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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The IDS is objected to as there are references to Patent 9647410 and Patent 10751835, in the specification that are not found in the IDS.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the ”handheld apparatus of one-piece construction,” of claims 9 and 32 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims as an apparatus of one-piece construction cannot have a removable or sliding boot or collar (141), a movable trigger, button, or switch (121 and 125), replaceable parts like a window (128), a focus lens (129) or a processing tip (126) or any other part that can move independently of the rest of the handheld apparatus. The “moveable mirror positioned within the housing” of claim 18 must be shown or the features canceled from the claims. No new matter should be entered.
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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a) because they fail to show part number 128 or 129 in Figure 3C as described in the specification. Any structural detail that is essential for a proper understanding of the disclosed invention should be shown in the drawing. MPEP § 608.02(d). 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.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.437 because the cutaway view of figure 3E does not follow proper indication for a cross section as according to MPEP 1825 11.13(b). 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.
Specification
The use of the terms IPG Photonics, Schott Optical Company, and OSI Optoelectronics, which are a trade name or a mark used in commerce, has been noted in this application. The term should be accompanied by the generic terminology; furthermore, the term should be capitalized wherever it appears or, where appropriate, include a proper symbol indicating use in commerce such as ™, SM , or ® following the term.
Although the use of trade names and marks used in commerce (i.e., trademarks, service marks, certification marks, and collective marks) are permissible in patent applications, the proprietary nature of the marks should be respected and every effort made to prevent their use in any manner which might adversely affect their validity as commercial marks.
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) are:
The “air-cooling system” in claims 5 and 34 with the function being to dissipate heat with air. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
The “gas-cooling system” in claim 8 with the function being to dissipate heat with a gas. Examples from the original disclosure are inlets to let gas through.
The “modular attachment system for a nozzle” in claims 10 and 33 with the function being to be able to remove the nozzle and attach a different one. The examiner could not find a recitation of specific structure within the original disclosure.
Because these claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, they 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 these limitations 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 limitations recite 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 10 and 33 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 claims contain 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 inventors, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It is not described clearly enough how the “modular attachment system for a nozzle” actually works and therefore it cannot be determined what applicant had possession of at the time of filing.
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 9, 10, 12, 19, 21, 32, 33, 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.
Regarding claims 9 and 32, examiner is unclear what applicant means by the phrase "one piece construction". Specifically, the specification makes clear the handheld apparatus has multiple parts, including movable triggers 121 and 125, that could not function as constructed "monolithically". Further, there are multiple features like 126, 127, 128, and 141 that are also not of the same piece. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner is will treat "one piece construction" to simply mean the parts together form a whole handheld apparatus.
Regarding claim 12 the term “about 1 kilogram” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “about 1 kilogram” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will treat “about 1 kilogram” as “1 kilogram”.
Regarding claims 19, 21, and 37, the “laser beam” created by the handheld laser system is not part of the handheld laser system. In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner is will treat “the laser beam” as “is configured to generate a laser beam”.
Regarding claims 10 and 33 the limitation “modular attachment system for a nozzle” 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. The specification does not mention how it works only that it allows “substitution and flexibility in providing different attachment nozzles (…) for various applications” ([0061]). In the interest of compact prosecution, examiner will treat “modular attachment system for a nozzle” as a “removeable nozzle”. 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 § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 24, 27, and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more.
In accordance with MPEP 2106.04, each of claims 24,27, and 29 has been analyzed to determine whether it is directed to any judicial exceptions.
Step 2A, Prong 1 per MPEP 2106.04(a)
Each of claims 24, 27, and 29 recite at least one step or instruction for “comparing an optical intensity value obtained by the plasma sensor to a threshold value at a time when a predetermined time period has elapsed after the material processing operation has commenced” which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III). The claimed limitation is an evaluation of two values which is a concept performed in the human mind. Accordingly, each of claims 24, 27, and 29 recites an abstract idea.
Specifically, claim 24 recites a method, comprising: directing a laser beam from a laser source onto a workpiece material (additional element); activating a plasma sensor configured to detect plasma emitted from the workpiece material during a material processing operation (additional element); comparing an optical intensity value obtained by the plasma sensor to a threshold value at a time when a predetermined time period has elapsed after the material processing operation has commenced (evaluation or judgment, which is grouped as a mental process in MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)); and producing a control command based on the comparison (additional element).
Further, dependent claims 27 and 29 merely include limitations that either further define the abstract idea (and thus don’t make the abstract idea any less abstract) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity or amount to no more than generally linking the use of the abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use because they’re merely incidental or token additions to the claims that do not alter or affect how the claimed functions/steps are performed.
Accordingly, as indicated above, each of the above-identified claims recites an abstract idea as in MPEP 2106.04(a).
Step 2A, Prong 2 per MPEP 2106.04(d)
The above-identified abstract idea in independent claim 24 (and its respective dependent claims 27 and 29) is not integrated into a practical application under MPEP 2106.04(d) because the additional elements (identified above in independent claim 24), either alone or in combination, generally link the use of the above-identified abstract idea to a particular technological environment or field of use according to MPEP 2106.05(h) or represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). More specifically, the additional elements of: directing a laser beam from a laser source onto a workpiece material as recited in independent claim 24 and its dependent claims; activating a plasma sensor configured to detect plasma emitted from the workpiece material during a material processing operation as recited in independent claim 24 and its dependent claims; and producing a control command based on the comparison as recited in independent claim 24 and its dependent claims do not serve to apply the above-identified abstract idea with, or by use of, a particular machine according to MPEP 2106.05(b), effect a transformation according to MPEP 2106.05(c), provide a particular treatment or prophylaxis according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) or apply or use the above-identified abstract idea in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use thereof to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Furthermore, the above-identified additional elements do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply implementing the abstract idea on a computer in accordance with MPEP 2106.05(f). For at least these reasons, the abstract idea identified above in independent Claims 24 (and their respective dependent claims) is not integrated into a practical application in accordance with MPEP 2106.04(d).
Step 2B per MPEP 2106.05
None of claims 24, 27, and 29 include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea in accordance with MPEP 2106.05 for at least the following reasons.
These claims require the additional elements of directing a laser beam from a laser source onto a workpiece material as recited in independent claim 24 and its dependent claims; activating a plasma sensor configured to detect plasma emitted from the workpiece material during a material processing operation as recited in independent claim 24 and its dependent claims; and producing a control command based on the comparison as recited in independent claim 24 and its dependent claims.
Paragraph 2 of 20140144895 (Stork Genannt Wersborg) discloses that known laser welding operations direct a laser beam onto a workpiece material and use plasma sensors to detect plasma emitted from the workpiece material during a material processing operation (“[0002] In laser material processing, workpieces are cut or joined by means of focused laser radiation, process monitoring systems and sensors being used both for a laser cutting operation and for a laser welding operation. By way of example, sensors for detecting the radiation coming from a work or interaction zone determined by the working focus arc used for monitoring the welding or cutting process. Provided in this context as standard are radiation sensors for observing plasma forming over the interaction zone, and a back reflection sensor that detects the back reflection radiation of the laser from the interaction zone between the laser beam and the workpiece to be processed.”). Further, the limitation producing a control command based on the comparison is construed as storing and retrieving information in memory and/or receiving or transmitting data over a network. The courts have recognized storing and retrieving information in memory and receiving or transmitting data over a network as well‐understood, routine, and conventional functions when they are claimed in a merely generic manner (e.g., at a high level of generality) or as insignificant extra-solution activity. See MPEP § 2106.05(d)(II).
Taking the additional elements individually and in combination, the additional elements do not provide significantly more. Specifically, when viewed individually, the above-identified additional elements in independent claim 24 (and their dependent claims) do not add significantly more because they are simply an attempt to limit the abstract idea to a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as a combination, these above-identified additional elements simply instruct the practitioner to implement the claimed functions with well-understood, routine and conventional activity specified at a high level of generality in a particular technological environment according to MPEP 2106.05(h). When viewed as whole, the above-identified additional elements do not provide meaningful limitations to transform the abstract idea into a patent eligible application of the abstract idea such that the claims amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself according to MPEP 2106.04(d)(2) and 2106.05(e). Moreover, neither the general computer elements nor any other additional element adds meaningful limitations to the abstract idea because these additional elements represent insignificant extra-solution activity according to MPEP 2106.05(g). As such, there is no inventive concept sufficient to transform the claimed subject matter into a patent-eligible application as required by MPEP 2106.05.
Therefore, for at least the above reasons, none of the claims 24, 27, and 29 amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Accordingly, 24, 27, and 29 are not patent eligible and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101. Claim 25 adds a limitation that makes it amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself and thus is not rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101.
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.
Claims 1, 4, 8, 11, 14, 24, 27, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Rink et al. (US Patent 5269778) hereafter referred to as Rink.
Regarding claim 1, Rink teaches a handheld laser system (Figure 6) that comprises a laser source (11) configured to generate laser radiation at a wavelength, a plasma sensor (106) and a controller (21) configured to control the laser source based on the information from the plasma sensor (Column 8, lines 49-61).
Regarding claim 4, Rink teaches 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 (Column 8, lines 39-43).
Regarding claim 8, Rink teaches a housing configured as a handheld apparatus having an outlet for the laser beam (20).
