CTNF 18/368,414 CTNF 90892 DETAILED ACTION 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Priority 02-25 AIA Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in GERMANY on 09/29/2022 . It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the DE10 2022 125 123.3 application as required by 37 CFR 1.55. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) filed 09/14/2023 fails to comply with 37 CFR 1.98(a)(2), which requires a legible copy of each cited foreign patent document ; each non-patent literature publication or that portion which caused it to be listed; and all other information or that portion which caused it to be listed. None of the foreign patent documents in the IDS filed on 09/14/2023 have been provided. The IDS has been placed in the application file, but the foreign patent document information referred to therein has not been considered unless otherwise stated in the Office Action. Claim Objections 07-29-01 AIA Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1 , line 4, “ the direction of the beam path of the entered laser radiation ” should be revised to: -- [[the]] a direction of [[the]] a beam path of the entered laser radiation --. Appropriate correction is required. 07-30-03-h AIA Claim Interpretation 07-30-03 AIA 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. 07-30-05 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. 07-30-06 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: “ a first displacement member ” and “ a second displacement member ” in claim 6; “ a third displacement device ” in claim 7. 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 § 112 07-30-02 AIA 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. 07-34-01 AIA Claim s 1-21 are 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 pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention. In claim 1 , lines 4-12, the claim recites “ the direction of the beam path ” in multiple instances, with the first instance in reference to “ a first deflection mirror arranged in the direction of the beam path of the entered laser radiation ”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear whether the “beam path” is strictly defined along a single direction from the entered laser radiation (i.e. a straight line from the entrance opening), or is meant to also include the changes in direction of the laser radiation following reflection off of the claimed mirrors. The first recitation of “ direction of the beam path ” suggests it refers to the direction of the laser radiation from the entrance opening, and subsequent recitations do not make clear whether the elements arranged in this “ direction ” are based off of this initial definition or not (e.g. is the “ first lens or lens group ” still along this initial direction? Or is it along the direction reflected off the “ first deflection mirror ”?). The arrangement of the limitations of “ first lens ”, “ dichromatic mirror ”, “ second lens ”, and “ sensor ” are not described in relation with each other, rendering their order along the “ direction of the beam path ” vague. Claim 1 , line 10, “ the optical path ” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is unclear if this is meant to refer to the “beam path” or if it is a wholly separate limitation. Claim 1 , final 2 lines, “ the decoupled part of the beam path ” lacks antecedent basis in the claim (also, is the “ decoupled part ” meant to be referring to the “ outcoupled portion of the optical path ” recited in the claim, or is a wholly separate limitation?). Claim 6, line 3-4, recites “ the beam axis ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is also meant to be referring to the “beam path”, or is a wholly different and separate limitation. Claim 10 recites “ the beam axis ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether this is also meant to be referring to the “beam path”, or is a wholly different and separate limitation. Claim 11 recites the limitation “ disposed behind the tip of the optical fiber ” and “ disposed behind the protective glass ”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is supposed to be meant by the term “ behind ” in the context of the “ direction of the beam path ”. It is unclear if the applicant means the term as “downstream” or “after” along the direction of the laser beam path from the entrance opening (which seems evident in the Drawings). The term “behind” is a relative term that requires clearer frame of reference. Claim 11 recites “ the tip of the optical fiber ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for the limitation “ the optical fiber ”, and “ the tip ” thereof, in the claim. Claim 12 recites “ the third lens ”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim (note, a “third lens” is introduced in claim 11, upon which claim 12 does not depend). Claim 15, line 3, “ the beam source direction ” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Furthermore, it is unclear what is meant to be encompassed by “ beam source direction ”, as it is unclear whether the “ beam source direction ” is strictly defined along a single direction from the laser beam source (i.e. a straight line originating at the source), or is meant to include the