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 .
DETAILED ACTION
This action is responsive to the application filed on 01/30/2024. Claims 18-25 are pending.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 11/09/2025 has been acknowledged. Currently claims 18-27 are pending.
The amendment overcame the claim objections and the 112(b) rejection.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 11/09/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Argument 1: Boling’s primary embodiment lacks a Galvo scanner. Boling’s Fig. 15 and 4 describes exchangeable probes and a Galvo-adjustable probe tip only as an alternative. Boling therefore teaches separate measurements with different probes rather than multiple angles scans in a single measurement. Boling does not teach, “superimposing” scans from different angles. Dong does not teach superimposition; the combination of these teachings is hindsight.
Argument 2: Galvo scanner with mirror adjustable about two axes; optical bench/frame linearly adjustable in or parallel to the longitudinal axis
Boling’s galvo-adjustable mirror (Fig. 15) does not include a frame accommodating an optical bench with an optical bench or frame adjustable at least linearly in or parallel to a longitudinal axis of the pipe; Boling fails to recognize that a 2-axis Galvo would provide a single-measurement 3D representation, and combining Nakamura’s 2D galvo teaching with Boling is hindsight.
Examiner response:
In response to argument 1, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that, Boling discloses both linear scanning embodiments and the use of a galvo-adjustable mirror in a probe alternative (Applicant cites Boling [0015], [0046] and figures). Those two teachings are complementary, not mutually exclusive. Boling explicitly contemplates (i) a measurement device configurable with exchangeable optical probes (FIG. 4) and (ii) a probe that includes a galvo-adjustable mirror (FIG. 15). A POSITA would understand that the probe with the galvo mirror is one of the selectable probe options for use in the linear-scanning system. It is routine engineering to use a disclosed probe option in the base system that is explicitly designed to accept exchangeable probes. Using the galvo-equipped probe in the linear-scanning configuration is therefore an obvious implementation of the teachings in Boling rather than a non-teachable alternative set apart from the base system.
Further, the claim language is met by Boling when the galvo-equipped probe is used together with the linear adjustment/linear scanning disclosed by Boling. Claim 18 recites scanning “at least a partial circumference of the internal thread during a linear adjustment of the optical system and/or during a rotation of the Galvo scanner at an angle to the optical axis in a plurality of scans with different angulations of light.” Boling discloses performing linear scans to acquire spatial information (see Boling’s teachings regarding linear scanning for surface measurement). Boling also discloses a galvo-adjustable mirror capable of scanning/steering the probe beam. The juxtaposition of these two known features (linear relative motion between probe and workpiece; and beam steering by a galvo mirror) would have been within routine implementation for a POSITA to achieve multiple angulations of illumination while performing a linear pass (or series of linear passes). In other words, it is not necessary that Boling separately narrate the exact phrase “scan during a linear adjustment with galvo rotation”; the combination is an obvious design choice given Boling’s separate disclosures.
Also, multiple angularly distinct scans and their combination (superimposition) are conventionally used in optical metrology to improve geometry capture and to form composite three-dimensional data sets. Superimposing or registering measurements from different viewing/illumination angles (for example, by point-cloud registration, pixel-image fusion, or surface normal/height integration) is a standard and routine data-processing step in optical measurement and is implicit in any method that teaches acquiring multiple directional measurements of the same feature. Where a reference (Boling) teaches acquiring scans from different angles (by exchangeable probes or by a steerable beam), and another reference (e.g., Dong or general optical metrology practice) teaches combining multiple measurements into a composite 3D representation, combining those teachings is within the ordinary skill of the art. The Office Action’s combination of teachings is therefore not based on impermissible hindsight but on routine practice and motivation: if multiple angle-dependent measurements are acquired, one would ordinarily align/combine (i.e., superimpose) those data sets to form a single representation for measurement and analysis.
Further, in response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
Applicant’s emphasis that Boling “requires a series of measurements with different probes” does not avoid the rejection. Boling’s explicit disclosure that multiple probe types can be used to acquire rotational and spectral information in seriatim (Applicant cites Boling [0046]) indicates a teaching to acquire different information from different optical geometries. That very teaching recognizes that multiple angular sampling is useful. A POSITA would reasonably conclude that the same data-acquisition goal could be achieved by: (a) exchanging probes and performing multiple linear scans (explicitly taught by Boling) or (b) substituting a steerable galvo mirror probe to achieve multiple incident angles without mechanical probe exchange (an obvious and predictable substitution given Boling’s probe options and galvo mirror teaching). The latter is exactly the claimed expedient to reduce measuring time and complexity, and is therefore an obvious improvement.
Dong (as cited in the Office Action) and other references in the record provide support that combining information from multiple angular measurements to produce a more complete 3D description is known in the art of non-contact optical metrology. Thus, the superimposition limitation is either inherent when a POSITA implements multi-angle data acquisition, or is rendered obvious by combining Boling with standard image/point-cloud registration and fusion techniques known in the field.
For the reasons above, Boling, alone in view of general metrology practice and in combination with Dong (and/or other cited references), either discloses or makes obvious: performing angularly distinct scans while translating the optical system linearly relative to the object; and combining (superimposing / registering) the plurality of scans to obtain a composite measurement.
The rejection is thus proper and maintained.
In response to applicant’s argument 2, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that Boling discloses a probe that includes a galvo-adjustable mirror (Applicant relies on Boling [0046] and Fig. 15). Nakamura discloses two-axis (2D) galvo scanners (Applicant acknowledges Nakamura’s teaching). It is routine for a POSITA to configure the galvo mirror described in Boling as a two-axis (2D) galvo scanner; doing so is a straightforward engineering choice to increase angular steering range and enable two-dimensional beam deflection. The modification would have been obvious where Nakamura already teaches such two-axis galvo devices. Combining Boling’s probe concept and Nakamura’s two-axis galvo is an obvious combination of known elements according to their established functions (steer light over two angular degrees of freedom).
The claim requires an optical bench/frame that is adjustable at least linearly in or parallel to a longitudinal axis of the metal pipe. Boling discloses embodiments in which the probe or measurement head is moved relative to the workpiece (i.e., linear scanning and system configurations that include positional stages and support structures). These teachings, taken together with the routine mechanical design practice of mounting an optical bench in an adjustable frame or on translation stages (which Boling already contemplates for linear scanning), render an adjustable frame/optical bench arrangement obvious. The addition of a frame or bench that allows linear adjustment in the pipe’s longitudinal direction is a conventional mechanical adaptation to accommodate internal inspection of tubular parts and to allow axial scanning.
Applicant asserts that Boling did not recognize the potential to obtain a 3D representation of a thread (including undercuts) in a single measurement using a two-axis galvo. However, the objective advantages of replacing probe exchange with a steerable 2D galvo (reduction of measurement time; ability to collect multiple incident angles in one run) are apparent and would have motivated a POSITA to adopt a 2D galvo in the probe. The combination is not hindsight: it is a predictable improvement to achieve the known goal of acquiring multi-angle data without mechanical probe exchange.
The Office Action’s reliance on Nakamura is therefore proper: Nakamura teaches practical 2D galvo implementations that solve the technical problem of steering a beam over two angular axes. Boling teaches the use of a galvo-adjustable mirror in the probe and contemplates linear scanning and exchangeable probe approaches to acquire angular diversity. A POSITA, seeking to streamline Boling’s concept and avoid multiple probe exchanges and repeated mechanical adjustments, would have been motivated to use the 2D galvo of Nakamura in Boling’s probe assembly and to mount that probe on a linearly adjustable bench/frame. The results would be a combined system that meets the limitations recited in claim 25.
Accordingly, combining Boling with Nakamura (and standard mechanical stage practice) supplies or renders obvious the claimed two-axis galvo mirror together with an optical bench/frame linearly adjustable in or parallel to the pipe axis.
The rejection is thus proper and maintained.
Further, to emphasize the fact the Obviousness rationale and motivation to combine is proper, it is respectfully pointed out to applicant that the record shows clear motivation to combine: Boling teaches that multiple illumination/collection geometries are useful for measuring complex/rotational geometries (exchangeable probes, FIG. 4). One clear solution to avoid probe exchange is to incorporate beam steering within a single probe; Nakamura/other galvo references teach multi-axis beam steering. Combining the two is a predictable substitution of known alternatives to achieve the desired objective (reduced measurement time and single-pass multi-angle data acquisition). The combination does not require inventive ingenuity beyond the skill of a POSITA in optical metrology and opto-mechanical system design.
The Applicant’s arguments that Boling “requires several linear adjustments with different probes” and that the Office’s combination is hindsight fail because they treat Boling’s modular probe concept as if it precludes a galvo-equipped probe being used in the same linear-scanning system. Boling’s disclosure of a probe with a galvo-adjustable mirror is an explicit invitation to use such a probe; it is not limited to a distinct system that cannot be integrated. The choice to integrate it into the linear-scanning arrangement is routine.
Further, for the purpose of clarification regarding the superimposition limitation, if the Applicant contends that “superimposing” requires a particular, non-conventional mathematical process not disclosed or suggested in the cited references, the Applicant must identify how the claim is limited to such a non-conventional/particular process. In the absence of such limiting claim language, “superimposing the measurement signals” is readily satisfied by conventional registration/fusion of multiple angle-dependent scans — a standard processing step of which the POSITA would be aware. Where claim language does not tie the step to a novel algorithm, the step is not restrictive in a way that avoids obviousness.
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.
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 18-19, 24 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boling (US 20220373323 A1) in view of Dong (WO 2020232041 A1) in further view of Wagener (DE 102014201531A1).
Regarding claim 18, Boling discloses a method for optical measurement of an internal thread (non-contact optical measurement device, abstract, various types of cylindrical geometries such as threaded holes may be imaged, paragraph [0053]), comprising: providing an optical system with an optical sensor (light sensor 120, figure 3); adjusting the optical system in a longitudinal axis of the bore or parallel to the longitudinal axis of the bore (the probe of the device is extendable via a linear stage for mapping lengthwise portions or features of the inner surface, paragraph [0033], figure 3 shows the prove scanning the inner surface, this would be movement along the longitudinal axis), or adjusting the metal pipe or the sleeve relative to the
optical system in the longitudinal axis or parallel to the longitudinal axis of the metal pipe or the sleeve while the optical system is stationary (the linear stage is provided as an example, but "a variety of techniques for achieving relative motion between the assembly 80 and inner surface 64" could be used, moving the object rather than the probe would be an obvious method of achieving the relative motion);
scanning at least a partial circumference of the internal thread during a linear adjustment of the optical system and/or during a rotation of the scanner at an angle to the optical axis (figure 3 shows the rotation of the scanner at an angle relative to the optical axis of the device, rotational and linear movements can be applied concurrently to perform a spiral inspection, paragraph [0033]) in a plurality of scans with different angulations of light (a variety of different angles of measurement light are used,
figure 4, including upward and downward to measure different geometric features, paragraph [0041]); and acquiring, storing, and/or processing measurement signals acquired by the optical sensor (processing device 272 generates a point cloud from rotational and spectral information, the processing device includes at least one processor and at least one memory/storage device, paragraph [0047], this
would be at least processing the measurement signals). While Boling does not specifically disclose a Galvo scanner in the primary embodiment, Boling
does teach an alternative probe setup that includes a Galvo scanner, which is arranged along an optical axis at a determined distance relative to an optical sensor (figure 15 shows a probe including scanning mirror 476, this would be arranged at some distance from the optical sensor along an optical axis as shown by figures 4 and 8, the probe mirror tip in this embodiment is galvo-adjustable, paragraph [0046]);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Boling with the optical probe configuration that includes a galvo scanner for the benefit of different optical probes being used together allowing for the measurement of complex geometries (paragraph [0046]).
While Boling does not specifically disclose measuring in a sleeve or in a sleeve end of a metal pipe, and superimposing the measurement signals of the plurality of scans, Boling does disclose the device being used to measure the interior surface of a variety of different types of holes and bores (paragraph [0010]), and the generation of point clouds of the surface of the object under test which would require some combination of individual measurements (paragraph [0047]).
Dong, in the same field of optical thread measurement, teaches a method for measuring an internal thread of a metal pipe (threaded surfaces of the pipes are inspected this can include internal threads, paragraphs [0002]-[0003], figure 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Boling with the use for measuring the internal thread of a pipe as taught by Dong for the benefit of ensuring the thread complies with thread standards to ensure integrity and safety of the coupling connection (Dong, paragraph [0003]).
Wagener, in the same field of optically measuring the surface of a cylindrical object, teaches superimposing the measurement signals of the plurality of scans (the results of multiple measurement runs are superimposed, paragraph [0021]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Boling with the superimposing of measurement signals of Wagener for the benefit of allowing all undercuts and the complete roughness profile of the object to be measured (Wagener, paragraph [0021]).
Regarding claim 19, Boling, Dong, and Wagener teach all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above.
Boling also discloses the method further comprising acquiring and/or showing a contour of the internal thread (a point cloud is generated in the form of an image, paragraph [0053], figures 9 and 10 show the point cloud image of an internal thread).
Regarding claim 24, Boling, Dong, and Wagener teach all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above.
Boling and Wagener do not specifically teach the method further comprising using the measurement signals acquired by the optical sensor to derive control commands for controlling a machine tool, which is designed to produce an internal thread in an end a metal pipe or in a sleeve by machining.
Dong, in the same field of optical thread measurement, teaches using the measurement signals acquired by the optical sensor to derive control commands for controlling a machine tool, which is
designed to produce an internal thread in an end a metal pipe or in a sleeve by machining ("the processor causes the apparatus 100 to analyze the measurement in real-time and feedback a defects coordinates back to the CNC machine", "the CNC machine can correct the threaded surface with defects using the measurement", paragraph [0037]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Boling with the measurement being used to control a machine tool of Dong, for the benefit of correcting defects in the threaded surface (Dong, paragraph [0037]).
As to claim 27 , having a Glavo scanner comprising a circular mirror pivotally mounted in tow cardan elements, examiner’s take official notice that it is common and known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a Glavo scanner that comprises a circular mirror pivotally mounted in tow cardan elements for the advantage of high speed, precise 2D laser beam screening, often achieving micron-level accuracy and superior performance. Also, their lightweight, compact, and low-cost design enables rapid, flexible, and efficient laser processing across large fields in industrial manufacturing.
21. Claims 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boling (US 20220373323 A1) in view of Dong (WO 2020232041 A1) in further view of Wagener (DE 102014201531 A1) in further view of Tobiason (US 20210333083 A1).
22. Regarding claim 20, Boling, Dong, and Wagener teach all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above.
43. While Boling does not specifically disclose the method further comprising self-centering of the optical axis within the metal pipe or within the sleeve, Boling appears to show the measurements being made with the probe centered in the bore hole (figure 2 shows the probe with the optical axis in the center of the hole, figure 9 shows a point cloud of collected images that appears to be centered).
44. Dong, in the same field of optical thread measurement, teaches centering the device within the metal pipe (centralizer 106, maintains the rod in a central position relative to the cylindrical member, paragraph [0024] figure 2).
45. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Boling with the centering of Dong, benefit of maintaining the concentricity alignment of the apparatus to the cylindrical member (Dong, paragraph [0023]).
46. Dong does not specifically teach centering the optical axis of the device within the pipe.
47. Tobiason, in the same field of optical measurement of a surface, teaches that misalignment of the optical axis of the measurement pen in relation to the center of the cylinder being measured leading to errors in the measurement (paragraph [0091]).
48. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Boling in view of Dong with the centering of the device being performed to keep the optical axis of the measurement probe in the center of the cylindrical object being measured as taught by Tobiason for the benefit of reducing the measurement error (Tobiason, paragraphs [0090]-[0091]).
49. Regarding claim 22, Boling, Dong, and Wagener teach all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above.
50. Boling, Dong, and Wagener do not specifically teach the method further comprising calibrating the optical sensor with a reference component.
Tobiason, in the same field of optical measurement of a surface, teaches calibrating the optical sensor with a reference component (cylindrical and spherical calibration objects are used, abstract, calibration data stored in memory can be used to adjust the measurement distance determined by the sensor, paragraph [0051]).
51. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Boling with the calibration of Tobiason for the benefit of using calibration data to adjust measurement distances (paragraph [0051]).
52. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boling (US 20220373323 A1) in view of Dong (WO 2020232041 A1) in further view of Wagener (DE 102014201531 A1) in further view of Javaheri (US 20190107785 A1).
53. Regarding claim 21, Boling, Dong, and Wagener teach all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above.
54. Boling, Dong, and Wagener do not specifically teach the method further comprising darkcalibrating the optical sensor.
55. Javaheri, in the same field of optical metrology, teaches dark calibrating the optical sensor (calibration steps may include dark current offset, paragraph [0075]).
56. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Boling with the dark calibration of the sensor of Javaheri for the benefit of addressing errors in the sensors (Javaheri, paragraph [0075]).
57. Claim 23 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boling (US 20220373323 A1) in view of Dong (WO 2020232041 A1) in further view of Wagener (DE 102014201531 A1) in further view of Merrifield (US 20200238468 A1).
58. Regarding claim 23, Boling, Dong, and Wagener teach all the elements of claim 18 as outlined above.
59. Boling, Dong, and Wagener do not specifically teach the method further comprising recognizing contamination by comparing light intensity signals acquired by the optical sensor.
60. Merrifield, in the same field of non-contact optical measurement, teaches recognizing contamination by comparing light intensity signals acquired by the optical sensor (the method may include a step of adjusting for variation in the intensity of light received at the receiver, variations can be caused by contamination of components of the receiver and/or transmitter that are in the optical path, paragraph [0035]).
61. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of Boling with the recognition of contamination by comparing light intensity of Merrifield for the benefit of compensating for variations in the intensity of the light (Merrifield, paragraph [0035]).
62. Claim 25 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Boling (US 20220373323 A1) in view of Nakamura (US 20180299260 A1) in further view of Edmond Optics (NPL, available on or before 2019 as evidenced by MR-E-2 Development Kit Operation Manual).
63. Regarding claim 25, Boling discloses an arrangement for optical measurement of an internal thread in a sleeve end of a metal pipe (non-contact optical measurement device, abstract, various types of cylindrical geometries such as threaded holes may be imaged, paragraph [0053], the use of the device to measure a thread in a pipe or sleeve would be an intended use of the device and the device of Boling would be capable of performing this use, see MPEP 2115), comprising a confocal optical sensor (sensor 174, figure 4, the sensor can be a chromatic confocal sensor,paragraph [0035]);
a mirror (mirror tip to direct measurement light at 90 degrees, paragraph [0041]), arranged at a determined distance from the confocal optical sensor along an optical axis on an optical bench (mirror tip is located at the distal end of the probe, paragraph [0041], this would be at some determined distance from the sensor 174, figure 4, the probe tip would be some form of optical bench);
64. a controller for acquiring and/or storing and/or evaluating measurement signal recorded by the confocal optical sensor (processing device 272 generates an image or point cloud of a surface based on position and spectral information, this includes at least one processor and at least one memory/storage device, paragraph [0047]); and
a frame that accommodates the optical bench, wherein the optical bench and/or the frame are adjustable at least linearly or in parallel to a longitudinal axis of the metal pipe (the device can be installed in a five-axis metrology platform that enables six degrees of freedom motion, paragraph [0052], this would allow for movement parallel to the longitudinal axis of the pipe).
65. While Boling does not specifically disclose a galvo scanner with a mirror that is adjustable about two axes, and designed for optically scanning the internal thread, Boling does disclose a probe with a galvo-adjustable mirror that is used for scanning (paragraph [0046], figure 15) and a variety of probe tips that provide different angles of measurement light (figure 4).
66. Nakamura, in the same field of optical measurement of a surface, teaches a 2D galvano-scanner (the illumination light section can use an existing scanning device such as a galvano-scanner, paragraph [0029], figure 2 shows this as a 2D scanner) that is designed for optically scanning (paragraph [0022]).
67. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Boling with the 2D galvano-scanner of Nakamura for the benefit of performing a scanning motion with the light over the surface (Nakamua, paragraph [0022]).
68. While Nakamura does not specifically teach scanning an internal thread, this would be an intended use of the device and the device of Boling in view of Nakamura would be capable of performing this use (see MPEP 2115).
69. Nakamura does not specifically teach the galvo scanner having a single mirror that is adjustable about two axes.
70. Edmond optics, in the related field of galvo scanners, teaches a single mirror two axis galvanometer (Optotune Fast Steering Mirror, includes a dual axis mirror).
71. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, prior to the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the device of Boling in view of Nakamura with the galvanometer of Edmond Optics for the benefit of a larger optical scanning range (Edmond Optics).
72. As to claim 26 , having a Glavo scanner comprising a circular mirror pivotally mounted in tow cardan elements, examiner’s take official notice that it is common and known in the art. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include a Glavo scanner that comprises a circular mirror pivotally mounted in tow cardan elements for the advantage of high speed, precise 2D laser beam screening, often achieving micron-level accuracy and superior performance. Also, their lightweight, compact, and low-cost design enables rapid, flexible, and efficient laser processing across large fields in industrial manufacturing.
Conclusion
73 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 TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm.
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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)2725560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877