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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: “10”, “15” and “20”. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-20 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
In claim 1, the limitation “at least one optical element” in lines 1-2 is unclear if it is referring to the same optical element recited in the preamble.
In claim 9, the limitation “the second part” is unclear since there is no first part previously recited.
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the two parts" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 11 recites the limitation "the parts" in line 2, and “the piezo element” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 13 recites the limitation "the receptacle" in lines 1-2 and “the optical axis” in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 14 recites the limitation "the axis" in line 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the mass" in lines 1 and 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim 20 recites the limitation "the housing" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claims 2-8, 12, 15-17 and 19 are rejected due to their dependency from claim 1.
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, 11-15, 17, 19 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Banerjee (US 2019/0283180).
Regarding claim 1, Banerjee teaches a system (Fig. 1A-10) for moving an optical element (120, 220, 320, 420, 520, 620, 720, 820, 1020), comprising a frame (112, 212, 312, 412, 512, 612, 712, 812, housing of laser scanning head 1010, support where spring 132,132R, 232, 332, 432, 532, 632, 732, spring on 830, 930 and 1030 is attached), at least one optical element (120, 220, 320, 420, 520, 620, 720, 820, 1020) and a drive (130, 230, 330, 430, 460, 530, 560, 630, 670, 730, 770, 830, 930, 1030, 1060, 1070, 1080) for moving the at least one optical element (as shown in Fig. 1A-10; para. 0043; 0050; 0058; 0060; 0066; 0073; 0079; 0086; 0090; 0100), wherein the at least one optical element and the drive are each connected to the frame via a first spring element and a second spring element (springs 132,132R, 232, 332, 432, 532, 632, 732, spring on 830, 930 and 1030; as shown in Fig. 1A-10).
Regarding claim 2, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the drive for moving the at least one optical element comprises at least one permanent magnet and at least one coil located in its magnetic field (para. 0019; 0037; 0043).
Regarding claim 3, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one coil is arranged on the at least one optical element and the magnet is arranged on a mounting structure which is connected to the frame via the second spring element (para. 0019; 0037; 0043; as shown in Fig. 1A-10).
Regarding claim 4, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the drive for moving the at least one optical element comprises two coils (springs 132,132R, 232, 332, 432, 532, 632, 732, spring on 830, 930 and 1030; as shown in Fig. 1A-10).
Regarding claim 5, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 4, wherein a first one of the two coils is arranged on the at least one optical element and a second one of the two coils is arranged on a mounting structure which is connected to the frame via the second spring element (para. 0019; 0037; 0043; as shown in Fig. 1A-10).
Regarding claim 6, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one optical element comprises a receptacle in which a lens or a group of lenses is arranged (as shown in Fig. 1A-10).
Regarding claim 7, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein each coil present is connected to a current source to induce a magnetic field by applying a current (para. 0019; 0037; 0043).
Regarding claim 11, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 7, wherein the current source is connected to a control device for controlling the energization of the at least one coil or the parts of the piezo element (abstract; para. 0002; 0039).
Regarding claim 12, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 2, wherein the at least one magnet comprises a plurality of magnets (para. 0019; 0037; 0043; as shown in Fig. 1A-10).
Regarding claim 13, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the optical element or the receptacle of the at least one optical element are configured such that they are each movable transversely to the optical axis of a laser beam (as shown in Fig. 1A-10; para. 0043; 0050; 0058; 0060; 0066; 0073; 0079; 0086; 0090; 0100).
Regarding claim 14, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 6, wherein the receptacle of the at least one optical element is rotatably arranged at an angle to the axis of a laser beam (para. 0033; 0040-0042; 0101).
Regarding claim 15, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the at least one optical element is a lens or a lens group (120, 220, 320, 420, 520, 620, 720, 820, 1020; as shown in Fig. 1A-10).
Regarding claim 17, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein a resonant frequency of the first spring element is selected such that it is equal to the resonant frequency of the second spring element (both springs are part of the same actuator, therefore same spring; as shown in Fig. 1A-10; para. 0043; 0050; 0058; 0060; 0066; 0073; 0079; 0086; 0090; 0100).
Regarding claim 19, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the first spring element and/or the second spring element are formed by a coil spring, spring plates, leaf springs or groups and/or combinations thereof (as shown in Fig. 1A-10).
Regarding claim 20, Banerjee teaches the system according to claim 1, wherein the frame is the housing of a laser processing head (as shown in Fig. 1A-10; para. 0036; 0046; 0055; 0060; 0066; 0072; 0078; 0085; 0089).
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 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee in view of Metlyaev (RU 2768618).
Regarding claim 8, Banerjee teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, wherein the drive for moving the at least one optical element comprises a piezo element.
Metlyaev teaches a system (Fig. 1-2) for moving an optical element (3) comprising a drive (6, 7), wherein the drive for moving the at least one optical element comprises a piezo element (para. 0008; 0013-0014).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the drive of Banerjee, with Metlyaev, by providing a piezo element as the drive instead of the voice-coil actuator, for its minimal heat generation, long term stability and compact size. POSITA would have known that providing a piezo element as the drive would have a reasonable expectation of success such as minimal heat generation, long term stability and compact size.
Regarding claim 9, Banerjee and Metlyaev combined teach the system according to claim 8, wherein a part of the piezo element is arranged on the at least one optical element and a second part of the piezo element is arranged on a mounting structure which is connected to the frame via the second spring element (Metlyaev; as shown in Fig. 1-2).
Regarding claim 10, Banerjee and Metlyaev combined teach the system according to claim 8, wherein the two parts of the piezo element are connected to a power source (Metlyaev; inherently present to activate the piezo actuator 6; abstract; para. 0008; 0013-0014).
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee in view of XIE (CN 110900010).
Regarding claim 16, Banerjee teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 15, except for, wherein the lens or lens group are a
lens or a lens groups of a collimator.
XIE teaches a system (Fig. 4) for moving an optical element (209, 213, 215) comprising a lens or a lens group (209, 213, 215; as shown in Fig. 4), wherein the lens or lens group are a lens or a lens groups of a collimator (as shown in Fig. 4; para. 0050-0051).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the lens of Banerjee, with XIE, by providing a collimator lens as part of the movable optical element, for better laser beam control. POSITA would have known that providing a movable collimator lens would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as better laser beam control.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Banerjee in view of TRUMPF (DE 202018006439).
Regarding claim 18, Banerjee teaches all the elements of the claimed invention as set forth above in claim 1, except for, explicitly disclosing, wherein the mass of the at least one magnet is greater than the mass of the at least one optical element.
TRUMPF teaches a system (Fig. 1-3) for moving an optical element (19, 23), wherein the mass of the at least one magnet (29) is greater than the mass of the at least one optical element (5) (as shown in Fig. 1-2; based on the size).
Therefore, it would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the mass of the magnet of Banerjee, with TRUMPF, by providing a mass of the magnet to be greater than the mass of the optical element to assure a proper magnetic field and proper optical element movement. POSITA would have known that providing a mass of the magnet to be greater than the mass of the optical element would have a reasonable expectation of success and predictable results such as proper magnetic field and proper optical element movement.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure: Lee (US 5,001,694) is considered relevant art in the field of moving optical elements of a laser system, as shown in Fig. 4-6, comprising a frame (as shown in Fig. 4-6), at least one optical element (34) and a drive (12, 14, 18) for moving the at least one optical element (Col. 5, lines 4-15), wherein the at least one optical element and the drive are each connected to the frame via a first spring element (26) and a second spring element (40) (as shown in Fig. 4-6).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at 571-270-5095. 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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 09/28/2026
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
