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
Applicant’s amendment filed on 07/06/2026 has been entered.
The objection to the drawing has been withdrawn.
The objection to the specification has been withdrawn.
Claims 2, 8-10, 25, 27, and 32-34 have been canceled.
Claims 1, 11, 12, 14, 18, 19, 21, 24, 30, 31, and 37 have been amended.
Claims 4, 5, 29, and 31 are as previously presented.
Claims 1, 4, 5, 11, 12, 14, 16, 19, 21, 29, 30, 31, and 37 are still pending in this application with claims 1, 24, and 30 being independent.
Drawings
The drawings were received on 07/06/2026. These drawings are acceptable.
Specification
The new specification was received on 07/06/2026. The new specification is acceptable.
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.
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:
The “air-cooling system” in claims 5 and 30 with the function being to dissipate heat with air. The corresponding structure described in the specification is inlets for air.
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.
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.
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 30, 31, and 37 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.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “the shielding gas exiting the handheld apparatus at the outlet to provide a shield gas to the workpiece material”. The previous mention of the outlet is the outlet for the laser beam and there is no support in the original specification that the shielding gas outlet and the laser beam outlet are the same outlet. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will treat the limitation as “the shielding gas exiting the handheld apparatus at a shielding gas outlet to provide a shield gas to the workpiece material”.
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 11, 30, 31, and 37 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 11 recites the limitation "the shield gas" in the last line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 30 recites the limitation “a shield gas” in the end of the seventh line. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1, 4-5, 11, 14, 19, 21, 24, 30, 31, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley et al. (US Patent 8436276) hereafter referred to as Bradley, in view of Rink et al. (US Patent 5269778) hereafter referred to as Rink.
Regarding claims 1, 4, and 24, Bradley teaches a laser source (Figure 1, 102) configured to generate laser radiation at a wavelength a sensor (Figure 5, 270) that monitors for light having generally the same wavelength as the laser directing device (108) (Column 7, 24-26) and teaches turning off the machine when the surface being cut (136) is reflecting the light of the laser from the laser directing device (108) (Column 7, 53-56), a controller (Figure 5, 230) to compare the optical intensity value to a threshold value and send a control command or instruction (Column 8, lines 20-23) based on the result, a housing or laser directing device (108) that is handheld (Figure 2, 120).
Bradley does not teach turning off the laser when the optical intensity is lower than a threshold value and leaving it on when it is at or equal to a threshold value.
Rink teaches a laser device having a sensor using a mirror arrangement (107) that may include selectively reflective surfaces that do not reflect the laser wavelength, and may include other filtering means to block laser light from reaching the plasma detector (106) (Column 8, lines 39-43) which measures the same input of the incoming light but in the opposite manner of what Bradley teaches.
The sensing means of Bradley and Rink are perform the same function and it would be obvious matter to one of ordinary skill to substitute one for the other for the predictable result of sensing light. In doing so, as each sensor arrangement works reverse to each other, switching from one to the other would inherently require measurements opposite to what Bradley teaches.
Regarding claim 5, Bradley teaches a cooling unit (Figure 1, 111) that is connected to the laser source which can be an air-cooled device (Column 2, Lines 44-54).
Regarding claim 11, Bradley teaches a fluid conduit (Figure 5, 262) that has gas provided to it by the regulator valve (252) from the compressed gas canister (250) which contains a non-flammable gas such as freon, nitrogen, or argon (Column 7, Lines 7-10) that shields the device and the operator from molten material (Column 7, Lines 2-4).
Regarding claims 14 and 31, Bradley teaches an optical conduit (Figure 1, 130) that connects the handheld apparatus (108) to the laser source (102).
Regarding claims 19, 21, and 37, Bradley teaches the power of the laser source (102) and therefore the laser beam made by the source is about three kilowatts (Column 4, lines 43-44) which is at least 1 kW and within a range of 500 W to 3kW inclusive.