Regarding claim 11, as Rink teaches a housing configured as a handheld apparatus having an outlet for the laser beam (Figure 1, 20), and the housing is exposed to air thereby cooling the handheld apparatus by contact with the air. Because air is a gas, the handheld apparatus is considered to be gas cooled.
Regarding claim 14, Rink teaches an optical fiber delivery system (18 & 20).
Regarding claim 24 Rink teaches a laser source (11) that generates a laser beam, a plasma sensor (106) that detects plasma by its light emissions, a controller (21) configured to control the laser source based on the information from the plasma sensor (Column 8, lines 49-61).
Regarding claim 27, Rink teaches a housing configured as a handheld apparatus having an outlet for the laser beam (20).
Regarding claim 30, Rink teaches a handheld laser system (Figure 6) that comprises a laser source (11) configured to generate laser radiation at a wavelength, a housing configured as a handheld apparatus having an outlet for the laser beam (20), and the housing is exposed to air therefore cooling the handheld apparatus by contact with the air. Because air is a gas, the handheld apparatus is considered to be gas cooled.
Regarding claim 31, Rink teaches an optical fiber delivery system (18 & 20).
Claims 1, 5, 8, 11, 14, 19, 21, 24, 27, 30, 31, 34, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bradley et al. (US Patent 8436276) hereafter referred to as Bradley
Regarding claim 1, Bradley teaches a laser source (Figure 1, 102) configured to generate laser radiation at a wavelength, a sensor (Figure 5, 270) to measure the irradiance, and 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.
Regarding claims 5 and 34, 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 8, Bradley teaches a housing or laser directing device (108) that is handheld (Figure 2, 120).
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).
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 24 and 27, Bradley teaches a handheld apparatus (Figure 1, 108) that directs a laser beam onto a workplace material, a sensor (Figure 5, 270) to measure the irradiance from the workpiece, and 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.
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).
Regarding claim 31, Bradley teaches an optical conduit (130) connecting the handheld apparatus (108) to the laser source (102).
Regarding Claim 37, Bradley teaches a laser source (102) with a power of about 3 kilowatts, (Column 4, Lines 43-44) which is at least 1 kilowatt.
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.
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 2, 4, and 25 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bradley in view of Rink.
Bradley teaches all of the limitations of claims 1 and 24, 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) but 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 functional equivalents and it would be obvious matter to one of ordinary skill to substitute one for the other. 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.
Claims 9 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Rink or Bradley in view of Popp (US Publication 20170209959).
Rink and Bradley teach all of the limitations of claim 8 and 30, but do not teach the apparatus being of monolithic construction.
Popp teaches that monolithic construction is robust ([0012]), and can be applied to a high-powered laser beam.
It would be obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the handheld apparatus of Rink or Bradley with the teachings of Popp to be of monolithic construction in order to increase robustness.
Claims 10 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the device of Rink in view of Zapletal (US Patent 6271497).
Rink teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 and 30, but does not teach a removable nozzle.
Zapletal teaches a plasma torch which is used for high energy cutting with removable terminal components (104) or nozzle.
As a plasma torch is a comparable device to a laser cutter, the claimed invention is an improvement over a laser cutter by adding a removable nozzle, and as Zapletal teaches adding a removable nozzle to a plasma torch, one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing could have applied the technique of a removable nozzle in the same way to the laser cutter of Rink for the purpose of being able to change the nozzle.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Rink in view of Bean et al. (US Publication 20110040358) hereafter referred to as Bean.
Rink teaches all of the limitations of claim 8, 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 medical 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 Rink 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.
Claims 18 and 29 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the device of Rink in view of Chaffee et al. (US Patent 4633872) hereafter referred to as Chaffee.
Rink teaches all of the limitations of claim 8 and 24, but does not teach a movable mirror configured to wobble the laser beam or another method of wobbling the laser beam.
Regarding claim 18, Chaffee teaches a medical laser with wobble plates (30 & 32) with a transmission mirror (41) on mirror mounts (42) allowing for a standardized mounting structure and the ability to mount interchangeable parts (Column 2, Lines 29-33).
As Rink teaches a cutting laser which is a comparable device to the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to modify the device of Rink by adding the wobble plates of Chaffee in order to improve the ability to swap parts (Chaffee Column 2, Lines 29-33).
Claim 29 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rink in view of Chaffee.
Rink teaches all of the limitations of claim 24 but does not teach wobbling the laser beam.
Regarding claim 29, Chaffee teaches a wobble plate (30 & 32) with a transmission mirror (41) on mirror mounts (42) which would wobble the laser beam as an improvement over a cutting laser.
As Rink teaches a cutting laser which is a comparable device to the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at time of filing to modify the device of Rink by adding the wobble plates of Chaffee in order to improve the mounting of the fiber optic cable (Chaffee 115).
Conclusion
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 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761