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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after March 12, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-2, and 7-15 remain pending in the application. Claims 3-6 are canceled by the applicant. Claims 12-15 remain withdrawn. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed March 12, 2026 have been fully considered, but they are not fully persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The Rejection of Claims 2-5 and 8 under 112b should be withdrawn on the basis that Claims 4 and 5 have been canceled and Claim 8 has been amended: The examiner agrees. The originally set forth 112b rejection is subsequently withdrawn.
The Prior art of Shah as modified by Paganelli does not teach the limitations of the independent claim as amended: Respectfully, this argument is not found to be persuasive. The examiner does not agree that the amendments overcome the previously cited prior art. Shah, as modified by Paganelli teaches the grouping of pixels based on essentially the same characteristic and processing by means of groups. As set forth in previous correspondence, Shah discloses the grouping of pixels into levels or groups with similar characteristics (The prior art teaches that “A pixel may correspond to a particular grayscale level” Col 14 Line 43 and organized accordingly in preferable “16 levels” or groups of gray wherein each group is a different level of gray-level),and processing them in a group by group manner (the prior art further teachers that engraving occurs in a group by group manner wherein a first imaging pass produces “2-4 levels of gray” consecutively Col 24 line 33 and additional passes correspond to additional levels of gray) with a corresponding to a “set of machining parameters (“Machined depth” Col 15 Line 52-42). The examiner submits that the “fixed” of the machining parameters is not claimed, although argued by the applicant. In response to the applicant’s amendments and arguments, a revised rejection is provided below.
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.
Claim 1 is 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. The claim, as amended presents the limitation of “each group having essentially the same characteristic.”
The term “essentially” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “essentially” 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.
The remaining claims are rejected due to their dependence on Claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-2 and 6-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Shah (US 8,405,885 B2) in view of Paganelli (US8,941,027 B2):
Regarding Claim 1: Shah teaches a method for engraving a texture on a physical object by a laser beam emitted (“ methods for providing laser texturing of solid substrates” Abstract) by a laser head (“laser system” Col 17 Line 53 Figure 6 Element 104 ) through a galvanometer (“galvanometer” Col 20 Line 55) integrated in a machine tool (“scan head that is moved with respect to the target substrate” Col 22 Line 32-36 ), comprising: providing an image representing the texture (the prior art teaches “methods disclosed herein may be used to substantially replicate images from, for example, photographs, pictures, paintings, drawings, portraits, illustrations, and/or any work of artistic expression”), wherein the image includes a plurality of pixels (“the digitized image may comprise a plurality of pixels” Col 14 Line 38-39), each pixel having a given characteristic chosen from the group of grey scale (The prior art teaches that “A pixel may correspond to a particular grayscale level” Col 14 Line 43 and organized accordingly in preferable “16 levels” or groups of gray wherein each group is a different level of gray-level), positional information (the prior art further teaches that the “image pixel” corresponds to a “region” which corresponds to a “bit map pixel” Col 10 Lines 48-51 which indicates the positional information of the pixel)and color information (organization of gray-scale level a process which also applies to the levels of an RGBA image in terms of levels and appropriate grouping); defining a plurality of groups (“the pixels may be organized in any other suitable structured or random array or groupings” Col 14 Line 40-41) of the pixels in accordance with at least one characteristic of the pixels, each group having essentially the same characteristic (“A pixel may correspond to a particular grayscale level” Col 14 Line 43 and organized accordingly in preferable “16 levels” or groups of gray); assigning to each group of the pixels a set of machining parameters (the prior art further teaches that the groups correspond to different “machined depth” Col 15 Line 52-54); emitting the laser beam on the physical object to engrave the texture on the surface of the object (“laser system…output[s] ultrashort pulses” Col 14 Line 55), wherein the set of machining parameter is applied to engrave the corresponding group of pixels on the physical object (the laser is outputted to produce the desired “machined depth” Col 15 Line 52-54 associated with the pixel groups which in turn produces the “engrave” Col 14 Line 34 image).
Shah teaches that the machine tool (“scan head that is moved with respect to the target substrate” Col 22 Line 32-36) can be a “multi-axis system” Col 22 Line 34-35
Shah does not teach that the machine tool is a wherein the laser head is movable at least in three axes (X, Y, Z,)
However, Paganelli does teach a system for machining a workpiece by a laser beam (Abstract) where in the laser head (“optical output head” Col 4 Line 24) is movable in at least three axes (operates on “rotary and linear axes X, Y, Z, B and C” Col 3 Line 28)
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Shah with the 5-axis machining tool of Paganelli in order to “treat a workpiece of any 3D geometry [which requires] a 5-axis machine” (Col 1 Line 35-37)
Regarding Claim 2: Shah as modified by Paganelli further teaches that at least two groups of pixels are determined (“A pixel may correspond to a particular grayscale level” Col 14 Line 43 and organized accordingly in preferable “16 levels” or groups of gray) and for each group a set of machining parameters is assigned (the prior art further teaches that the groups correspond to different “machined depth” Col 15 Line 52-54).
Regarding Claim 7: Shah as modified by Paganelli further teaches that the type of the set of machining parameters (“optical energy” Col 9) for at least two groups of the pixels are different (the prior art teaches that the “total amount of optical energy delivered to different regions of the surface of the substrate based on the desired grayscale” which corresponds to the “16 levels” or groups of gray wherein each group is a different level of gray-level Col 9 Lines 38-44)
Regarding Claim 8: Shah as modified by Paganelli further teaches that the laser machining parameter is one or more of the following: laser source, laser impact density, number of impacts, laser impact overlapping, hatching distance, laser spot size, laser beam shaping parameters including top hat and Gaussian, laser beam polarization parameter, laser wavelength, laser power, laser pulse repetition rate, laser pulse duration and laser burst mode parameters (The prior art teaches that “The laser irradiation may be adjusted so that different regions of the surface have different surface roughness. For example, the density of surface features may be increased in regions where lower light reflectivity is desired. Alternatively, or additionally, the laser irradiation may be adjusted to generate variations in the distribution of surface feature sizes, shapes, depths, or any other suitable property” Col 2 Lines16-24 which reads on the limitation of the claim)
Regarding Claim 9: Shah as modified by Paganelli further teaches that the engraving is conducted in a group- by-group manner, in which all pixels of a first group are machined and then all pixels of a second group are machined (the prior art further teachers that engraving occurs in a group by group manner wherein a first imaging pass produces “2-4 levels of gray” consecutively Col 24 line 33 and additional passes correspond to additional levels of gray) , in particular engraving the pixels of at least one group is conducted by repositioning at least once the laser head (the prior art further teaches that the “head is moved with respect to the target substrate” Col 22 Line 35).
Regarding Claim 10: Shah as modified by Paganelli further teaches that the surface of the object can be divided into a plurality of patches (plurality of “regions” abstract) and the engraving is conducted in a patch-by-patch manner (the prior art further teaches that the engraving is conducted in a patch-by-patch manner in that “The ultrafast pulse train and the substrate may be scanned with respect to each other to provide different optical energies to different regions of the substrate “ Abstract) , in particular at least for one patch the machining parameters must be adapted in accordance to the assigned set of machining parameter to the corresponding groups (“optical energies” abstract are varied according to the region).
Regarding Claim 11. Shah as modified by Paganelli further teaches the engraving is conducted in a combination of the group-by-group manner (the prior art further teachers that engraving occurs in a group by group manner wherein a first imaging pass produces “2-4 levels of gray” consecutively Col 24 line 33 and additional passes correspond to additional levels of gray)and the patch-by-patch manner (the prior art further teaches that the engraving is conducted in a patch-by-patch manner in that “The ultrafast pulse train and the substrate may be scanned with respect to each other to provide different optical energies to different regions of the substrate “ Abstract).
Conclusion
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 SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights