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
Claims 16 and 17 appear to be missing from the claim set filed 3/2/2026. They are referenced throughout the reply. For purposes of compact prosecution, they will be addressed as filed on 12/2/2022 until they are indicated as cancelled.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/2/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., SEE BELOW) 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).
On page 11 of the reply, applicant recites: “A key limitation of amended claim 1 is the recited specific and automated safety control system. This system comprises a sensor that actively determines the variable position of the dividing wall, and a control unit that uses this specific positional data to control the closing device (e.g., the doors). This functionality ensures that the doors can dynamically and automatically adapt their extension to safely and properly seal the work entrances, regardless of where the dividing wall is positioned. This affirmatively recited system for establishing the noted control loop is central to the invention's contribution of providing a laser processing machine that is not only highly flexible in accommodating workpieces of various sizes, but is also inherently safe during operation.”
Applicant is describing how the claimed apparatus may function, but does not necessarily represent the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims. The phrases “actively determines the variable position of the dividing wall”, “safely and properly seal the work entrances, regardless of where the dividing wall is positioned”, “control loop”, “dynamically and automatically adapt their extension” are not recited in the claims.
Applicant also argues “This system comprises a sensor that actively determines the variable position of the dividing wall” and “There is no teaching or motivation in the prior art that would have prompted a person of ordinary skill to modify Fornasero's system to include a sensor that determines a dividing wall's variable position for the specific purpose of controlling the closing device based on that determination.”
However, regarding the sensor limitation, while the dividing wall is variable, this amended portion of the claim does not recite any limitation or function regarding “variable.” The claim does not describe how the closing unit would be operated based on the position of the wall. The closing device comprises two doors, it is not clear how they would operate based on the operating position.
On pages 11-12 of the reply applicant argues, Consistent with the foregoing teaching in the Fornasero specification, Fornasero's claim 9 states that a sensor detects the divider's position and sends a signal to a control unit, and Fornasero's claim 13 clarifies the purpose of the sensor/control unit communication: namely, the control unit is configured for "preventing or blocking movement and/or operation of said laser head" if the sensor does not detect proper positioning. Furthermore, Fornasero's claim 15 teaches that the doors are controlled in synchronization with the laser head's position between the two work areas, not as a function of the dividing wall's position as determined by a sensor. This is a fundamentally different control logic relative to Applicant's disclosed/claimed invention. Fornasero's divider (18) is either in a fixed position or removed entirely to create a single large work area (Fornasero, Fig. 6); it is not variably positionable to resize the two workspaces as recited in Applicant's claimed invention.
Fornasero detects the operating position of the dividing wall. The sensor detects the position of the dividing wall 18, if the wall is there, only one set of doors 115 will close. If the wall 18 is not there, both sets of doors 115 will close. Therefore, the function (See Paragraph [0033]) of the door is based on the sensor as the wall 115 would be detected in an operating position and only one set of doors would be closed.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1, 3-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Fornasero (US
2018/0361522) in view of Ratti et al. (DE 102015009879).
Regarding claim 1, Fornasero discloses, a housing for a laser processing machine to treat, by means of a laser, pieces to be processed, in particular metal pieces to be processed; the housing comprises: - a dividing wall, which separates a first work space having a first length (El) and a second work space having a second length (E2) from one another; wherein the first work space and the second work space are configured to receive the pieces to be processed (Figure 2, dividing wall 18 and workspaces 20 and 40, See Paragraphs [0020] and [0031]); - a first entrance to allow access to the first work space (Figure 2, entrances around ref 20 and 40, Paragraph [0033] ): - a second entrance to allow access to the second work space (Figure 2, entrances around ref 20 and 40); a closing device, which is configured to selectively open and close the first entrance and the second entrance (Figures 1 and 2, doors 115, claim 11); and - a control unit, which is operatively connected to the closing device. (See Paragraphs [0035]) Fornasero also discloses that the closing and opening of doors are controlled by a control unit . (See Paragraphs [0035], Claim 15)
Fornasero detects the operating position of the dividing wall. The sensor detects the position of the dividing wall 18, if the wall is there, only one set of doors 115 will close. If the wall 18 is not there, both sets of doors 115 will close. Therefore, the function (See Paragraph [0033]) of the door is based on the sensor as the wall 115 would be detected in an operating position and only one set of doors would be closed.
Fornasero fails to disclose, wherein the dividing wall (9) is placeable in an operating position, which is
variable among at least a first position, a second position and a third position; wherein the first length
(E1) and the second length (E2) vary as a function of the operating position; wherein the control unit is
configured to control the closing device (19; 20) as a function of the operating position of the dividing
wall (9). It should be noted the “operating position” is an arbitrary name assigned to the position of the
dividing wall. The word “operating” does not impart any structure on the claim, as naming this position
anything else would result in the same structure and function.
However, Ratti discloses, (dividing wall 16 and size-adaptable panel 39,39', 40 and 40' whose length
depends on the position of the dividing wall 16) and D3 (column 2, line 3 - line 67; figures 1-5), which
discloses a modular industrial enclosure where door panels permit individual adjustment of the sides of
the enclosure; those examples further illustrates that adapting the size of workplaces in modular
industrial building and adapting the corresponding size of the doors/covering panels accordingly.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to one of
ordinary skill in the art to combine or modify Fornasero in view of Ratti to provide the dividing wall is
placeable in an operating position, which is variable among at least a first position, a second position
and a third position; wherein the first length and the second length vary as a function of the operating
position; wherein the control unit is configured to control the closing device as a function of the
operating position of the dividing wall for increasing processing productivity as one workpiece is
removed while another workpiece is simultaneously processed.
Fornasero discloses a sensor for determining proper positioning of the dividing wall
(claim 9) and controls the operation of the laser based on the positioning. (See Paragraphs [0039] and
[0040])
Regarding claim 3, Fornasero may fail to disclose the first operating position corresponds to a first limit
operating position, which determines a first minimum length (E1) and a second maximum length (E2),
and/or the third operating position corresponds to a second limit operating position, which determines
a first maximum length (E1) and a second minimum length (E2). However, it would have been obvious to
have these operating positions since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are
disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the
art and discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art.
The working positions would be decided based on the desired usage of the device and the workpieces to
be used. Regarding claim 4, Figs 1-5 show lateral walls 60 or 111 which are spaced apart from each other
and along a first axis. The dividing wall 18 is dispose between the two walls (See Fig 2) which also shows
an extension piece (not clearly defined by the claims, specification or drawings in the present application) by the cross beam which would establish the lengths between the dividing wall 18 and the
two side walls. Regarding claim 5, Fig 2 shows the position of the wall 18 defining the first and second
entrances.
Regarding claim 6, Fornasero discloses a first guide 17 with the dividing wall coupled to it and configured
to be moved into multiple positions in the work area. However, Fornasero fails to disclose the second
guide assembly and third assembly, wherein the dividing wall can selectively be coupled to the second
guide assembly and to the third guide assembly in order to place the dividing wall in the first position, in
the second position and in the third position, respectively. However, it would have been obvious to
provide the second guide assembly and third assembly, wherein the dividing wall can selectively be
coupled to the second guide assembly and to the third guide assembly in order to place the dividing wall
in the first position, in the second position and in the third position, respectively since it has been held
that mere duplication of the essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art .
Having multiple positions for the dividing wall would have been obvious in order to change the size of
the room based on the area needed for each workpiece. Regarding claim 7, the cross member 16 is
coupled to the dividing wall 18 and can move it into an infinite number of positions. (See Fig 2)
Regarding claims 8-9, the control unit (See Paragraph [0035]) is responsible for changing the position of
the first and second doors 115. As the doors are modular the effective “length” of the doors may be
changed. Regarding claim 10, The first and second doors are sliding (See Paragraphs [0033], Claim 15)
and are controlled by the control unit in response to the sensor. Regarding claims 11-12, a top cover 22
is disclosed in order to cover the work area and is also moved to the second work area. (See Paragraph
[0029]-[0031]) Regarding claim 13, Figs 1-5 show a laser for treating workpieces, a housing (as discussed in claim 1), a laser apparatus (110) and first and second work spaces. Regarding claim 14, Figs 3 and 4
shows the laser 110 operating in both workspaces with the closing device 115 closing each respective work spaces. Regarding claim 15, the laser 110 comprises a laser hear (See Abstract) for processing
workpieces in both areas. (See Paragraph [0010]) Regarding claim 16-17, it would have been obvious to
process metal workpieces as these are commonly machined by lasers.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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 at 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 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 4/3/2026
Prosecution Insights