Regarding claim 30, Bradley teaches a laser source (102) configured to generate laser radiation at a wavelength, a housing or laser directing device (108), and the housing (108) contains a fluid conduit (Figure 5, 262) that has gas provided to it by the regulator valve (252) from the compressed gas canister (250) which contains a non-flammable gas such as freon, nitrogen, or argon (Column 7, Lines 7-10) that shields the device and the operator from molten material (Column 7, Lines 2-4) by exiting at the nozzle (256) towards the focus (214) on the workplace material or barrier (136), and a cooling unit (Figure 1, 111) that is connected to the laser source which can be an air-cooled device (Column 2, Lines 44-54).
Regarding claim 14, Rink teaches an optical fiber delivery system (18 & 20).
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Bean et al. (US Publication 2011/0040358) hereafter referred to as Bean.
The modified device of Bradley teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach that the weight of the handheld apparatus, specifically that it weighs less than one kilogram.
Bean teaches that it is known in the art of handheld lasers to make a handheld laser as light as possible for the purpose of increasing portability ([0018]).
Based on the teachings of Bean, it would have been obvious to have modified the device of Bradley to make the handheld apparatus as light as possible, up to less than 200 grams, for the purpose of increasing portability which would thereby help reduce user fatigue.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley as applied to claim 1, and further in view of Schluter et al. (US Patent 6114651) hereafter referred to as Schluter.
The modified device of Bradley teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach at least one movable mirror positioned within the housing, the at least one movable mirror configured to wobble the laser beam.
Schluter teaches a laser beam apparatus with a beam emitting head (24) that includes a mirror (22) that is moved by an oscillator, which as a result moves or wobbles the laser beam (12) and the focus (F) of the laser beam (Column 13, Lines 48-54).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the moveable mirror disclosed in Schluter in the laser device of Bradley to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Schluter, the motivation for the combination would be to be able to move the focus without moving the entire handheld housing.
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the device of Bradley as applied to claim 24 above, and further in view of Schluter.
The modified device of Bradley teaches all of the limitations of claim 24, but does not teach wobbling the laser beam.
Schluter teaches a laser beam apparatus with a beam emitting head (24) that includes a mirror (22) that is moved by an oscillator, which as a result moves or wobbles the laser beam (12) and the focus (F) of the laser beam (Column 13, Lines 48-54).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to include the moveable mirror disclosed in Schluter in the laser device of Bradley to achieve the claimed invention. As disclosed in Schluter, the motivation for the combination would be to be able to move the focus without moving the entire handheld housing.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim 18, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
The rest of the applicant’s arguments are filed 07/06/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the 112(f) interpretation is unpersuasive as 112(f) interpretations are based on what is in the claims and not based on anything in the specification.
In response to applicant's arguments that the sensor of Bradley and the sensor of Rink are not equivalent to the sensor claimed, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375. The rejection is under the combination of Bradley and Rink. Additionally, plasma is luminescent and is detected by an optical sensor such as the sensor of Bradley, and the sensor of Bradley measures light reflected from the workpiece material (Column 7, Lines 24-36).
In response to applicant's arguments that the device of Bradley does not teach a shielding gas entering an inlet of a handheld apparatus, the regulator valve (252) is an inlet for gas coming from the compressed gas container (250) to the rest of the laser directing device (108).
In response to applicant's arguments that the device of Bradley does not teach a method for cooling the laser direction device, Bradley teaches that the gas presented to collimating chamber (210) cools first lens (216) and second lens (218) from the heat generated by the light from optical conduit (208) (Column 7, Lines 14-16).
In response to applicant's arguments that the device of Bradley does not teach cooling the laser source with air, the limitation is an air-cooling system, and Bradley teaches a cooling unit (111) that actively cools one or both of laser source (102) and power supply (104) and directs cooling air at the optical coupler which couples laser source (102) to optical conduit (130) (Column 2, Lines 44-51).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Chaffee et al. (US Patent 4633872) teaches wobbling the laser beam.
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 Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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 F 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights