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
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that 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: “energy distribution device” in claims 1 and 15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-7, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Scheidiger et al. (DE102019122064), see US202200407895 for English translation and paragraph references. Regarding claim 1, Scheidiger et al. discloses a laser machining head 100 for machining a workpiece 12 by a laser beam 15, comprising: a scanning device 24 for deflecting the laser beam 15 on the workpiece 12 (para. [0062]); a housing 37 in which the scanning device 24 is arranged; and at least one overheat protection device 28, configured to protect the housing 37 from overheating fig. 3, (para. [0057]), wherein the overheat protection device comprises an energy distribution device for distributing incident radiation energy and/or a heat sink for dissipating heat (paragraphs [0058] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 2, Scheidiger et al. discloses that the at least one overheat protection device 28 comprises an active overheat protection device with a cooling channel for conducting a coolant (water), and the cooling channel is formed in a wall of the housing (paragraphs [0058] and [0059]).
Regarding claim 3, Scheidiger et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 28 is arranged in the housing 37 and/or outside a beam path of the laser beam and/or on an inner surface of the housing 37 and/or on at least one element arranged in the housing 37, and/or the overheat protection device 28 forms part of the housing 37 and/or is formed so as to be integrated with the housing 37.
Regarding claim 4, Scheidiger et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 28 is arranged at a predetermined critical position in the housing 37, at which back reflections of the laser beam and/or laser radiation propagating outside of a beam path of the laser beam are incident.
Regarding claim 5, Scheidiger et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 28 is arranged next to an optical element (40a,40b,40c,40d) arranged in the housing 37 and/or formed on a holder of an optical element arranged in the housing 37 and/or forms a part of a holder of an optical element (paragraph [0061]).
Regarding claim 6, Scheidiger et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 28 is arranged in the housing 37 in such a way that back reflections of the laser beam from at least one optical element (40a,40b,40c,40d) arranged in the housing 37, in particular from an aperture stop, an optical element, an F-theta optics, a mirror, a beam splitter, and/or a protective glass, hit the overheat protection device (Fig. 3).
Regarding claim 7, Scheidiger et al. discloses that the housing 37 includes an entry port (Fig. 3) for coupling the laser beam 15 into the laser machining head and a collimating optics (Fig. 3), and the overheat protection device 28 is arranged between the entry port and the collimating optics (Fig.3).
Regarding claim 11, Scheidiger et al. discloses that the overheat protection device comprises a heat sink for dissipating absorbed heat; and the heat sink comprises a cooling element which has both a first surface arranged in the housing for absorbing heat and a second surface arranged on an outside of the housing for dissipating the absorbed heat.
Regarding claim 14, Scheidiger et al. discloses that at least part of an inner surface of the housing and/or at least part of a surface of an element arranged in the housing is configured to be partially reflective (paragraph [0054] and [0056]).
Claims 1-7, 11, and 15-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gesuita et al. (20150144607) Regarding claims 1 and 15, Gesuita et al. discloses a laser machining head for machining a workpiece by a laser beam, comprising: a housing 4 defining an optics space; and at least one passive overheat protection device 12,13, configured to protect the housing 4 and/or elements arranged in the housing from overheating, wherein the overheat protection device 12,13 comprises an energy distribution device 6,11 for distributing incident radiation energy and/or a heat sink for dissipating heat. See paragraphs [0038], [0044], [0049], and [0057])
Regarding claims 2 and 16, Gesuita et al. discloses an active overheat protection device 10 with a cooling channel 14 for conducting a coolant (air), said cooling channel 14 being formed in a wall of the housing (cooling unit 10 fill opening 17 to become a wall of the housing 4).
Regarding claims 3 and 17, Gesuita et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 12,13 is arranged in the housing 4 and/or outside a beam path of the laser beam and/or on an inner surface of the housing 4 and/or on at least one element arranged in the housing 4, and/or the overheat protection device 12,13 forms part of the housing 4 and/or is formed so as to be integrated with the housing 4.
Regarding claims 4 and 18, Gesuita et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 12,13 is arranged at a predetermined critical position in the housing 4, at which back reflections of the laser beam and/or laser radiation propagating outside of a beam path of the laser beam are incident.
Regarding claims 5 and 19, Gesuita et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 12,13 is arranged next to an optical element 5 arranged in the housing 4 and/or formed on a holder of an optical element 5 arranged in the housing 4 and/or forms a part of a holder of an optical element 5.
Regarding claims 6 and 20, Gesuita et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 12,13 is arranged in the housing in such a way that back reflections of the laser beam from at least one optical element 5 arranged in the housing 4, in particular from an aperture stop, an optical element 5, an F-theta optics, a mirror, a beam splitter, and/or a protective glass, hit the overheat protection device 12,13.
Regarding claim 7, Gesuita et al. discloses that the housing 4 includes an entry port (Fig. 1) for coupling the laser beam into the laser machining head and a collimating optics (Fig. 1), and the overheat protection device 12,13 is arranged between the entry port and the collimating optics (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 11, Gesuita et al. discloses that the overheat protection device 12,13 comprises a heat sink for dissipating absorbed heat; and the heat sink comprises a cooling element which has both a first surface 16 arranged in the housing for absorbing heat and a second surface 12b arranged on an outside of the housing 4 for dissipating the absorbed heat.
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.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gesuita et al., as applied to claim 1 above. Gesuita et al. discloses all of the claimed subject matter further including that (claim 12) the overheat protection device comprises a heat sink for dissipating absorbed heat; the heat sink comprises a solid piece of metal 12,16 attached to the housing 4 and covering a part of the inner surface thereof or forming part of the housing 4, wherein (claim 13) the solid piece of metal 16,12 consists of copper and/or aluminum and/or copper alloys and/or aluminum alloys and/or a material with a thermal conductivity greater than 50 W/m*K , in particular greater than 100 W/m*K (paragraphs [0053] - [0057]). Gesuita et al. does not disclose the thickness of the solid piece of metal being more than 5mm, preferably more than 10mm.
Since the applicant has not disclosed that having thickness of more than 5mm, preferably more than 10mm solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose above the fact that it matches the thickness of the housing and it appears that the solid piece of metal of Gesuita et al. would perform equally well with a thickness of more than 5mm, preferably more than 10mm as claimed by applicant, it would have been an obvious matter of engineering expedience to further modify solid piece of metal of Gesuita et al. to have by a thickness of more than 5mm, preferably more than 10mm as claimed for the purposes of matching the thickness of the housing.
Prior Art
Prior art made of record but not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure for showing other laser machining heads for machining workpieces by a laser beam with scanning devices, housings, and overheat protection devices.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The improvements comprise that (claim 8) the overheat protection device comprises an energy distribution device for distributing incident radiation energy; and the energy distribution device comprises a convex structure and (claim 10) the overheat protection device comprises an energy distribution device for distributing incident radiation energy; and the energy distribution device comprises a dispersion element for attenuating laser pulses and/or laser radiation with a broadband spectrum.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communication from the examiner should be directed to Thomas Lazo whose telephone number is (571) 272-4818. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday from 8:00 am to 4:30 pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's supervisor Nathaniel Wiehe, can be reached on (571) 272-8648. The fax phone number for this Group 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.
/THOMAS E LAZO/Primary Examiner,
Art Unit 3745
August 21, 2026
Prosecution Insights