overall path of the laser beam/radiation that includes the changes in direction following reflection off of mirrors (e.g. dichromatic mirror, later claims recite a “ deflection mirror ” between the beam source and sensor). Claim 15, line 4, “ the outcoupled portion ” lacks antecedent basis in the claim. Claim 16 , line 2, recites “ in front of the dichromatic mirror ”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what direction “ in front of ” is meant to refer to in relation to the dichromatic mirror (i.e. is it meant to mean “upstream of” or “before” the dichromatic mirror in relation to the direction of the “beam source direction”? This seems to be evident in the Drawings). The term “ in front of ” is a relative term and requires clearer frame of reference. Claim 17, line 3, recites “ so-called tunable lens ”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what is supposed to be meant by the term “ so-called ”, or how it affects the scope of “ tunable lens ”. Claim 20, line 2, recites “ in front of the second lens or lens group ”. This renders the claim indefinite, as it is unclear what direction “ in front of ” is meant to refer to in relation to the dichromatic mirror (i.e. is it meant to mean “upstream of” or “before” the second lens or lens group in relation to the direction of the “ beam source direction ”? This seems to be evident in the Drawings). The term “ in front of ” is a relative term and requires clearer frame of reference. Claim 21 , recites “ The method of claim 14 …”. This renders the claim indefinite, as claim 14 is directed to “The system of claim 1” and is not a method claim. This recitation is believed to be in error, and it is unclear which claim of the method claims 15-20 claim 21 is meant to depend from. Claim 21, line 2, recites “ x, y direction ”. This renders the claim indefinite, as there is no frame of reference with which one skilled in the art can ascertain what is meant by “x, y direction”. Coordinate axes are imaginary frames of reference that could be provided in any direction or orientation. What the claim is attempting to encompass by “x, y direction” is therefore unclear. Claims 2-5, 7-9, 13, 14, 18-19 are rejected by virtue of dependence on claims 1 & 15, respectively. Double Patenting 08-33 AIA The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of co-pending Application No. 18/368,000 (reference application, also published as U.S. Patent Publication 2024/0426654 A1) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other. Regarding independent claim 1, the co-pending application covers the same subject matter in their claim 1 nearly verbatim, except for the use of the term “ laser beam ” in place of “ laser radiation ” (“ laser beam ” of the co-pending claim anticipates “ laser radiation ” recited by the instant application). Claims 2-14 are anticipated by claims 2-14 of the co-pending application, reciting nearly the same subject matter. Regarding independent claim 15, the co-pending application covers the same subject matter in their claim 15. Claims 16-20 are anticipated by claims 16-20 of the co-pending application. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 07-20-aia AIA 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. 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 1-5, 9, 10, 13-16, 18-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi (US 2023/0057548 A1) in view of Reitmeyer (US 2010/0276403 A1) . Regarding independent claim 1 , Sambi discloses a system (Fig. 3) for monitoring the state of optical elements of a laser material processing device 1, comprising: an entrance opening 51 for the laser radiation (from an “ optical transmission means 4 ”, Fig. 3, Para. 0034); a first deflection mirror 10 (“ adaptive optical device 10 ”) arranged in the direction of the beam path (interpreted as beam path or laser beam L shown in Fig. 3) of the entered laser radiation for reflecting the laser radiation (Fig. 3, Para. 0068-0070); a first lens 6 or lens group 5 (focusing group 5 with at least one focusing lens 6) arranged in the direction of the beam path (as best understood, along the beam path L shown in Fig. 3; Para. 0029-0032, 0065-66); a mirror 8 (optical element) arranged in the direction of the beam path L for coupling out part of the laser radiation (couples out a portion L1 and a portion L2 as shown, Para. 0065-67, “ the optical element which receives the focused laser beam L, reflects the focused first portion L1 and transmits the focused second portion L2 ”); a second lens 19 (“ collimating optical system 19 ”) disposed in the direction of the outcoupled portion L1 of the optical path (Fig. 3, optical path interpreted as the line from the mirror 8 to the optical sensor 9); and a sensor 9 (“ wavefront sensor ”) arranged in the direction of the decoupled part (the “outcoupled portion” L1) of the beam path L, on which the decoupled part of the laser radiation impinges (Fig. 3, Para. 0038, “ The wavefront sensor 9, which in the illustrated embodiment is positioned outside the casing means 15, is adapted to receive the focused first portion L1 of the laser beam L ”). Sambi fails to explicitly disclose the mirror is a dichromatic mirror. Sambi does teach the optical element 8 can be a mirror element that reflects one portion L1 of the laser radiation, and transmits/is transparent to another portion L2 of the laser radiation (Para. 0031, “ The optical element 8 is for example a beam separator, in particular chosen among a cubic beam splitter (CBS), an optical prism and a semi-transparent mirror ”; Para. 0065-66). Reitmeyer teaches a laser material processing device having a dichromatic (“ dichroic ”) mirror 3 that couples out a part of the laser radiation from a laser source 7, into a machining beam portion 9, and a measuring beam portion 10 that is received in a sensor 13 (Fig. 1, Para. 0046). A dichromatic/dichroic mirror is known in the art of laser processing as a mirror that transmits some light wavelengths while reflecting other wavelengths. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the device of Sambi such that the mirror is a dichromatic/dichroic mirror, as taught by Reitmeyer, in order to provide a well-known mirror/beam splitter that can transmit the useful wavelengths of the laser radiation for the material processing while reflecting a “measuring” wavelength of the laser for use in the formation of measurement signals at a sensor (Reitmeyer Para. 0004, 0046). Regarding claim 2 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein the laser radiation entry port 51 is a laser light cable connected to a laser source (Para. 0028, “ the optical transmission means 4 comprise a fiber optic cable for transporting a laser beam L generated by the emitting apparatus to the laser cutting head 1 ”). Regarding claim 3 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein the first lens 6 or lens group 5 focuses the laser radiation (Para. 0029, “ a focusing group 5 which includes at least one focusing lens 6 for focusing in the focal point F the laser beam L ”). Regarding claim 4 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the second lens 19 or lens group focuses the coupled-out portion L1 of the laser radiation onto the sensor 9 (Fig. 3, Para. 0038, the lens 19 is a collimating lens that focuses/collimates the laser onto the sensor 9 as shown). Regarding claim 5 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1 thus far, but fails to teach wherein the first and/or second lens or lens group is a tunable lens, or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens, wherein the optical properties of a tunable lens are changeable by external excitation. Sambi teaches in separate embodiments (Fig. 1 & 2) that the first lens group 5 with focusing lens 6 is tunable via the moving means 7, 71 controlled by an “external excitation” from controller 12 (Para. 0030, “ Supporting and moving means 7 support and move along an adjustment direction X at least one between the collimating group 2 and the focusing group 5, for example only the latter in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, in order to change the focal point F of the laser beam L ”; Para. 0043-44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, such that the first lens/lens group is a tunable lens, as taught in the embodiment of Sambi Fig. 1 & 2, in order to provide the ability of the device to change the focal point of the laser radiation, and permit adjustments to reduce optical aberrations of the laser beam (Sambi Para. 0030, 0043-44). Regarding claims 9-10 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein an aperture 53 (an opening for a transparent optical window 11, Para. 0034) is disposed between the dichromatic mirror 8 and the second lens 19 (Fig. 3); wherein a hole 53 of the aperture is offset from the beam axis of the laser radiation (Fig. 3, the aperture is offset from the axis of the beam L as shown). Regarding claim 13 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein a beam shaping element 16 is additionally arranged in the beam path (Para. 0069, “ piezoelectric or electromagnetic or electromechanical actuators, not visible in the figure, connected to the adaptive optical element 16 and the electronic processor 12 to model the shape of at least one deformable surface 17 of the adaptive optical element 16 ”; the elements are integrated into the first deflection mirror 10). Regarding claim 14 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, wherein the first mirror is a tip-tilt mirror or deformable mirror (Para. 0069, “ piezoelectric or electromagnetic or electromechanical actuators, not visible in the figure, connected to the adaptive optical element 16 and the electronic processor 12 to model the shape of at least one deformable surface 17 of the adaptive optical element 16… the electronic processor 12 is capable of adjusting the shape of the adaptive optical device 10 by controlling the piezoelectric or electromagnetic actuators that support the adaptive optical element 16 ”; the elements are integrated into the first deflection mirror 10). Regarding independent claim 15 , Sambi teaches a method for monitoring the condition of optical elements of a laser material processing device, comprising: receiving with a sensor 9 (Fig. 3, Para. 0038, “ The wavefront sensor 9, which in the illustrated embodiment is positioned outside the casing means 15, is adapted to receive the focused first portion L1 of the laser beam L ”) in the beam source direction of a laser beam source (interpreted as the general path of the laser L from the opening 51 to the workpiece 100, Fig. 3) the outcoupled portion L1 of a high-power laser beam L or laser radiation (“ optical transmission means 4 ”, Fig. 3, Para. 0034; Para. 0028, “ the emitting apparatus is a solid-state fiber laser stimulated emission apparatus, for example with high power , and the optical transmission means 4 comprise a fiber optic cable for transporting a laser beam L generated by the emitting apparatus to the laser cutting head 1 ”), the outcoupled portion of the high power laser beam or laser radiation being outcoupled by a mirror 8 (Para. 0065-67, “ the optical element which receives the focused laser beam L, reflects the focused first portion L1 and transmits the focused second portion L2 ”). Sambi fails to disclose the mirror is a dichromatic mirror. Sambi does teach the optical element 8 can be a mirror element that reflects one portion L1 of the laser radiation, and transmits/is transparent to another portion L2 of the laser radiation (Para. 0031, “ The optical element 8 is for example a beam separator, in particular chosen among a cubic beam splitter (CBS), an optical prism and a semi-transparent mirror ”; Para. 0065-66). Reitmeyer teaches a laser material processing device having a dichromatic (“ dichroic ”) mirror 3 that couples out a part of the laser radiation from a laser source 7, into a machining beam portion 9, and a measuring beam portion 10 that is received in a sensor 13 (Fig. 1, Para. 0046). A dichromatic/dichroic mirror is known in the art of laser processing as a mirror that transmits some light wavelengths while reflecting other wavelengths. Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Sambi such that the mirror is a dichromatic/dichroic mirror, as taught by Reitmeyer, in order to provide a well-known mirror/beam splitter that can transmit the useful wavelengths of the laser radiation for the material processing while reflecting a “measuring” wavelength of the laser for use in the formation of measurement signals at a sensor (Reitmeyer Para. 0004, 0046). Regarding claim 16 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches wherein the high-power laser beam or laser radiation is formed by a first lens or lens group (Para. 0029, “ a focusing group 5 which includes at least one focusing lens 6 for focusing in the focal point F the laser beam L ”) in front of the dichromatic mirror (Fig. 3). Sambi in view of Reitmeyer fails to teach wherein the first lens is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens. Sambi teaches in separate embodiments (Fig. 1 & 2) that the first lens group 5 with focusing lens 6 is tunable via the moving means 7, 71 (Para. 0030, “ Supporting and moving means 7 support and move along an adjustment direction X at least one between the collimating group 2 and the focusing group 5, for example only the latter in the embodiment illustrated in FIG. 1, in order to change the focal point F of the laser beam L ”; Para. 0043-44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, such that the first lens/lens group is a tunable lens, as taught in the embodiment of Sambi Fig. 1 & 2, in order to provide the ability of the device to change the focal point of the laser radiation, and permit adjustments to reduce optical aberrations of the laser beam (Sambi Para. 0030, 0043-44). Regarding claim 18 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches wherein the high power laser beam L or laser radiation is deflected by a deflection mirror 10 in front of the first lens 6 or lens group 5 toward the first lens or lens group (Fig. 3, the “ adaptive optical device 10 ” acts as a mirror as shown, reflecting the laser towards the first lens 6/group 5, Para. 0070). Regarding claim 20 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches wherein the high power laser beam L or laser radiation passes through an aperture 53 (an opening for a transparent optical window 11, Para. 0034) offset from the beam axis (Fig. 3, the aperture is offset from an axis of the beam L from the mirror 10 to the workpiece 100 as shown) in front of the second lens 19 or lens group (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 21 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 14 (for sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as dependent on method claim 15), and Sambi further teaches comprising the step of determining at least one property selected from the group comprising the laser beam position in x, y direction, the laser beam diameter, the energy distribution in the laser beam, the center of the laser beam, and the wavefront of the laser beam (Para. 0071, the sensor 9 is a “ wavefront sensor 9 adapted to receive the focused first portion L1 of the laser beam L, perform a phase measurement of a wavefront of the focused first portion L1, obtain on the basis of this phase measurement a reconstructed wavefront and send the reconstructed wavefront to the electronic processor 12 ”) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 6, 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, further in view of Blázquez Sánchez (US 2022/0196468 A1) . Regarding claim 6, Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches wherein the first lens 6 or lens group 5 is connected to a first displacement member 71 (“ linear guide means ”, Fig. 3, Para. 0030) for displacing the respective lens or lens group on the beam axis (Para. 0030, providing slidable support to adjust/change the focal point of the laser). Sambi in view of Reitmeyer fails to teach the second lens or lens group is connected to a second displacement member for displacing the respective lens or lens group on the beam axis. Blázquez Sánchez teaches a laser processing device including an optical decoupling element 814 that decouples a laser beam into a first portion 102 and a second portion 51 (Fig. 1A, 1B, Para. 0069-72), the second portion/decoupled partial beam 51 being directed towards a sensor 811 through a second lens 812 that is connected to a second displacement member 813 to allow variable focal length (Para. 0072-76, 0078-80). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, the second lens/lens group connected to a second displacement member for displacing the respective lens on the beam axis, as taught by Blázquez Sánchez, in order to allow for the decoupled beam from the dichromatic mirror to have its focal length/position adjusted, to accommodate variations in focal position (Blázquez Sánchez Para. 0072-76, 0078-80). Permitting the second lens/lens group to be tunable in general would allow for adjustments to the beam prior to its reception by the sensor. Regarding claim 17 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, and Sambi further teaches wherein the high-power laser beam L or laser radiation is formed by a second lens 19 or lens group between dichromatic mirror 8 and sensor 9 (Fig. 3, Para. 0038, “ collimating optical system 19 ”), Sambi in view of Reitmeyer fails to teach wherein the second lens is a so-called tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens. Blázquez Sánchez teaches a laser processing device including an optical decoupling element 814 that decouples a laser beam into a first portion 102 and a second portion 51 (Fig. 1A, 1B, Para. 0069-72), the second portion/decoupled partial beam 51 being directed towards a sensor 811 through a second lens 812 that is connected to a second displacement member 813 to allow variable focal length (Para. 0072-76, 0078-80). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the method of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, the second lens/lens group connected to a second displacement member for displacing the respective lens on the beam axis, as taught by Blázquez Sánchez, in order to allow for the decoupled beam from the dichromatic mirror to have its focal length/position adjusted, to accommodate variations in focal position (Blázquez Sánchez Para. 0072-76, 0078-80). Permitting the second lens/lens group to be tunable in general would allow for adjustments to the beam prior to its reception by the sensor . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, further in view of Blázquez-Sánchez (US 2021/003445 A1, henceforth Blázquez-Sánchez 2021) . Regarding claim 7 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the sensor is connected to a third displacement device for displacement thereof along the beam axis. Blázquez-Sánchez 2021 teaches a laser processing system (Fig. 6) having a sensor 40 receiving an uncoupled portion 30 of a laser beam 14, the sensor connected to a displacement device for displacement along a beam axis (Fig. 6, Para. 0056, “ As indicated in FIG. 6 by a double arrow 48, the spatially resolving sensor or detector 40 is arranged perpendicular to the beam propagation direction 44 and is displaceable therealong ”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer such that the sensor is connected to a third displacement device for displacement along the beam axis, as taught by Blázquez-Sánchez 2021, in order to allow the sensor to be adjusted to measure the beam diameter of the uncoupled beam portion at a variety of positions to further evaluate the portion of the laser beam directed to the workpiece (Blázquez-Sánchez 2021 Para. 0057) . 07-21-aia AIA Claim 8 & 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, further in view of Funami (US 2022/0143745 A1) . Regarding claim 8 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, but fails to disclose wherein an optical filter is disposed between the dichromatic mirror and the sensor. Funami teaches a laser material processing device including a dichromatic mirror 23 (Para. 0039, “ dichroic mirror 23 ”) and a sensor 31 (“ photometer ”), further including an optical filter 34 (“ bandpass filter ”) between the dichromatic mirror and sensor (Fig. 1, Para. 0042-44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the device of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, an optical filter between the dichromatic mirror and the sensor, as taught by Funami, in order to provide a filter that only allows a desired predetermined wavelength band of the laser light to pass through to the sensor (Funami Para. 0042-44). Such optical filters are well-known in the art for removing unwanted wavelengths of light from a laser beam prior to being received by a sensor to reduce interference. Regarding claim 19 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the method of claim 15, but fails to teach wherein the high power laser beam or laser radiation passes through a filter upstream of the sensor. Funami teaches a laser material processing device including a dichromatic mirror 23 (Para. 0039, “ dichroic mirror 23 ”) and a sensor 31 (“ photometer ”), further including a filter 34 (“ bandpass filter ”) between the dichromatic mirror and sensor (Fig. 1, Para. 0042-44). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the method of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, having the laser beam/radiation pass through a filter upstream of the sensor, as taught by Funami, in order to provide a filter that only allows a desired predetermined wavelength band of the laser light to pass through to the sensor (Funami Para. 0042-44). Such optical filters are well-known in the art for removing unwanted wavelengths of light from a laser beam prior to being received by a sensor to reduce interference . 07-21-aia AIA Claim s 11 & 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, further in view of Blázquez-Sánchez (US 2020/0254561 A1, henceforth Blázquez-Sánchez 2020) . Regarding claim 11 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer teaches the system of claim 1, and Sambi further teaches a third lens 3 or lens group 2 (“ collimating lens 3 ” and “ collimating group 2”, Para. 0029, Fig. 3). Sambi in view of Reitmeyer fails to teach a protective glass disposed behind the tip of the optical fiber in the direction of the beam path of the laser radiation, and a third lens or lens group is disposed behind the protective glass. Blázquez-Sánchez 2020 teaches a laser processing system having a laser beam source that is an optical fiber 110 (Para. 0037), a protective glass 140 “behind” the tip of the optical fiber (Fig. 1, Para. 0037, “ an optional optical device 140 , which may be a protective glass in front of the collimator optics ”), and a third lens 115 (collimator optics) behind the protective glass (Fig. 1, Para. 0037). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer, the protective glass between the tip of the optical fiber and the third lens/lens group, as taught by Blázquez-Sánchez 2020, in order to provide a protective glass in front of the third lens group and protect other optical elements in the system (Blázquez-Sánchez 2020 Para. 0037). Regarding claim 12 , Sambi in view of Reitmeyer & Blázquez-Sánchez 2020 teaches the system of claim 1 (for sake of examination, the claim will be interpreted as dependent on claim 11, which introduces the “ third lens or lens group ”), but fails to teach wherein the third lens is a tunable lens or the lens group comprises at least one tunable lens. Reitmeyer teaches a third lens 2 (“ collimating lens ”) downstream of the laser beam source 7, the third lens being a tunable lens (via displacement device 16, Para. 0040, “ collimating lens 2 is displaced with displacement device 16 along its optical axis to readjust the focus position regulation…. Such displacement devices are known from prior art ”). Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the system of Sambi in view of Reitmeyer & Blázquez-Sánchez 2020, the third lens being tunable, as taught in Reitmeyer, in order to allow the focal position of the lens to be adjusted (Reitmeyer Para. 0040). Allowing lenses to be displaceable to permit adjustments in focal length are well-known in the art. Pertinent Prior Art 07-96 AIA The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Takigawa (US 20200387131 A1, US 11433478 B2) teaches a laser machining system with a dichroic mirror reflecting a portion of a laser beam into a sensor. Contact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST. 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, Devon Kramer can be reached on 571 272 7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 2 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 3 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 4 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 5 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 7 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 8 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 9 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 10 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 11 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 12 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 13 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 14 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 15 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 16 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 17 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 18 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 19 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 20 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 21 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 22 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 23 Art Unit: 3741 Application/Control Number: 18/368,414 Page 24 Art Unit: 3741