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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because Fig. 7 states "100μM x 100μM focus spot" and should instead be "100μm x 100μm focus spot". Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 11 and 17 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 11 recites “laser marking too” and should read “laser marking tool”.
Claim 17 recites “comprising a senor for determining if the tool is mounted the CNC machine, wherein if the tool in not” and should read “comprising a sensor for determining if the tool is mounted in the CNC machine, wherein if the tool is not”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The claim limitation “laser marking” is being interpreted as the type of laser marking described in para. [0003] of the specification: “a laser marker, where a laser beam of sufficient power is directed upon the surface to cause a permanent change such as a burn or ablation where material is removed from the surface being irradiated”.
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.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “further comprising means for wireless charging of the power source” without providing sufficient structure to perform the claimed function. The last sentence of para. [0029] of the specification only recites “the wireless laser marking tool 1200 comprises … means for wirelessly charging the battery 1210” without any additional details or structure associated with the function of charging wirelessly.
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.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 16 recites the limitation “comprising means for wireless charging of the power source” which invokes a 112(f) interpretation. However, the last sentence of para. [0029] of the specification only states “wireless laser marking tool 1200 comprises a charging port 1250 (FIG. 9) for the battery 1210 and/or means for wirelessly charging the battery 1210” without providing any associated structure to perform said “wirelessly charging”.
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 4, 13-14, and 16 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 4 recites the limitation “comprising an embedded motion sensor in the CNC machine for synchronization of laser marking tool operation and the CNC machine motion”, however the preamble explicitly excludes the CNC machine. This limitation is directed toward a motion sensor in a CNC machine, not a motion sensor in a laser marking tool so it is not clear what is being claimed. Is the laser marking tool configured to be synchronized with an embedded motion sensor of a CNC machine?
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the CNC machine provides motion drive to the laser marking tool”, however the preamble explicitly excludes the CNC machine. Should the limitation instead read: “wherein the laser marking tool is configured to be driven by the CNC machine”.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the battery" in line 1 of the claim. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is not clear whether the energy source is required to be a battery that is removable or should the energy source be removable without being a battery?
Claim 16 recites the limitation “comprising means for wireless charging of the power source” which invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Para. [0029] of the specification recites “the wireless laser marking tool 1200 comprises … and/or means for wirelessly charging the battery 1210” without any additional details or structure associated with wireless charging. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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.
Claims 1-4, 6-11, 13-16, 19-20, and 25-26 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro (US 2018/0113434) in view of Nagasue (JP 6754910), and Kugler (NPL Kugler, T. (2011) Main Types of Lasers Used for Manufacturing – Key Properties and Key Applications).
Regarding claims 1-3, Shapiro teaches a wireless laser marking tool for use in a Computer Numerical Control (CNC) machine (Paras. [0032]-[0034] describe a laser marking tool used in a CNC machine, para. [0094]: “[s]ome features of the CNC machine 100 can require connection to the internet or to another computing system … [t]he connection can also be wireless, for example, a Wireless Local-Area-Network (WLAN), low-energy wireless, etc. If any required connections are broken or operating at insufficient speeds, the machining process could be slowed, malfunction, or cease altogether”), comprising:
a tool housing (Fig. 1, housing surrounding the head 160) with top and bottom opposing ends, a beam delivery system between the ends, and an opening at the bottom end (Paras. [0044]-[0046]);
a tool adapter connected to the top end of the housing for adapting the laser marking tool to the CNC machine (Para. [0045]: “head 160 can be mounted on a translation rail 170 that is used to move the head 160 throughout the enclosure”);
a laser disposed in the beam delivery system (Paras. [0044]-[0046]);
beam-shaping optics disposed in the beam delivery system to focus light emitted from the laser diode through the opening (Para. [0045]: “head 160 … can be configured to include a combination of optics, electronics, and mechanical systems that can, in response to commands, cause a laser beam or electromagnetic radiation to be delivered”);
electronic circuitry disposed in the beam delivery system and in electrical communication with the laser (Para. [0044]: “electronic components used to perform the desired machining operations”);
and a power source electrically connected to the electronic circuitry (Para. [0099]: “power supply”).
Shapiro does not expressly disclose a power source disposed in the beam delivery system, and a wireless communication device disposed in the beam delivery system and in electrical communication with the electronic circuitry, the wireless communication device provides file transfer and/or synchronization information for the laser marking of a workpiece, and the wireless communication uses at least one of Bluetooth, WiFi, IR, and NFC.
However, Nagasue teaches a similar wireless laser marking tool (Fig. 13, para. [0077]: “laser engraving device 130”), a power source disposed in the beam delivery system (Para. [0077]: “a rechargeable sub-battery for supplying power to the laser oscillator portion 132”), and a wireless communication device disposed in the beam delivery system and in electrical communication with the electronic circuitry (Para. [0078]: “laser engraving device 130 has a microcontroller (not shown) capable of communicating with the auxiliary control unit 30”),
the wireless communication device provides file transfer and/or synchronization information for the laser marking of a workpiece (Para. [0078]: “microcontroller capable of communicating with the auxiliary control unit 30 … controls the laser oscillator 132 so as to output the laser beam, and controls the deflection angle of the galvanometer mirror so as to deflect the irradiation position of the laser beam. In this way, the laser engraving device 130 can mark desired characters / numbers and the like on the surface of the work W by the laser beam”), and
the wireless communication uses at least one of Bluetooth, WiFi, IR, and NFC (Para. [Para. [0038]: “[c]ommunication between the microcontroller and the auxiliary control unit 30 is preferably performed, for example, via a wireless LAN (local area network) or an optical transmission device using the communication standard of IEEE 802.11”)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the laser marking tool of Shapiro the wireless and on board power supply features as taught by Nagasue. One of ordinary skill would include such features in order to increase mobility and portability to a machining device and improve efficiencies in a process (Paras. [0011]-[0012]).
Shapiro and Nagasue do not expressly disclose the type of laser source being a laser diode.
However, Kugler teaches a guide regarding laser applications with the laser source being a laser diode (Pg. 26, “Nd:YAG: Diode Pumped laser”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include as the laser source for the laser marking system of Shapiro and Nagasue the Nd:YAG: Diode Pumped laser as taught by Kugler. Diode pumped lasers are “used extensively for marking lasers with q-switched output” (Pg. 26) and are utilized as laser sources for laser marking/etching systems due to their “higher efficiency and better focusability” (Pg. 26).
Regarding claim 4, Shapiro further teaches comprising an embedded motion sensor in the CNC machine for synchronization of laser marking tool operation and the CNC machine motion (Para. [0006]: “the sensor can comprise a motion sensor … operatively connected to the movable laser cutting head to measure the motion of the movable laser cutting head”, para. [0059] discusses motion plans and synchronization with the CNC components “one of the key functions of a motion plan, coordinated motion, wherein multiple actuators coordinate to have a single, pre-planned affect”, also please see paras. [0118]-[0121] for additional motion sensor information).
Regarding claims 6 and 7, Shapiro and Nagasue as modified by Kugler further discloses the laser is a semiconductor laser (Pg. 5: “solid state lasers”), and
wherein the semiconductor laser is a continuous wave laser diode having a wavelength of 390-470 nm and a power output of 1 W-5 W (Pg. 7 describes how the laser wavelength and power depends on the specific material to be marked while providing several examples “1µm solid state pulsed lasers at ~266nm and ~355nm … up to ~5W”, also see pg. 11 “laser ablation … possible at all wavelengths”).
Regarding claims 8 and 9, Shapiro further teaches comprising built-in power management (Para. [0113]: “[i]f the power is too low or too high, then the power to the laser can, for example, be adjusted to compensate”), and
the power management includes at least one of power level information (Para. [0116]: “used to measure the amount of laser power being delivered … to ensure that the laser is operating correctly, the laser can be turned on … while the power at the head is measured”), a sleep mode, and a switching device (Fig. 6, Para. [0149]: “[a]ctions can include … turning a laser on or off, changing the laser power”).
Regarding claims 10 and 11, Shapiro and Nagasue as modified by Kugler teaches the laser is a Q-switched, diode-pumped solid state (DPSS) laser (Pg. 26), and
wherein the DPSS laser has the following characteristics: a wavelength of 1064 nm (Pg. 6, Nd:YAG 1064nm wavelength), a pulse energy in a range between 10-5000 mW, a pulse duration in a range between 0.1-100 ns, and a pulse repetition rate in a range between 0.1-100 kHz (Pg. 10, Q-switched 1ns-200ns and approximately 50kHz).
Regarding claim 13, Shapiro further teaches the CNC machine provides motion drive to the laser marking tool (Para. [0045]: “CNC machine 100 can also execute operation of a motion plan for causing movement of the movable head”).
Regarding claims 14-16, Shapiro as modified by Nagasue further teaches wherein the battery is removable (Para. [0077] describes a sub-battery in the laser engraving device, batteries have a finite life and will eventually need replaced thus it is obvious to configure batteries as removable), and
a charging port for the power source (Para. [0077]: “a rechargeable sub-battery for supplying power to the laser oscillator portion 132, and a tool receiving power to charge the sub-battery”), and
means for wireless charging of the power source (Para. [0079]: “auxiliary control unit 30 can supply a non-contact power supply (magnetic field resonance method) from the holder power transmission unit to the tool power reception unit by supplying a high frequency current to the holder power transmission coil 92”).
Regarding claim 19, Shapiro further teaches the wireless laser marking tool is in synchronization with the CNC motion (Para. [0045]: “[t]he CNC machine 100 can also execute operation of a motion plan for causing movement of the movable head. As the movable head moves, the movable head can deliver electromagnetic energy to effect a change in the material 140”).
Regarding claim 20, Shapiro further teaches the wireless laser marking tool is adapted to receive a removable data storage device for data transfer (Paras. [0016] “[a] memory, which can include a computer-readable storage medium, may include, encode, store, or the like one or more programs that cause one or more processors to perform one or more of the operations described herein”, and [0199]-[0200]: “machine-readable medium can store such machine instructions non-transitorily, such as for example as would a non-transient solid-state memory or a magnetic hard drive or any equivalent storage medium”).
Regarding claims 25 and 26, Shapiro as modified by Nagasue further teaches the tool adapter is integrally formed with the top end of the tool housing (See Fig. 13, para. [0077]: “a handle 138 fixed to the laser support unit 136 and extending substantially vertically”), such that the tool adapter extends from the top end of the tool housing (Para. [0077]: “the handle 138 is held by the robot arm 40 above the laser support portion 136”), and
wherein the power source is a battery (Para. [0077]: “a rechargeable sub-battery”).
Claims 5, 18, and 21-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro (US 2018/0113434) in view of Nagasue (JP 6754910) and Kugler (NPL Kugler, T. (2011), in further view of Lester (US 2023/0191532) as evidenced by NPL Trotec (“Raster engraving vs. vector engraving” video published online on Jun. 19, 2017 (retrieved on 5/29/2026 from URL https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7OmRY5d3vs, hereinafter referred to as “Trotec”).
Regarding claim 5, Shapiro, Nagasue, and Kugler do not expressly disclose the wireless laser marking tool is adapted to mark in gray scale.
However, Lester teaches a laser marking process (Para. [0002]: “[s]hort-pulse laser decoration utilizes energy from nano, pico and femto short pulse lasers across a variety of wavelengths and energies to mark decorative patterns onto articles such as products and/or packages”) wherein the laser is adapted to mark in gray scale (Para. [0054]: : “[m]odifying the power/fluence output of the laser in creating the laser mark can also be manipulated during marking to create grayscale … a known aspect of the raster-process of laser-marking”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the laser marker of Shapiro, Nagasue, and Kugler the gray scale marking functionality as taught by Lester. One of ordinary skill would have included the gray scale feature of Lester in order to “to achieve various decorative and functional effects” (Para. [0002]).
Regarding claim 18, Shapiro, Nagasue, and Kugler as modified by Lester further teaches a focused laser spot on a workpiece of marking is in the range of 5 μm to 200 μm (Para. [0050]: “spot sizes of the laser markings of the present invention can be in the range of from about 10 μm to about 150 μm”).
Regarding claims 21 and 22, Shapiro teaches synchronization by an inertial sensor and a gyro sensor that senses spindle motion (Para. [0118]: “[p]osition or motion sensors, such as accelerometers, gyroscopes, linear encoder, shaft encoder, or any other sensor that measures the zeroth, first, second, or higher order derivative of position or angle) can monitor the position, motion and/or behavior of components of the CNC machine 100. Position and/or motion sensors can be located on, for example, the head 160”). Shapiro does not expressly disclose vector scan by CNC with defocusing (Z motion) for marking a workpiece, and raster scan by CNC.
However, Lester teaches a laser marking process (Para. [0002]), with vector scan by CNC with defocusing (Z motion) for marking a workpiece (Para. [0007]: “[s]tate of the art vector marking processes can be run above 100 kHz as the pulses are typically gated open while the laser beam is “steered” (by mirrors) in the shape of the vector-lines being marked”), and raster scan by CNC (Para. [0005]: “current state of the art for laser marking processes includes “raster” marking processes and “vector” marking processes which are either fast but with poor precision and resolution, or slow but with higher precision and resolution”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the laser marking system of Shapiro, Nagasue, and Kugler with the vector and raster scan functionality of Lester. Both vector and raster marking processes are used in laser markers depending on the application and needs of the user (Paras. [0005]-[0007]). Please also see attached NPL Trotec for an example of a CNC laser engraver utilizing both raster and vector laser engraving.
Regarding claims 23 and 24, Shapiro further teaches the wireless laser marking tool being adapted to encode functions in spindle motion of the CNC machine (Para. [0064]: “[m]achine vision is a general term that describes the use of sensor data, and not only limited to optical data, in order to provide additional input to machine operation … forms of input can include, for example, audio data from an on-board sound sensor such as a microphone, or position/acceleration/vibration data from an on-board sensor such as a gyroscope or accelerometer”), and
wherein an encoded function is a safety interlock, such that the laser is enabled only if a predetermined RPM is detected (Para. [0119]: “[p]osition and/or motion sensors can be used to detect circumstances that are outside of normal or allowable operating parameters, for example an acceleration that would bend the frame of the machine … If a discrepancy is detected, the operations can be halted”).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shapiro (US 2018/0113434) in view of Nagasue (JP 6754910) and Kugler (NPL Kugler, T. (2011) Main Types of Lasers Used for Manufacturing – Key Properties and Key Applications), in further view of Schwenk (US 2017/0080537).
Regarding claim 12, Shapiro as modified by Nagasue does not expressly disclose comprising a spindle taper for mounting in the CNC machine.
However, Schwenk teaches a coupling system for use at a spindle apparatus of a machine tool (Abstract), comprising a spindle taper for mounting in the CNC machine (Para. [0072]: “[t]he tool support 173 is e.g., configured to receive or clamp tool interfaces of the hollow shank taper or hollow shank taper interface type … additionally or alternatively receive or clamp differently configured tool interfaces, such as steep tapers and/or Morse tapers”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include in the laser marking system of Shapiro, Nagasue, and Kugler with the spindle taper mount as taught by Schwenk. One of ordinary skill would have been motivated to include this feature in order to “provide a versatile, space-saving and cost-effective tool interface system or coupling interface system for machine tools” (Para. [0008]).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 17 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: None of the cited prior art anticipates or makes obvious the laser marking tool of claim 1 further comprising a sensor for determining if the tool is mounted in the CNC machine, wherein if the tool is not mounted in the CNC machine the tool is powered off, and when the tool is mounted in the CNC machine the tool is powered on. The closest prior art Shapiro discloses an interlock system with sensors that can prevent some or all functions of the CNC machine, including the laser from powering on (Para. [0049), however Shapiro does not disclose sensors for the laser head being mounted. Nagasue discloses a battery powered laser engraving device receiving energy once mounted in the tool holder, but does not disclose any sensors for mounting verification or interlocks to prevent the laser from operating.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANIEL W HATTEN whose telephone number is (703)756-1362. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6 (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, 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.
/DANIEL WARD HATTEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights