DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a laser processing head configured to emit laser light toward a target object to be processed” in claim 2.
“a light path configured to transmit laser light” in claim 6.
“a sheath member covering an outer side of the light path” in claim 6
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
“a laser processing head” (claim 2) is interpreted as “The laser processing head 3 accommodates, in a closed space S4 in an interior of a housing 30, an optical system configured to allow laser light to be transmitted. Specifically, the closed space S4 accommodates a light condensing optical system 31 including a plurality of lenses and a protective glass 32 that protects the light condensing optical system 31. The light-outgoing connector 42 coupled to the first optical transmission cable 4 is coupled to an upper end of the housing 30. A nozzle 33 configured to emit laser light is provided at a lower end of the housing 30. The closed space S4 is a space sealed between the light-outgoing connector 42 and the protective glass 32.” [0037] of instant publication application and fig.3, 3.
“a light path” (claim 6) is interpreted as “4 First optical transmission cable (light path)” [0074] of instant publication application.
“a sheath member” (claim 6) is interpreted as “The sheath member 10 is made of a metal material or a resin material and is formed into a tubular shape” [0065] of instant publication application.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
[0041] For the permeable material 51 as described above, it is possible to use an organic material or an inorganic material. For the organic material, for example, it is possible to use a functional resin material constituting a membrane material such as hollow fiber membranes and flat membranes or a seal material made of a resin. For the inorganic material, for example, it is possible to use a sintered body made of ceramic or metal having many minute vacancies or a thin metal film having many minute vacancies.
[0051] A gap between the light-outgoing connector 42 of the first optical transmission cable 4 coupled to the laser processing head 3 and the housing 30 is sealed with a gasket 34 that is a seal material made of a resin. A gap between the protective glass 32 and the housing 30 is sealed with a gasket 35 that is a seal material made of a resin.
It is not understood what material is considered as “a functional resin material” and “a resin”. Does that mean natural resin or synthetic resin such as thermoplastic resins, chemical resins or something else.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 7-8 and 10 are 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.
Claims 7-8 and 10 recite “the permeable material includes a seal material made of a resin”, “the permeable material includes a functional resin material”, “the permeable material includes a functional resin material” and “the permeable material includes a seal material made of an organic material”. However, the written description does not clearly disclose what type of material is considered as resin. For example: [0041] of instant publication application states the permeable material 51 as described above, it is possible to use an organic material or an inorganic material. For the organic material, for example, it is possible to use a functional resin material constituting a membrane material such as hollow fiber membranes and flat membranes or a seal material made of a resin. [0051] A gap between the light-outgoing connector 42 of the first optical transmission cable 4 coupled to the laser processing head 3 and the housing 30 is sealed with a gasket 34 that is a seal material made of a resin. A gap between the protective glass 32 and the housing 30 is sealed with a gasket 35 that is a seal material made of a resin. However, it is not understood what material is considered as a functional resin material, a resin and/or an organic material. Does that mean natural resin or synthetic resin such as thermoplastic resins, chemical resins or something else.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1, 4, 8 and 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Ogata (JP 2016015435).
Regarding claim 1, Ogata discloses “a laser device” (figs.1-4) comprising:
“a closed space” (1 forms a closed space) accommodating “an optical system” (4, FB3, PW1 and 2 includes 2a) “configured to transmit laser light” (abstract, i.e., fiber laser modules (2) which respectively have cases (2a) and output laser beams); and
“a dew point adjustment flow path (formed by A1+23A+A2) having, at least at one part, a flow path wall section including a permeable material (23A is permeable wall) that is permeable to gas molecules including water vapor and impermeable to dust and oil mist” (as described in para.0041 of instant application, the permeable material can be a hollow fiber membrane. In this case, on page 4, 23a includes a hollow fiber membrane made of polyimide resin or a hollow fiber membrane made of porous fluorine resin which disclosed the same structure so that it is capable of performing the functional language. Fig.4, 20 shows a dew point adjustment flow path A1, 23a and A2), “the permeable material” (23a) separating “an interior (space in 23A) of the dew point adjustment flow path and “the closed space” (1) from each other.
Regarding claim 4, Ogata discloses “the dew point adjustment flow path comprises a first dew point adjustment chamber” (the flow path of 23 includes a chamber 23) provided adjacent to “the closed space” (1).
Regarding claim 8, Ogata discloses “the permeable material includes a functional resin material” (on page 4, i.e., a hollow fiber membrane made of polyimide resin or a hollow fiber membrane made of porous fluorine resin).
Regarding claim10, Ogata discloses “the permeable material includes a seal material made of an organic material” (on page 4, i.e., a hollow fiber membrane made of polyimide resin which is considered as an organic material).
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.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ogata (JP 2016015435) in view of Weichselbaum (US 3,976,529).
Regarding claim 9, Ogata discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the permeable material includes a sintered body made of an inorganic material.
Weichselbaum teaches “the permeable material includes a sintered body made of an inorganic material” (abstract, porous, sintered powdered metal filter 18). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ogata with Weichselbaum, by replacing the Ogata’s permeable material with Weichselbaum’s permeable material, to provide a sturdy filter.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2-3 and 5-6 are 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.
Claim 9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761