DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
This office action is responsive to the amendment filed on 05/15/26. As directed by the amendment: claims 16, 26, and 36 have been amended; claims 1-15 and 22 have been cancelled; and no claims have been added. Thus, claims 16-21 and 23- 36 are presently pending in this application.
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 16-21 and 23-36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fazeny (US 8,830,489) in view of Lai (US 2005/0011874) and Cress et al. (US 7,560,064).
With regard to claim 16, Fazeny teaches a laser plotter (1, FIG. 1) for processing a laser job for cutting, engraving, marking, and/or lettering a workpiece (4), comprising: at least one housing (2) with a processing chamber (chamber within 1 holding workpiece 4) for positioning a workpiece (4) on a processing table (5); at least one irradiation source (3) in the form of a laser (“two radiation sources 3 in the form of lasers 3 a, 3 b are disposed and operated in a housing 2”, col. 4, ln. 39-40); and a control unit (9) for controlling a carriage with a focusing unit (8), which is arranged movably thereon and the focusing unit is configured for deflecting a laser beam in a direction of the workpiece (4) (“the workpiece 4 is positively positioned on a processing platform 5 and a laser beam 6 emitted by the radiation source 3 is sent via deflecting elements 7 to at least one displaceable focusing unit 8 that is configured for both radiation sources 3, from which the laser beam 6 is deflected in the direction of the workpiece 4 and focused for processing.”, col. 4, ln. 42-47).
Fazeny does not explicitly teach in the processing chamber below a support surface of the processing table, an extraction device is arranged for extracting the exhaust gases produced during the laser job by generating an air flow; wherein the processing table is configured in such a way that the support surface of the processing table is configured to extend over an entire surface of the processing table and is airtight, and in that, in order to form an air stream, an extraction channel is arranged below the support surface, said extraction channel ending in an extraction opening, wherein the extraction channel is connected via at least one extraction opening to the processing chamber for extracting the exhaust gases or vapors, respectively, produced during the laser job, and an end plate at the lowest portion; however, Lai from the same field of endeavor directed toward a structure or platform and air-collecting bin in a laser-cutting/engraving machine teaches the aforementioned limitations: wherein in the processing chamber (50) below a support surface of the processing table, an extraction device (42) is arranged for extracting the exhaust gases produced during the laser job by generating an air flow (FIG. 5 illustrates airflow via arrows from air collecting bin 40 through air outlet 41 to dust-collecting device 42); wherein the processing table (lower surface of 50, FIG. 5) is configured in such a way that the support surface of the processing table is configured to extend over an entire surface of the processing table and is airtight (entire lower surface of 50 as illustrated in FIG. 5 is air tight with the exception of air outlet to remove dust via extraction device 42), and in that, in order to form an air stream (air stream indicated by arrows in FIG. 5), an extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42) is arranged below the support surface, said extraction channel ending in an extraction opening (41), wherein the extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42) is connected via at least one extraction opening (41) to the processing chamber (42) for extracting the exhaust gases, respectively, produced during the laser job (para. [0026], and an end plate (bottom of 50) at the lowest portion.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Fazeny reference, to include wherein in the processing chamber below a support surface of the processing table, an extraction device is arranged for extracting the exhaust gases produced during the laser job by generating an air flow; wherein the processing table is configured in such a way that the support surface of the processing table is configured to extend over an entire surface of the processing table and is airtight, and in that, in order to form an air stream, an extraction channel is arranged below the support surface, said extraction channel ending in an extraction opening, wherein the extraction channel is connected via at least one extraction opening to the processing chamber for extracting the exhaust gases, respectively, produced during the laser job and an end plate at the lowest portion , as suggested and taught by Lai, for the purpose of providing an enhanced vapor extraction operation.
Although Fazeny teaches a processing platform 5, the citation does not explicitly teach the processing chamber is delimited by a frame, and an end plate is arranged below the frame, wherein a plurality of slats are arranged in the frame such that an air duct is formed between the slats, and wherein the slats extend from the support surface beyond the frame with the workpiece being supported on the slats above an upper side of the frame such that the air flow is drawable into the processing chamber between the workpiece and the frame and guided below the workpiece along the air duct between the slats toward the at least one extraction opening; however, Cress from the same field of endeavor directed toward a downdraft exhaust cutting table teaches the aforementioned limitations, namely: the processing chamber is delimited by a frame (106/108), wherein a plurality of slats (168) are arranged in the frame (106/108) such that an air duct is formed between the slats (FIG. 4B), and wherein the slats (168) extend from the support surface beyond the frame (106/108) (FIG. 4B) with the workpiece being supported on the slats (168) above an upper side of the frame (“The cutting table 102 includes a series of spaced-apart slats 168 upon which the workpiece is supported. Preferably, the slats 168 are formed of metal or a like material having sufficient durability and longevity for withstanding the environment of the downdraft cutting table assembly 100, e.g., for withstanding fumes and slag generated by cutting operations performed with the downdraft cutting table assembly.”) such that the air flow is drawable into the processing chamber between the workpiece and the frame (106/108) and guided below the workpiece along the air duct between the slats (168) ((the slats 168 comprising the parking section 170 may include slots/apertures providing ventilation/access to the area beneath the parking section 170 of the downdraft cutting table assembly 100”) toward the at least one extraction opening (132).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Fazeny reference, such that the processing chamber is delimited by a frame, wherein a plurality of slats are arranged in the frame such that an air duct is formed between the slats, and wherein the slats extend from the support surface beyond the frame with the workpiece being supported on the slats above an upper side of the frame such that the air flow is drawable into the processing chamber between the workpiece and the frame and guided below the workpiece along the air duct between the slats toward the at least one extraction opening, as suggested and taught by Cress, for the purpose of providing a surface which will allow for efficient transfer of exhaust gases and waste products from a processed product to an exhaust source (“the slats 168 are configured for allowing the slag to fall there through and collect on the bottom wall assembly 110” Crees, col. 9, ln. 5-7).
With regard to claim 17, Lai teaches an end plate (lowest surface of 40) is arranged parallel to the support surface (support surface 5 of Fazeny) and forms the extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42, FIG. 3).
With regard to claim 18, with regard to the limitation of the exhaust opening is arranged in the end plate, and wherein the extraction channel is designed to taper towards the exhaust opening, it is submitted that although Lai does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation(s), Lai teaches the exhaust opening is arranged in a sidewall immediately adjacent the end plate (lowest surface of 40) and the extraction channel is designed to taper towards the exhaust opening (lower surfaces of 40 form the extraction channel tapering inwardly toward a lowest portion of 40 for discharging gases or vapors via outlet 41).
With regard to claim 19, Lai teaches the end plate (lowest surface of 40) is arranged at a defined distance from the support surface (support surface 5 of Fazeny).
With regard to claim 20, Lai teaches the processing chamber is delimited by a frame (FIG. 4 illustrates a frame along the upper and outer surface of 30), and Fazeny teaches the end plate as detailed above and accordingly, it is submitted that it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the end plate with that of Lai’s frame such that the end plate is arranged below the frame and is fixed to the frame as a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 21, Lai teaches the extraction opening is integrated into the frame and/or into the support surface (Lai’s surface 30 has a plurality of openings), it is submitted that it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the support surface of Fazeny with a plurality of openings to provide an enhanced movement of vapor and gas product generated by the laser operations for an exhaust function.
With regard to claim 23, Lai teaches the extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42) is limited to a partial area of the processing chamber (portion section of 40; FIG. 5).
With regard to claim 24, Lai teaches the extraction opening (41) is positioned in a center below the processing table (located at center portion of 50 at FIG. 5) and a part of the processing area is separated via blocking elements (wall portions above and below 41 at FIG. 5 are construed as blocking elements).
With regard to claim 25, Fazeny teaches the support surface of the processing table is arranged above the bounding frame (a frame is situated below the housing 2 in FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 26, Crees teaches the slats (168) are parallel and oriented from a front to a rear of the processing table (FIG. 4B).
With regard to claim 27, Crees teaches the slats (168) as detailed above; however, the citation does not explicitly teach the limitation of extend over an upper side of the frame at a height between 5 mm and 20mm; however, it is submitted that such an adaptation would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made to achieve a desired support function for a workpiece having a predetermined size as a matter of routine experimentation and/or as an optimum value since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
With regard to claim 28, Crees teaches the slats (168) as detailed above and further the limitation of being arranged in uniformly distribution over a processing width of the support surface (FIG. 4B).
With regard to claim 29, with regard to the limitation of the slats are formed of acrylic glass, it is submitted that although Crees does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, Crees does teach “the slats 168 are formed of metal or a like material having sufficient durability and longevity for withstanding the environment of the downdraft cutting table assembly 100, e.g., for withstanding fumes and slag generated by cutting operations performed with the downdraft cutting table assembly”, and as such, it is respectfully submitted that selecting an acrylic glass would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made as obvious to try as there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions which would achieve the aforementioned required material requirements for the slats of Crees.
With regard to claim 30, with regard to the limitation of the slats have a thickness between 2mm and 10 mm, it is submitted that although the citation does not explicitly teach the aforementioned limitation, it is submitted that Crees does teach “the slats 168 are formed of metal or a like material having sufficient durability and longevity for withstanding the environment of the downdraft cutting table assembly 100, e.g., for withstanding fumes and slag generated by cutting operations performed with the downdraft cutting table assembly”, and as such, it is respectfully submitted that selecting a specific slat size have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of invention was made as obvious to try as there are a finite number of identified, predictable solutions which would achieve the aforementioned required material requirements for the slats of Crees.
With regard to claim 31, Fazeny teaches the carriage is driven by a belt drive (displaceable focusing unit 8 in which FIG. 1 has same structural limitations as that of FIG. 1 of the instant application with the exception of extraction limitations and has the same Assignee).
With regard to claim 32, Fazeny teaches the workpiece (4) is a flat workpiece (FIG. 1).
With regard to claim 33, Fazeny teaches the processing chamber is a closable processing chamber (processing chamber 5 of FIG. 1; FIG. 1 of cited prior art citation has the same structural limitations as that of FIG. 1 of the instant application with the exception of extraction limitations and has the same Assignee).
With regard to claim 34, Lai teaches the extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42) is arranged below the support surface parallel to the support surface (support surface 5 of Fazeny).
With regard to claim 35, Lai teaches the processing chamber is delimited by a frame (FIG. 4 illustrates a frame along the upper and outer surface of 30), and Fazeny teaches the end plate as detailed above and accordingly, it is submitted that it would have been within the level of skill of one of ordinary skill in the art to adapt the end plate with that of Lai’s frame such that the end plate is fastened to the frame as a matter of routine experimentation.
With regard to claim 36, Fazeny teaches a laser plotter (1, FIG. 1) for processing a laser job for cutting, engraving, marking, and/or lettering a workpiece (4), comprising: at least one housing (2) with a processing chamber (chamber within 1 holding workpiece 4) for positioning a workpiece (4) on a processing table (5); at least one irradiation source (3) in the form of a laser (“two radiation sources 3 in the form of lasers 3 a, 3 b are disposed and operated in a housing 2”, col. 4, ln. 39-40); and a control unit (9) for controlling a carriage with a focusing unit (8), which is arranged movably thereon and the focusing unit is configured for deflecting a laser beam in a direction of the workpiece (4) (“the workpiece 4 is positively positioned on a processing platform 5 and a laser beam 6 emitted by the radiation source 3 is sent via deflecting elements 7 to at least one displaceable focusing unit 8 that is configured for both radiation sources 3, from which the laser beam 6 is deflected in the direction of the workpiece 4 and focused for processing.”, col. 4, ln. 42-47).
Fazeny does not explicitly teach in the processing chamber below a support surface of the processing table, an extraction device is arranged for extracting the exhaust gases produced during the laser job by generating an air flow; wherein the processing table is configured in such a way that the support surface of the processing table is configured to extend over an entire surface of the processing table and is airtight, and in that, in order to form an air stream, an extraction channel is arranged below the support surface, said extraction channel ending in an extraction opening, wherein the extraction channel is connected via at least one extraction opening to the processing chamber for extracting the exhaust gases or vapors, respectively, produced during the laser job, the extraction opening is connected to the extraction channel, the extraction channel is connection to the extraction device, the extraction device being an extraction fan for discharging the air flow with the exhaust gases from the laser job via the extraction opening and an end plate at the lowest portion; however, Lai from the same field of endeavor directed toward a structure or platform and air-collecting bin in a laser-cutting/engraving machine teaches the aforementioned limitations: wherein in the processing chamber (50) below a support surface of the processing table, an extraction device (42) is arranged for extracting the exhaust gases produced during the laser job by generating an air flow (FIG. 5 illustrates airflow via arrows from air collecting bin 40 through air outlet 41 to dust-collecting device 42); wherein the processing table (lower surface of 50, FIG. 5) is configured in such a way that the support surface of the processing table is configured to extend over an entire surface of the processing table and is airtight (entire lower surface of 50 as illustrated in FIG. 5 is air tight with the exception of air outlet to remove dust via extraction device 42), and in that, in order to form an air stream (air stream indicated by arrows in FIG. 5), an extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42) is arranged below the support surface, said extraction channel ending in an extraction opening (41), wherein the extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42) is connected via at least one extraction opening (41) to the processing chamber (42) for extracting the exhaust gases, respectively, produced during the laser job (para. [0026]), the extraction opening (41) is connected to the extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42) , the extraction channel (channel from opening 41 to air-collecting bin 42) is connection to the extraction device (42), the extraction device being an extraction fan for discharging the air flow with the exhaust gases from the laser job via the extraction opening (“the air-drawing and dust-collecting device 42 is activated, by virtue that air is taken into the panel 10 and discharged out of the air outlet 41 of the air-collecting bin 40”, para. [0026]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Fazeny reference, to include wherein in the processing chamber below a support surface of the processing table, an extraction device is arranged for extracting the exhaust gases produced during the laser job by generating an air flow; wherein the processing table is configured in such a way that the support surface of the processing table is configured to extend over an entire surface of the processing table and is airtight, and in that, in order to form an air stream, an extraction channel is arranged below the support surface, said extraction channel ending in an extraction opening, wherein the extraction channel is connected via at least one extraction opening to the processing chamber for extracting the exhaust gases, respectively, produced during the laser job the extraction opening is connected to the extraction channel, the extraction channel is connection to the extraction device, the extraction device being an extraction fan for discharging the air flow with the exhaust gases from the laser job via the extraction opening, as suggested and taught by Lai, for the purpose of providing an enhanced vapor extraction operation.
Although Fazeny teaches a processing platform 5, the citation does not explicitly teach wherein the extraction opening is connected to the extraction channel with the extraction opening and the extraction channel being below an end plate. However, Cress from the same field of endeavor directed toward a downdraft exhaust cutting table teaches the aforementioned limitations, namely: the extraction opening (134) is connected to the extraction channel (132) below an end plate (140) (FIG. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the device in the Fazeny reference, such that the extraction opening is connected to the extraction channel with the exraction opening and the extraction channel beingl below an end plate, as suggested and taught by Cress, for the purpose of providing an efficient mechanism for removing exhaust gases/debris (Cress: “the cutting table includes one or more elongated exhaust ducts positioned below the cutting surface which run parallel to the length of the cutting table. Each exhaust duct has a plurality of horizontally spaced-apart exhaust openings formed therein. The interior of the exhaust duct is in communication with an exhaust system for exhausting air from within the exhaust duct.”, col. 2, ln. 25-29)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the claims have been considered and are addressed hereafter. The newly presented prior art rejections are presented herein in view of the newly presented claim amendments and new claim(s). With regard to the argument presented by the Applicant’s at pg. 7 of the office action response regarding “this design is clearly not airtight as the platform is intentionally open to allow air, smoke, and debris to pass through. Further, Lai teaches that the airflow is not guided through a sealed duct below the platform, but rather than an open structure of the platform and into a collecting bin”, it is respectfully submitted that the limitation “a sealed duct” is not explicitly recited in the claim, and as such, it is respectfully submitted that the aforementioned features upon which applicant relies are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993). Furthermore, the claim’s recitation of the limitation “airtight” is referencing “the support surface” which the Examiner addressed in the prior office action and again above (i.e., “(entire lower surface of 50 as illustrated in FIG. 5 is air tight with the exception of air outlet to remove dust via extraction device 42)”). Furthermore, the Applicant’s comments regarding Cress not teaching a workpiece supported on slats is additionally improper as Cress explicitly teaches: “The cutting table 102 includes a series of spaced-apart slats 168 upon which the workpiece is supported. Preferably, the slats 168 are formed of metal or a like material having sufficient durability and longevity for withstanding the environment of the downdraft cutting table assembly 100, e.g., for withstanding fumes and slag generated by cutting operations performed with the downdraft cutting table assembly.”)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSEPH W ISKRA whose telephone number is (313) 446-4866. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F: 09:00-17:00 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, the examiner’s supervisor, IBRAHIME ABRAHAM can be reached on 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 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.
/JOSEPH W ISKRA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights