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 .
Priority
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.
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.
Use of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is invoked is rebutted when the function is recited with sufficient structure, material, or acts within the claim itself to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step for”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim element is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph). The presumption that 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph) is not invoked is rebutted when the claim element recites function but fails to recite sufficiently definite structure, material or acts to perform that function.
Claim elements in this application that use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Similarly, claim elements that do not use the word “means” (or “step for”) are presumed not to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
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 uses the word “means,” and are 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:
(i) drive mechanism (claim 1, line 8),
(ii) locking mechanism (claim 1, line 14) 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 limitation
(i) drive mechanism (claim 1, line 8),
(ii) locking mechanism (claim 1, line 14), has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim 1 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
(i) drive mechanism (claim 1, line 8), US 2023/0330771, Fig 5, coil 321, magnet 322, 0070
(ii) locking mechanism (claim 1, line 14), Fig 6, locking mechanism 37, 0068, 0069
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 1-10 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 1 is 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 pre-AIA the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention since the structure of the terms interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112 6th paragraph/35 U.S.C. 112(f) are not described in the specification.
Claims 2-10 are also rejected because they are dependent upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gaowen (CN111682728) in view of Wanhong (CN207796034). An English machine translation of Gaowen (CN111682728) in view of Wanhong (CN207796034) is included with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claim 1,Gaowen teaches a lens assembly, being configured to regulate a size of a focus of a laser beam (0002, laser motor with adjustable spot size) and comprising: a first optical path offset assembly and a second optical path offset assembly (Figs 1-4, first wedge mirror 4, second wedge mirror 5, first adjusting sleeve 6, second adjusting sleeve 7, 0028), an optical path of the first optical path offset assembly and an optical path of the second optical path offset assembly communicate with each other and the first optical path offset assembly and the second optical path offset assembly are each rotatable about a central axis of the lens assembly (0032); a drive mechanism (motor body 1, stator 2, rotor 3, 0028, 0031) configured to drive the first optical path offset assembly to rotate about the central axis; a ring pressed (Figs 2-4, adjusting rod 8, 0032) between the first optical path offset assembly and the second optical path offset assembly (6, 7) and configured to drive the second optical path offset assembly to rotate together with the first optical path offset assembly when the first optical path offset assembly rotates (0032, when the adjusting rod 8 rotates, it drives the first adjusting sleeve 6 and the second adjusting sleeve 7 to rotate relative to each other. For example, the first adjusting sleeve 6 rotates clockwise and the second adjusting sleeve 7 rotates counterclockwise); and a locking mechanism (Fig 1, outer housing of device is a locking mechanism because it holds adjusting sleeves 6 and 7 in a set position) pressed against one of the first optical path offset assembly or the second optical path offset assembly to enable the first optical path offset assembly and the second optical path offset assembly to rotate relative to each other (0032). Gaowen discloses the claimed invention except for the seal ring is elastic.
However, the seal ring is elastic is known in the art. Wanhong, for example, discloses the seal ring is elastic (Fig 1, rubber tooth 8, 9, 0025) has the advantage of using a known material rubber material that is elastic and has good sealing properties (0027, sealing effect). It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the lens assembly of Gaowen having a seal ring silent to the material with the seal ring is elastic of Wanhong for the purpose of using a known material that is suitable for use as a gear that has good sealing properties.
With respect to the limitations of claim 2, Gaowen teaches the locking mechanism is configured to abut against and lock the first optical path offset assembly (Fig 1, outer housing of device is a locking mechanism because it holds adjusting sleeves 6 and 7 in a set position), the lens assembly further comprises a regulating mechanism (positioning holes 62, 0033) configured to regulate a position of the second optical path offset assembly relative to the first optical path offset assembly when the locking mechanism abuts against and locks the first optical path offset assembly.
Claims 3, 4, 5 and 7 are also rejected because they are dependent upon claim 1.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gaowen (CN111682728) in view of Wanhong (CN207796034) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Chen (CN110673295). An English machine translation of Chen (CN110673295) is included with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claim 6, Gaowen in view of Wanhong discloses the clamed invention except for the elastic seal ring is a spring seal. However, Chen discloses the elastic seal ring is a spring seal (Figs 6-8, elastic element such as a rubber ring or a spring 210, 0064) is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the lens assembly of Gaowen in view of Wanhong having an elastic seal ring silent to a spring seal with the elastic seal ring is a spring seal of Chen for the purpose of using a known alternative elastic element.
Claims 8, 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Gaowen (CN111682728) in view of Wanhong (CN207796034) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Huang (CN101134266). An English machine translation of Huang (CN 101134266) is included with the Notice of Reference Cited (PTO-892).
With respect to the limitations of claim 8, Gaowen teaches a laser welding (0004, 0016, various welding processes) head, comprising: the lens assembly according to any one of claims 1 to 7 (as set forth in the rejection of claim 1 above). Gaowen in view of Wanhong discloses the claimed invention except for further comprising a collimating and focusing assembly configured to regulate a focus of a laser beam entering the lens assembly; and a detection assembly configured to detect a size of a light spot of a laser beam output by the lens assembly, the collimating and focusing assembly, the lens assembly, and the detection assembly are connected in sequence.
However, Huang discloses further comprising a collimating and focusing assembly (beam expander and collimator 4, 0032) configured to regulate a focus of a laser beam entering the lens assembly (positive and negative rotating prism 5, 0032); and a detection assembly (acquisition processor 8, CCD camera, 0033) configured to detect a size of a light spot of a laser beam output by the lens assembly (0033, obtains real-time data of the invisible light beam spot), the collimating and focusing assembly, the lens assembly, and the detection assembly are connected in sequence is known in the art. It would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to adapt the laser welding head of Gaowen in view of Wanhong having a lens assembly silent to collimating and detection assembly with the further comprising a collimating and focusing assembly configured to regulate a focus of a laser beam entering the lens assembly; and a detection assembly configured to detect a size of a light spot of a laser beam output by the lens assembly, the collimating and focusing assembly, the lens assembly, and the detection assembly are connected in sequence of Huang for the purpose of providing a known laser welding head configuration that obtains real-time data of the invisible light beam spot for optimization of the operating parameters of the laser (0033).
Claims 9 and 10 are also rejected because they are dependent upon claims 1 and 8.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-5, 7, 8 and 10 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THIEN S TRAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7745. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday [8:00-4:00].
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/THIEN S TRAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 12/19/2025