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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 1 December 2025 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings have overcome every Drawing objection. The Drawing objections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous Claim objections. However, new Claim objections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claimed “cabinet” are persuasive regarding the 35 USC 112(b) rejection (see page 4 filed 1 December 2025, where the Applicant explains that the “cabinet” should be interpreted in view of the Specification; the examiner is interpreting the claimed “cabinet” as being a case in view of the case in view of the Specification). Applicant’s amendments have overcome the other 35 USC 112(b) rejections. Accordingly, the 35 USC 112(b) rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 1 December 2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. After conducting an updated search, additional references were identified for the prior art rejections. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 1 December 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1-4 have been cancelled. Claims 5-8 are new.
Claims 5-8 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 6-7 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 6-7, recommend amending the claims to recite: “in each of said pairs of screw shafts.”
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.
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.
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 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US-20110174789-A1, hereinafter Li ‘789) in view of Kintner et al. (US-20070035777-A1).
Regarding claim 5, Li ‘789 teaches a carriage structure (fig. 8; “portable,” para 0038; a portable device is construed as being a “carriage”) for supporting an engraving machine (“portable engraving system,” para 0029) and providing vertical adjustment capability (vertical adjustment from fig. 9 to fig. 10) comprising:
first and second frames interconnected in parallel and horizontally- spaced relationship (vertical frame components 86, fig. 9; construed such that the vertical frame on the left end of fig. 9 is the “first” frame and the vertical frame on the right end is the “second” frame);
first and second motor driven vertical elevation systems (cart adjustment devices 90’, fig. 9; each device 90’ includes a motor 92, fig. 9; the left device 90’ is construed as the “first” system and the right device 90’ is construed as the “second” system) respectively mounted within said first and second frames;
each of said elevation systems comprising a pair of spaced apart parallel vertical screw shafts (each of the devices 90’ have two shafts, annotated for the “first” or left device 90’ in fig. 8 below);
first and second motors (motors 92, fig. 8),
first and second pedestals (pedestals 36’, fig. 9; annotated in fig. 8 below) for supporting an engraver cabinet (enclosure 20E, fig. 9; enclosure 20E is construed as a case, which encloses the laser, para 0046); said pedestals being mounted on respective first and second pairs of screw shafts for vertical movement caused by rotation of said screw shafts (as shown in annotated fig. 8 below the construed pedestals are mounted to the construed pairs of screw shafts; Li ‘789 teaches vertical movement in figs. 9-10 but does not explicitly disclose that the vertical movement is caused by rotation); and
means (interpreted under 35 USC 112f as a “motor controller;” Li ‘789 teaches “one or more controllers” for the motors, para 0057) for controlling the operation of said motors such that the pedestals maintain a desired orientation relative to one another (“the one or more controllers operably adjust motors 92, thereby adjusting enclosure 20E for proper operational height,” para 0057; the proper operational height taught by Li ‘789 is construed as being the “desired orientation”).
Li ‘789, fig. 8 (annotated)
PNG
media_image1.png
1026
1667
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Li ‘789 does not explicitly disclose motors directly connected to rotate a single screw shaft in said first and second screw shaft pairs respectively; each screw shaft pair having a belt interconnecting the shafts in said pair thereby to synchronize rotation of the screw shafts in each pair.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser machining, Kintner teaches motors (motor 280, fig. 3; the motor 280 taught by Kintner is construed as being equivalent to the motors 92 taught by Li ‘789) directly connected to rotate a single screw shaft (directly rotates the top-right roller 260 that is connected to the right threaded element 240, which is construed as being a “single screw shaft”) in said first and second screw shaft pairs respectively (the right and bottom threaded elements 240 in fig. 3 taught by Kintner are construed as being each of the “pairs” of screw shafts in the devices 90’ taught by Li ‘789); each screw shaft pair having a belt (belt 270, fig. 3; construed such that each device 90’ taught by Li ‘789 includes a belt as taught by Kintner) interconnecting the shafts in said pair (the right and bottom threaded elements 240 in fig. 3) thereby to synchronize rotation of the screw shafts in each pair (the belt 270 results in synchronized rotation of the rollers 244 and threaded elements 240, fig. 3).Kintner, fig. 3
PNG
media_image2.png
1046
864
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Li ‘789, in view of the teachings of Kintner, by using a drive motor and two rollers that are connected to threaded elements via a belt, as taught by Kintner, as the driving mechanism for each of the adjustment devices 90, as taught by Li ‘789, in order to use a motorized mechanism that is capable of moving the workpiece into any desired vertical orientation, for the advantage of versatility, allowing the user to adjust the laser to any desired height, so that an engraving operation can best be carried out on the workpiece (Kintner, paras 0017 and 0028).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li ‘789 in view of Kintner as set forth above regarding claim 5 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Li ‘789 teaches wherein each of said motors (motors 92, fig. 8) is mounted at the top of a respective frame structure (top of frame components 86, figs 8-9). Additionally, Kintner teaches each of said motors (motor 280, fig. 3; the motor 280 taught by Kintner is construed as being equivalent to the motors 92 taught by Li ‘789) is drivingly connected to only one of said screw shafts (rotates the roller 260 that is connected to the right threaded element 240, which is construed as being a “single screw shaft”) in a pair of screw shafts (the right and bottom threaded elements 240 in fig. 3).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US-20110174789-A1, hereinafter Li ‘789) in view of Kintner et al. (US-20070035777-A1) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Lai et al. (US-6388228-B1).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Li ‘789 in view of Kintner as set forth above regarding claim 5 partially teaches the invention of claim 7. Specifically, Kintner teaches each of said motors (motor 280, fig. 3; the motor 280 taught by Kintner is construed as being equivalent to the motors 92 taught by Li ‘789) is drivingly connected to only one of said screw shafts (rotates the roller 260 that is connected to threaded element 240, which is construed as being a “single screw shaft”) in a pair of screw shafts (the right and bottom threaded elements 240 in fig. 3).
Li ‘789/Kintner does not explicitly disclose wherein each of said motors is mounted at the bottom of a respective frame structure.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser machining, Wu teaches wherein each of said motors (elevating mechanism 5, fig. 3; construed as being the motor 92 taught by Li ‘789 and the motor 280 taught by Kintner) is mounted at the bottom of a respective frame structure (“The elevating mechanism is disposed in the base seat,” column 2, lines 15-16).
Lai, fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
460
682
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Li ‘789, in view of the teachings of Lai, by mounting the motor 92, as taught by Li ‘789, or the motor 280, as taught by Kintner, in the base of the frame, as taught by Lai, instead of the top of the frame, as taught by Li ‘789 and Kintner, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one location for mounting a motor that is known in the art for another with predictable results (the change in location of the motor will not change the operation of the motor, but will continue to permit rotation of the rollers so that the rollers can rotate the threaded rods, which cause the platforms to lift).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Li (US-20110174789-A1, hereinafter Li ‘789) in view of Kintner et al. (US-20070035777-A1) as applied to claim 5 above and further in view of Saeda et al. (US-5156382-A).
Li ‘789 teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose further comprising means for mechanically locking a single shaft against rotation in each pair of screw shafts.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser machining, Saeda teaches further comprising means (interpreted under 35 USC 112f as “locks;” Saeda teaches a locking mechanism 11, fig. 5) for mechanically locking a single shaft against rotation (column 4, lines 21-31) in each pair of screw shafts (the locking mechanism taught by Saeda is construed as being used to lock each of the construed screw shafts that are on the bottom right side of fig. 8 for the devices 90’).
Saeda, fig. 5
PNG
media_image4.png
462
482
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Li ‘789, in view of the teachings of Saeda, by using a locking mechanism 11, as taught by Saeda, to lock and prevent rotation each of the threaded screw shafts in the adjustment devices 90’ that would be closest to an operator, as taught by Li ‘789, in order to use a lock ring that prevents rotation, for the advantage of using a locking mechanism that an operator can use to prevent unintended rotation or slippage of the shaft (i.e., a screw shaft in each of the adjustment devices 90 taught by Li ‘789), which is facilitated by using a lever 83 that tightens and secures the locking of the shaft to prevent rotation of the shaft (Saeda, column 2, lines 26-35 and column 5, lines 41-48).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 1 December 2025 have been fully considered.
Applicant’s arguments regarding the Li patent have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Li ‘789 combined with Kintner.
The examiner was not persuaded by the Applicant’s arguments regarding the Saeda reference (US5156382A).
The Applicant argues that the examiner has improperly used the Saeda reference because the reference is non-analogous art and because the reference does not “contain a clear suggestion” for the combination that has been put forth in the rejection.
The examiner disagrees with this argument and submits that it is conclusory. The Applicant does not provide any evidence or facts to support this argument.
On page 10 of the non-Final Office action filed 9 October 2025, the examiner determined that the Saeda reference was “in the same field of endeavor of laser machining.” The examiner made this determination based on the specification of the Instant Application. The specification describes a “laser engraver machine carriage.” Both laser engraving and laser machining involve cutting a workpiece, and the terms are synonymous.
The examiner further notes that while the specification and the previous set of claims require “laser engraving,” the current set of claims make no mention a laser. Thus, the claim scope in the current set of claims is broader than what was previously claimed. Instead of a “laser engraver,” a broader “engraver” is claimed. The argument would have been more persuasive if the Applicant had identified the field of endeavor for their claimed invention and how the Saeda reference cannot be classified as a reference within this field of endeavor.
Although the Applicant argued that the reference does not “contain a clear suggestion” for the combination that has been put forth in the rejection, the examiner respectfully submits that a suggestion for the combination or a motivation statement was provided on page 11 of the non-Final Office action filed 9 October 2025. The examiner referenced column 2, lines 26-35 and column 5, lines 41-48 of the Saeda reference to support this motivation statement. These excerpts describe how Saeda’s lock ring prevents unintended rotation or slippage along a shaft, which would have been helpful in the invention taught by Li ‘789, who teaches uses shafts in the adjustment devices 90’ in fig. 8.
For the above reasons, the rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Wu et al. (CN-110842996-A) teach a lifting mechanism for an engraver using belts and rollers.
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 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 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 2/18/2026