DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16th, 2013 is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Information Disclosure Sheet
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/29/2024 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding claim 6, this claim recites, “…and is guided past the laser heads along a guide (201); or…” This passage appears to have the element identifier artifact left inside the claim. It appears that this claim identifier should be removed.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections – 35 USC §112(b)
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.
Claims 1-12 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.
Regarding claim 1, the claim recites “…in particular in the form of a textile material…” which makes it uncertain whether the carrier layer is positively required to be a textile material, or if this is merely a suggestion and any resilient material suffices.
Further regarding claim 1, the claim first recites “…activating at least one laser head…” and then shifts to “…wherein at least two laser heads… are activated…” Furthermore, the final clause recites engraving in part “…by the laser beam of the one laser head and in part by the laser beam of the other laser head…” The terms “the one laser head” and “the other laser head” lack proper antecedent basis. Applicant should amend the claim to introduce a first laser head and a second laser head.
Regarding claim 6, the claim recites “…in particular in the form of a revolving carrier belt…” which creates the same uncertainty regarding whether a revolving carrier belt is a mandatory limitation.
Regarding claim 10, the claim recites “…wherein the laser engraving machine has…” However, there is no antecedent basis in the parent claims for a “laser engraving machine.” Claim 1 introduces a “laser engraving device.” To overcome this rejection, it is recommended that claim 10 is amended to recite “the laser engraving device.”
Regarding claim 11, the claim recites multiple alternative numerical ranges for the spacing of the laser heads: “at a spacing of between 10 cm and 150 cm, between 30 cm and 130 cm, or between 50 cm and 110 cm.” The use of “or” to present alternative ranges in a single claim fails to clearly identify the exact boundaries of the invention.
Regarding claims 1, 3, 4, and 7, these claims recite the term “substantially” in various contexts. When that term of degree is used, the specification must provide some standard for measuring that degree so a person of ordinary skill in the art would know the objective limits of the claim. If the applicant believes the specification provides this standard, or that a person of ordinary skill in the art would understand these boundaries without objective metrics, applicant is requested to point out this support on the record. Otherwise, to overcome this rejection, the “substantially” modifiers should be removed or replaced with specific boundaries defined in the specification.
Regarding claims 2, 5, 8-9, and 12, these claims are also rejected under 35 USC 112(b) due to their dependence upon rejected claims above.
Allowable Subject Matter
If the above rejections are overcome, claims 1-12 would be deemed allowable in view of the applicable prior art.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance:
Antonelli (US 2015/0050454 A1) teaches a method for producing a planar flexible composite material (10; figure 4; paragraph [0026]), including a flexible element (10) made of wood, and a laser head (16) for engraving the flexible element. However, Antonelli does not specifically teach wherein at least two laser heads of the laser engraving device that are connected to the control apparatus are activated so as to, via the laser beam of a respective laser head, engrave the structure substantially simultaneously in adjacent regions of the wood veneer of the cover layer of the composite material that are assigned to a respective laser head, wherein the laser heads are controlled such that in a fist overlapping portion of the adjacent regions of the composite material the structure is engraved in the wood veneer of the cover layer randomly in part by the laser beam of the one laser head and in part by the laser beam of the other laser head, as required in claim 1.
Bann (US 2009/0188543 A1) teaches a method for laser scribing lines on a panel utilizing a laser beam scanner unit (13) including an optical system, wherein the unit moves a laser beam (12) in a first direction (X) to scribe sections of lines (15) on the panel (11). However, Bann does not specifically teach wherein at least two laser heads of the laser engraving device that are connected to the control apparatus are activated so as to, via the laser beam of a respective laser head, engrave the structure substantially simultaneously in adjacent regions of the wood veneer of the cover layer of the composite material that are assigned to a respective laser head, wherein the laser heads are controlled such that in a fist overlapping portion of the adjacent regions of the composite material the structure is engraved in the wood veneer of the cover layer randomly in part by the laser beam of the one laser head and in part by the laser beam of the other laser head, as required in claim 1.
Moruzzi (US 2023/0241720 A1) and Conseil (US 2023/0191535 A1) both teach relevant aspects of utilizing a laser head for engraving a texture on a physical object. However, neither of these prior arts are applicable prior art due to the later publication date of these prior arts in comparison with the foreign priority of the instant application.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACOB A SMITH whose telephone number is (571) 272-3974 and email address is Jacob.Smith@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 7:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Anna Kinsaul can be reached at (571) 270-1926. 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.
/JACOB A SMITH/Examiner, Art Unit 3731
Prosecution Insights