038]. Note: Go do not explicitly disclose that “with 650nm laser”; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange with a 650nm laser, since such a configuration would have involved a range change in the wavelength, a change in wavelength is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose; see Spec. Page 3 line 21) and the reflectivity of ≥ 90% (illuminating light IL that is reflected by the beam splitter 26, [0047]), and with 10.6um laser high transmission function and the transmittance of ≥ 95% (the transmittance with respect to the laser beam LB is changed in a geometrical series in plural steps from 100% to any %, [0040]). (Note: Go do not explicitly disclose that “with 10.6 µm laser”; however, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to one skilled person in the art at the time the invention was made to arrange with 10.6 µm laser, since such a configuration would have involved a range change in the wavelength, a change in wavelength is generally recognized as being within the level of ordinary skill in the art. In re Rose, 105 USPQ 237; also, applicant has not disclosed that this kind of design solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose; see Spec. Page 3 line 21).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al., Hunt with Go’s further teaching of Claims 4-5; because Go teaches, in Para. [0040], of providing an excellent energy adjusting way to control the transmittance with respect to the laser beam LB in a geometrical series in plural steps from 100% to any % during operation.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubens et al. (US 2021/0121985 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 5,293,566) as applied to claim 8 and further in view of Kitai et al. (US 6,462,306 B1).
Regarding Claim 9, Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claim 9.
Kitai et al. further teach a laser processing system (apparatus 10 includes a source laser 20 to generate a single laser beam 22, Col 4 line 9-10, Fig 1A), and Claim 9, wherein beam splitting device comprises photoelectric receiver (photo-detectors 132, Col 7 line 26-27, Fig 5A), beam splitting mirror (a beam splitter 26, Col 4 line 13, Fig 5A), photoelectric receiver fixing plate (Clearly, 132 needs to be hold by a “photoelectric receiver fixing plate” as claimed, Fig 1A) and beam splitting mirror holder (Clearly, 26 needs to be hold by a “beam splitting mirror holder” as claimed, Fig 1A); the photoelectric receiver is provided fixedly on the laser engraving head assembly by the photoelectric receiver fixing plate (fixed to a main frame, Col 6 line 43. Note: “the laser engraving head assembly” taught by Rubens et al. already. Clearly, “the photoelectric receiver is” capable of “provided fixedly on the laser engraving head assembly by the photoelectric receiver fixing plate” as claimed); the beam splitting mirror is provided fixedly on the laser engraving head assembly by the beam splitting mirror holder (fixed to a main frame, Col 6 line 43. Clearly, “the beam splitting mirror is” capable of “provided fixedly on the laser engraving head assembly by the beam splitting mirror holder” as claimed), and the laser engraving head assembly comprises the third reflecting mirror and the focusing lens (80 comprises mirror 50, [0063]; 80 comprises lens 52 focuses the beam 23, [0066], Fig 3, Rubens et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al. with Kitai et al.’s further teaching of Claim 9; because Kitai et al. teach, in Col 7 line 29-31 of providing an excellent laser processing system with the ability to adjust the relative energy in the split beams and to compensate for the splitting ratio
errors common to typical beam splitters.
Claim 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rubens et al. (US 2021/0121985 A1) in view of Satoh et al. (US 5,293,566), Kitai et al. (US 6,462,306 B1) as applied to claim 9 and further in view of Go (US 2002/0071108 A1).
Regarding Claim 10, Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al., Kitai et al. teach, wherein the beam splitting mirror is low reflective at the beam from the visible light source, with the reflectivity of 10% to 50% (allows precise control of the reflectivity (see graph of FIG. 5B-beam splitter reflectivity versus polarization angle) of the beam splitter 26, Col 7 line 35-38, Kitai et al.), and high transmissive at the beam from the CO2 laser light source (Note: “the CO2 laser light source” taught by Rubens et al. already),
Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al., Kitai et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose the beam splitting mirror with the transmittance of ≥ 95%.
Go further teach a laser processing system (optical system 12 has an excimer laser light source 16, [0037], Fig 1) and the beam splitting mirror (taught by Kitai et al. already) with the transmittance of ≥ 95% (the transmittance with respect to the laser beam LB is changed in a geometrical series in plural steps from 100% to any %, [0040]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify Rubens et al. in view of Satoh et al., Kitai et al. with Go’s further teaching of the beam splitting mirror with the transmittance of ≥ 95%; because Go teaches, in Para. [0040], of providing an excellent energy adjusting way to control the transmittance with respect to the laser beam LB in a geometrical series in plural steps from 100% to any % during operation.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 571/272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571/273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761