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 and/or arguments submitted on 05/06/2026 is/are being considered by the examiner.
Claims 1-7 are pending:
Claims 7 are withdrawn
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I in the reply filed on 05/06/2026 is acknowledged.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim 7 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected Group, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 05/06/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
No information disclosure statement(s) (IDS) was submitted.
Claim Interpretation - Language
Language and/or terms in the claims are interpreted as follows:
Terms within parentheses in claim do not limit claim scope, please see MPEP 608.01(m.)
Terms such as left/right/rear/front are merely a naming convention and do not have particular patentable weight, similar to such terms as first/second. Left/right are a matter of perspective, and as such are patentably interchangeable.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112(f)
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.
“by means of a fixing support” in claim 4
Corresponding structure
None
Or equivalents
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:
“femtosecond laser device” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Source of a femtosecond laser beam, as informed by Para26/13
Or equivalents
“optical transmission module” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
a beam expander (20), a diaphragm (21), a wave plate (22), a first reflector (23), a second reflector (24), a third reflector (25), and a movable focus lens (26), as informed by Claim 2 and Para7
Or equivalents
“optical platform” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
None
Or equivalents
“femtosecond laser processing head” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
Scanning galvanometer module 51, fourth reflector 52, a fifth reflector 53, a laser focus position calibration module 54, and a visual imaging module 55, as informed by Para28
Or equivalents
“central processing unit” in claim 1
Corresponding structure
None
Or equivalents
“scanning galvanometer module” in claim 3
Corresponding structure
First swing motor, second swing motor, and a dynamic focus control unit, as informed by Para11 and Fig6
Or equivalents
“laser focus position calibration module” in claim 3
Corresponding structure
Discussed laser positioning method of alignment to red light, as informed by Para28/30/32/39
Or equivalents
“visual imaging module” in claim 3
Corresponding structure
Charge coupled device (CCD) camera, as informed by Para9/29
Or equivalents
“dynamic focus control unit” in claim 6
Corresponding structure
None
Or equivalents
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.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“by means of the synergy of …” in claim 1.
See 35 USC 112b section below, the instant limitation is being read as an improper attempt at constructing a functional limitation. The office presumes that the instant issue is caused due to translation into English.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
Claim Objections
Claims are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1
Each claim element or step of the claim should be separated by a line indentation. See MPEP 608.01(i).
Please see the provided break-down in the art section below for an example.
Amend each new line with a comma, semicolon, or colon as consistent with standard US practice to improve clarity.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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 1-6 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
L14-18, “laser scanning processing is completed by means of the synergy of the five-axis mobile platform (4) and a scanning galvanometer in the femtosecond laser processing head (5) under control of the central processing unit.” (office added underlining for emphasis) renders the claim indefinite, as the metes and bounds of the claim are unknown, as it is unknown if the scope of the claim limitation is 1) a functional limitation, 2) a possible method step due to the active verb usage of “laser scanning processing is completed by …”, 3) a question of if an interpretation under 35 USC 112f is invoked, 4) if “the synergy” is capable of providing its own antecedent basis, 5) additional possible interpretation not explicitly indicated herein.
For the purpose of applying art, the office will read the instant limitation as a functional limitation along the lines of the following possible claim construction:
“ the strengthening device, including the five-axis mobile platform [[and]]with a scanning galvanometer in the femtosecond laser processing head under control of the central processing unit, is capable of laser scanning processing.”
Claims dependent on a rejected claim are rejected based on dependency
35 USC 112(f) Invoked Issues
Claim 1-6 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph, because the claim purports to invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, but fails to recite a combination of elements as required by that statutory provision and thus cannot rely on the specification to provide the structure, material or acts to support the claimed function. As such, the claim recites a function that has no limits and covers every conceivable means for achieving the stated function, while the specification discloses at most only those means known to the inventor. Accordingly, the disclosure is not commensurate with the scope of the claim.
The recitations of:
Claim 4 “by means of a fixing support”; Claim 1 “optical platform”, “central processing unit”; Claim 6 “dynamic focus control unit”; Claim 3 “scanning galvanometer module”;
Each fails to provide the corresponding structure to perform the claimed function.
The office notes that while “scanning galvanometer module” of Claim 3 does partially provide corresponding structure, the indicated corresponding structure include reliance upon the “dynamic focus control unit”, of Claim 6, which itself fails to provide corresponding support and therefore the “dynamic focus control unit” cannot be structural support itself for the “scanning galvanometer module”.
Claims dependent on an indicated rejected claim are rejected based on dependency.
The claim limitation of Claims 1-6 indicated below 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. Therefore, the claim 1-6 is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
The recitations of:
Claim 4 “by means of a fixing support”; Claim 1 “optical platform”, “central processing unit”; Claim 6 “dynamic focus control unit”; Claim 3 “scanning galvanometer module”;
Each fails to provide the corresponding structure to perform the claimed function.
The office notes that while “scanning galvanometer module” of Claim 3 does partially provide corresponding structure, the indicated corresponding structure include reliance upon the “dynamic focus control unit”, of Claim 6, which itself fails to provide corresponding support and therefore the “dynamic focus control unit” cannot be structural support itself for the “scanning galvanometer module”.
Claims dependent on an indicated rejected claim are rejected based on dependency.
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 § 102
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 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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Liu (CN 113 427 134).
Claim 1
Liu discloses:
“A strengthening device for improving fatigue, wear and corrosion performance of metals, comprising
a femtosecond laser device (Fig1-4, femtosecond laser 2), an optical transmission module (best seen Fig1/2, femtosecond laser system e), an optical platform (best seen Fig3, marble base 21 is physical platform for optical laser system e/2), a five-axis mobile platform (Abstract; best seen Fig1/3, five-axis numerical control machine; see comparison below of Applicant Fig1 and Liu Fig3), a femtosecond laser processing head (best seen Fig1, zoom view of combination of parts vision measuring system c, galvanometer scanning system b, beam stabilizing system d), and a central processing unit (control computer 1),
wherein
the optical platform (Fig3, marble base 21) is fixedly connected to a rear side face of the five-axis mobile platform (Fig3, marble base 21 is located to the rear of the system), the femtosecond laser device (femtosecond laser 2) is fixedly connected to a left side of an upper surface of the optical platform (Fig3, femtosecond laser 2 mounted to marble base 21 on an upper and first side surface),
the optical transmission module (laser system e) is mounted on a right side of the upper surface of the optical platform (Fig3, laser system e is mounted to marble base 21 on upper and second side surface),
the five-axis mobile platform (Fig3, five-axis numerical control machine) employs a single-column structure (Fig3, single vertical column of reference character 18), two linear axes X/Y (Fig3, X/Y axis bed that holds five-axis numerical control machine tool a) and two rotating axes A/Z form a carrying platform (best seen Fig4, five-axis tool a drives/rotates the work part 22; SpecQuote11), the femtosecond laser processing head is mounted on a Z-axis saddle of the five-axis mobile platform (best seen Fig1, zoom view of combination of parts vision measuring system c, galvanometer scanning system b, beam stabilizing system d),
a specimen (best seen Fig4, work part 22) to be processed is arranged below the femtosecond laser processing head (relative arrangement best seen Fig4, SpecQuote11), and
laser scanning processing (functional limitation. SpecQuote12) is completed by means of the synergy of the five-axis mobile platform (best seen Fig1/3, five-axis numerical control machine) and a scanning galvanometer (Fig1/3/4, galvanometer scanning head 3 of galvanometer scanning system b) in the femtosecond laser processing head (relative arrangement best seen Fig1/3/4) under control of the central processing unit (Fig1, control 1 controls galvanometer scanning system b).”
PNG
media_image1.png
311
406
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
418
512
media_image2.png
Greyscale
SpecQuote11: Paragraph starting with: “As shown in FIG. 4, … ”
SpecQuote12: “scanning the surface of the workpiece by the galvanometer scanning system;”
Claim 2
Liu discloses:
“The strengthening device for improving fatigue, wear and corrosion performance of metals according to claim 1, wherein
the optical transmission module (best seen Fig1/2, femtosecond laser system e) comprises a beam expander (expander 9), a diaphragm (diaphragm 11), a wave plate (wave plate 12), a first reflector (first reflector 10), a second reflector (second reflector 14), a third reflector (third reflector 15), and a movable focus lens (system integrated dynamic focusing lens 4, SpecQuote21).”
SpecQuote21: “As shown in FIG. 2, the femtosecond laser system e comprises a marble base 21, the base is provided with a femtosecond laser 2, beam expander 9, the first stage reflector 10, diaphragm 11, 1/4 wave plate 12, the second stage reflector 14; power detection device 13 and the third-stage reflector 15; the fourth-stage reflector 16 is installed on the Z-direction upright post base; the fifth-stage reflector 17 is installed on the Z-axis supporting plate seat 19; the laser beam expanding and filtering through the light path transmission system; quasi-straight and front three-stage reflector incident to the fifth-axis machine tool a of the Z-direction upright post bottom of the fourth-stage reflector 16, through the fifth-stage reflector 17 on the Z-axis plate seat 19 incident to the dynamic focusing lens 4 of the galvanometer scanning system b, movement of the dynamic focusing lens 4 can realize the movement of the laser focus Z-direction.”
Claim 3
Liu discloses:
“The strengthening device for improving fatigue, wear and corrosion performance of metals according to claim 1, wherein
a scanning galvanometer module (best seen Fig1, galvanometer scanning system b; SpecQuote31), a fourth reflector (fourth reflector 16), a fifth reflector (fifth reflector 17), a laser focus position calibration module (function of the integrated vision measuring system c with the main control 1; SpecQuote32), and a visual imaging module (best seen Fig1/3, vision measuring system c) are integrated inside the femtosecond laser processing head (5).”
SpecQuote31: “As shown in FIG. 2, the femtosecond laser system e comprises a marble base 21, the base is provided with a femtosecond laser 2, beam expander 9, the first stage reflector 10, diaphragm 11, 1/4 wave plate 12, the second stage reflector 14; power detection device 13 and the third-stage reflector 15; the fourth-stage reflector 16 is installed on the Z-direction upright post base; the fifth-stage reflector 17 is installed on the Z-axis supporting plate seat 19; the laser beam expanding and filtering through the light path transmission system; quasi-straight and front three-stage reflector incident to the fifth-axis machine tool a of the Z-direction upright post bottom of the fourth-stage reflector 16, through the fifth-stage reflector 17 on the Z-axis plate seat 19 incident to the dynamic focusing lens 4 of the galvanometer scanning system b, movement of the dynamic focusing lens 4 can realize the movement of the laser focus Z-direction.”
SpecQuote32: “As shown in FIG. 3, the in situ vision measuring system c according to China publication number CN 109903342 A based on laser in situ processing equipment and method of scanning galvanometer composed of a first industrial CCD camera 6 and galvanometer scanning system b; wherein the first industrial CCD camera 6 is installed on the dynamic focusing module 4 through the CCD adapter 5; the scanning data of the first industrial camera 6 is transmitted to the industrial personal computer 1 through the EtherCAT Ethernet; the error of the workpiece three-dimensional point cloud model and the work piece pose is obtained by the optical electromechanical cooperative control software realizing the original position measurement on the laser processing equipment; using five-axis numerical control machine tool a to correct workpiece pose, without special clamp to realize the space precise location of complex curved surface workpiece.”
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 113 427 134), in view of Suh (US 7,423,236).
Claim 4
Liu discloses:
“The strengthening device for improving fatigue, wear and corrosion performance of metals according to claim 3, wherein
the visual imaging module (vision measuring system c) comprises a charge coupled device (CCD) camera (first industrial CCD camera 6),
…”
Liu is silent to the particular structure and arrangement of the CCD camera, and is silent to a filter selection for the arrangement.
Suh teaches (Fig6/5) that it is known in the art to arrange a CCD camera 601 with a telecentric lens 602 with a filter 603 in a fixed arrangement including a filter mounting fixture 604. Suh further teaches (C2L60-C3L8) that the application of a band-pass filter is known in the art and is known to be selected when the arrangement is interested in optical detection when the target is within a particular wavelength(s), as opposed to a Neutral Density (ND) filter as applied in Fig6/5 for the particular application of Suh.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a particular CCD camera form, as Liu is silent to particular features of the first CCD camera beyond that the CCD camera captures data about the working laser beam, and Suh teaches that it is known in the art to arrange a CCD camera with a telecentric lens with a filter in a fixed arrangement including a filter mounting fixture, and Suh further teaches that a band-pass filter is a known in the art selection for an application where the optical detection is directed towards a target with a particular wavelength – such as in the arrangement of Liu where the first CCD camera optically targets the working laser with a known wavelength, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Liu with a working and known in the art CCD camera arrangement with a telecentric lens and band-pass filter fixture mounting as taught by Suh.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 113 427 134), in view of Xin (CN 114 131 203).
Claim 5
Liu discloses:
“The strengthening device for improving fatigue, wear and corrosion performance of metals according to claim 3, wherein
the fourth reflector (fourth reflector 16) transmits an annular light source of the fifth reflector (laser beam transmitted from fourth reflector 16 to fifth reflector 17; SpecQuote31), and
the fourth reflector refracts laser (laser beam transmitted from fourth reflector 16 to fifth reflector 17; SpecQuote31) …”
Liu is silent to the wavelength of the laser.
Xin teaches (Abstract) that a laser wavelength of 1030 nm is a known laser wavelength to select for an application that provides the advantage of surface hardening to reduce thermal stress cracking and improved corrosion resistance.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a laser wavelength for the arrangement of Liu, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to practice the disclosure of Liu, and Xin teaches that a laser wavelength of 1030 nm is a known laser wavelength to select for an application that provides the advantage of surface hardening to reduce thermal stress cracking and improved corrosion resistance, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing Liu with a working and known in the art laser wavelength as taught by Xin that further provides the advantage of surface hardening to reduce thermal stress cracking and improved corrosion resistance.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Liu (CN 113 427 134), in view of Albelo (US 11,491,578).
Claim 6
Liu discloses:
“The strengthening device for improving fatigue, wear and corrosion performance of metals according to claim 3, wherein
the scanning galvanometer module (galvanometer scanning system b) comprises … , and a dynamic focus control unit (Fig1, control 1 controls full system).”
Liu does not explicitly indicate that the two dimensional galvanometer uses motors in order to achieve the disclosed axis adjustment.
Liu SpecQuote61: “the galvanometer scanning system comprises a two-dimensional galvanometer scanning head”
Albelo teaches (C5L40-58, Fig1) that it is known in the art for a two-axis galvanometer scanner 22 to have a separate motor 16/24 for each of the X/Y axis adjustments of the galvanometer.
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to look to the prior art to select a known and working internal axis adjustment arrangement for the system of Liu, as one of ordinary skill in the art would have to make such a selection in order to actually practice the two-axis galvanometer of the disclosure of Liu, and Albelo teaches that it is known in the art for a two-axis galvanometer scanner to have a separate motors for each of the X/Y axis adjustments of the galvanometer, and the resulting arrangement has the reasonable expectation of successfully providing the arrangement of Liu with a working and known in the art two-axis adjustment for a two-axis galvanometer as taught by Albelo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 6,122,564 to Koch: Fig4, CCD camera arrangement
CN 109 903 342 to Mei: incorporated by reference to Liu above
CN 113 427 135 to Cui: Fig1, similar laser arrangement on multi-axis base
WO 2022/218451 from Martan: Fig1, similar generic laser arrangement
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOHN HUNTER JR whose telephone number is (571)272-5093. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 9-18.
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.
/JOHN S HUNTER, JR/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights