DETAILED ACTION
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 .
This is the first Office action responsive to application 18452026 filed 8/18/2023. Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 3-4, 11, & 16 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claim 1:
The recitation “its first end configured” (l. 5) is believed to be in error for - - a first end of the tubular head section, the recess configured - -.
The recitation “head section inner to” (2nd to last line) is believed to be in error for - - head section to - -.
Regarding Claim 3:
The recitation “driven by a pneumatic, electric, or hydraulic driving unit” is believed to be in error for - - driven by a driving unit, the driving unit being one of a pneumatic driving unit, an electric driving unit, or a hydraulic driving unit - -.
Regarding Claim 4:
The recitation “the reciprocating movement” (ll. 3-4) is believed to be in error for - - the plunger - -.
Regarding Claim 11:
The recitation “a beam block of claim 1” (l. 1) is believed to be in error for - - the beam block of claim 1 - -.
The recitation “the head section inner cavity to” (l. 3) is believed to be in error for - - the inner cavity of the tubular head section to - -.
Regarding Claim 16:
The recitation “the area” (l. 5) is believed to be in error for - - an area - -.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 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: “a damping component configured to damp the plunger element movement” in claim 4.
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
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.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, the recitation “the duration is in the range of 0.5 s to 1.5 s is vague and indefinite because (a) the term “the duration” lacks antecedent basis in the claims, (b) it is unclear what this duration relates to, and (c) it is unclear whether claim 14 is intended to depend from claim 13, rather than claim 12, since claim 13 recites a duration (and makes clear what the duration relates to).
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 1-3, 5, 8, 10-11, & 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Huang CN 210818000 (original copy and English translation attached).
Regarding Independent Claim 1, Huang teaches a beam block (Fig. 7) for laser cutting to produce a perforated tubular workpiece, comprising:
a tubular head section (right half portion of 3 in Fig. 7) configured to be accommodated within an inner cavity of a semi-finished product during laser cutting (within 10), wherein the tubular head section comprises a recess (30) at its first end (at right end of 3) configured to accept molten workpiece material into an inner surface of the tubular head section (into inner surface of right half portion of 3),
a shaft section located at a second end of the tubular head section (left half portion of 3 in Fig. 7, located at left end of right half portion of 3), and
a plunger (4a/41) configured to be reciprocated along an inner cavity of the tubular head section inner to the first end of the tubular head section to thereby eject molten workpiece material from the inner surface of the tubular head section (4a/41 is reciprocated in 40a of right half portion of 3 to eject, i.e. scrape off, workpiece material from inner surface of right half portion of 3; see English translation at p. 8, last paragraph).
Regarding Dependent Claim 2, Huang further teaches the plunger comprises a wire-like form (4a is a rod and is therefore “wire-like” inasmuch as it is a long, thin cylindrical element).
Regarding Dependent Claim 3, Huang further teaches the plunger is driven by a pneumatic, electric or hydraulic driving unit (electric, see driving motor 33; English translation at p. 8, 1st paragraph and p. 9, 1st full paragraph).
Regarding Dependent Claim 5, Huang further teaches the shaft section comprises a tubular form and the plunger element reciprocates along the shaft section (left half portion of 3 has a tubular form and 4a/41 reciprocates along left half portion of 3).
Regarding Dependent Claim 8, Huang further teaches a laser cutting system (Fig. 7) comprising the beam block of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above) and a laser cutter (2), wherein the tubular head section of the beam block is configured to be accommodated within a tubular semi-finished product (10) to be cut by the laser cutter, wherein a nozzle of the laser cutter is configured to be located within a pre-defined radial distance from an outer shell surface of the semi-finished product (see Fig. 7, nozzle of 2 at radial distance from outer shell of 10).
Regarding Dependent Claim 10, Huang further teaches the laser operates with a high-pressure gas (via suction channel 40a; English translation at p. 8, last paragraph). While Huang does not expressly teach argon, there is no structural difference between the claimed invention and Huang’s laser cutting system nor is there any reason Huang would be unable to function using argon gas, thus Huang is capable of operating as claimed with argon.
Regarding Dependent Claim 11, Huang further teaches an operation method (p. 2 of English translation, 1st full paragraph) of a beam block of claim 1 (see rejection of claim 1 above), comprising receiving molten workpiece material into the inner surface of the tubular head section (p. 7 of English translation, 2nd full paragraph) and reciprocating the plunger along the head section inner cavity to the first end of the tubular head section thereby ejecting the molten workpiece material from the inner surface of the tubular head section (4a/41 scrapes the workpiece material from the inner surface; p. 8 of English translation, last paragraph).
Regarding Dependent Claim 16, Huang further teaches a manufacturing method (p. 2 of English translation, 1st full paragraph) for making a perforated tubular workpiece from a tubular semi-finished product (10) using the laser cutting system of claim 8 comprising:
placing the beam block within the semi-finished product such that the semi-finished product is located at the area of the first end of the tubular head section (beam block discussed for claim 1 above is placed within 10 such that 10 is at an area of the first end of the right half portion of 3), and
laser cutting the semi-finished product using the laser cutter (p. 6 of English translation, paragraph starting “As shown in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2”).
Regarding Dependent Claim 17, Huang further teaches reciprocating the plunger periodically during the laser cutting (p. 9 of English translation, 2nd full paragraph).
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.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lau 20230083702.
Regarding Dependent Claim 6, Huang teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 1, and Huang further teaches a tubular sleeve accommodated at a part of a shell surface of the tubular head section (tubular sleeve 10 accommodated at part of shell surface – i.e. the radially outer surface of 3 – of the right half portion of 3).
Huang fails to expressly teach the shell surface comprises a non-stick shell surface.
Lau teaches (Fig. 1) a laser manufacturing process (para. [0032]) involving a mandrel being inserted into a workpiece (into hollow chamber 28 of workpiece), the mandrel being coated with a non-stick material (para. [0032]). Note that Lau’s mandrel insertion into the workpiece is analogous to Huang’s insertion of tube 3 into 10.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang such that the shell surface comprises a non-stick shell surface in order to provide a low coefficient of friction (Lau; para. [0032]).
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of Jones 20040089643.
Regarding Dependent Claim 9, Huang teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 8, and Huang further teaches a laser (2).
Huang fails to expressly teach the laser providing µs pulses.
Jones teaches a pulsed laser cutting system (see Title) with a laser that provides µs pulses (50-100 µs pulses; para. [0018]).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang’s laser cutting system such that the laser provides µs pulses, as taught by Jones, in order to minimize the heat-affected zone (Jones; para. [0018]).
Claims 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Huang, as applied to claim 11 above.
Regarding Dependent Claim 12, Huang teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, and Huang further teaches the reciprocating comprises a periodic movement in a frequency range (41 moves relative to 3 in order to timely and effectively eradicate working material adhered on the inside of 3, which would require periodic movement in a continuous cutting operation; p. 9 of English translation, 2nd full paragraph).
Huang fails to expressly teach the reciprocating comprises periodic movement in a frequency in the range of 0.2 min- to 0.0055 Hz.
As discussed above, however, Huang teaches that the timing of the periodic movement is such that accumulated slag is removed during cutting operations. Thus, it is clear that Huang teaches that the frequency of the periodic movement is a result-effective variable that achieves a recognized result (i.e. satisfactory removal of accumulated slag during cutting operations in a “timely” and “effective” manner).
A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Given that the timing of the periodic scraping of the inner surface of Huang’s tube 3 using 4a/41 was intended to “timely” and “effectively” remove accumulated workpiece material, and that the frequency of the periodic movement which achieves that timing and effectiveness could be determined which would achieve that result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it routine to determine, via experimentation, what the optimum or workable range of this frequency would be in order to achieve the results taught by Huang. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang’s operation method such that the reciprocating comprises periodic movement in a frequency in the range of 0.2 min- to 0.0055 Hz as a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of this frequency in order to timely and effectively remove accumulated workpiece material during cutting operations.
Regarding Dependent Claim 13, Huang teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 11, and Huang further teaches the reciprocating comprises a duration of a reciprocating movement of the plunger (41 moves relative to 3 in order to timely and effectively eradicate working material adhered on the inside of 3, which would require some duration of reciprocating movement in a continuous cutting operation; p. 9 of English translation, 2nd full paragraph).
Huang fails to expressly teach the duration of one reciprocating movement of the plunger is in the range of 0.5 s to 10 s.
As discussed above, however, Huang teaches that the timing of the periodic movement is such that accumulated slag is removed during cutting operations. Thus, it is clear that Huang teaches that the duration of the reciprocating movement is a result-effective variable that achieves a recognized result (i.e. satisfactory removal of accumulated slag during cutting operations in a “timely” and “effective” manner).
A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Given that the timing of the periodic scraping of the inner surface of Huang’s tube 3 using 4a/41 was intended to “timely” and “effectively” remove accumulated workpiece material, and that the duration of the reciprocating movement which achieves that timing and effectiveness could be determined which would achieve that result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it routine to determine, via experimentation, what the optimum or workable range of this duration would be in order to achieve the results taught by Huang. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang’s operation method such that the duration of one reciprocating movement of the plunger is in the range of 0.5 s to 10 s as a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of this duration in order to timely and effectively remove accumulated workpiece material during cutting operations.
Regarding Dependent Claim 14, Huang teaches the invention as claimed and as discussed above for claim 12, and Huang further teaches the reciprocating comprises a duration of a reciprocating movement of the plunger (41 moves relative to 3 in order to timely and effectively eradicate working material adhered on the inside of 3, which would require some duration of reciprocating movement in a continuous cutting operation; p. 9 of English translation, 2nd full paragraph).
Huang fails to expressly teach the duration of one reciprocating movement of the plunger is in the range of 0.5 s to 1.5 s.
As discussed above, however, Huang teaches that the timing of the periodic movement is such that accumulated slag is removed during cutting operations. Thus, it is clear that Huang teaches that the duration of the reciprocating movement is a result-effective variable that achieves a recognized result (i.e. satisfactory removal of accumulated slag during cutting operations in a “timely” and “effective” manner).
A particular parameter must first be recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result, before the determination of the optimum or workable ranges of said variable might be characterized as routine experimentation. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977). See MPEP 2144.05 II B.
Given that the timing of the periodic scraping of the inner surface of Huang’s tube 3 using 4a/41 was intended to “timely” and “effectively” remove accumulated workpiece material, and that the duration of the reciprocating movement which achieves that timing and effectiveness could be determined which would achieve that result, one of ordinary skill in the art would have found it routine to determine, via experimentation, what the optimum or workable range of this duration would be in order to achieve the results taught by Huang. “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955). See MPEP 2144.05 II A.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Huang’s operation method such that the duration of one reciprocating movement of the plunger is in the range of 0.5 s to 1.5 s as a matter of routine experimentation to determine the optimum or workable ranges of this duration in order to timely and effectively remove accumulated workpiece material during cutting operations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4, 7, & 15 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 following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding Dependent Claim 4, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, a damping component configured to damp the plunger element movement at the end of at least one of a forward movement phase and a backward movement phase of the reciprocating movement (disclosed by Applicant as a throttle check valve at p. 8, 1st full paragraph of the specification).
Regarding Dependent Claim 7, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, the tubular head section is fixed to the shaft section by an adhesive joint.
Regarding Dependent Claim 15, the prior art fails to teach, in combination with the remaining limitations of the claim, damping movement of the plunger at an end of at least one of a forward movement phase and a backward movement phase of the reciprocating.
Examiner Comment
The examiner notes that claim 1 does not currently recite the first end of the tubular head section is an open first end such that the molten workpiece material is ejected through the open first end. A recitation reflecting this disclosed aspect of the invention (see Fig. 2 in which molten material 50 is ejected through the open first end 11a), in combination with the remaining currently recited limitations, would likely overcome the prior art of record.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SCOTT J WALTHOUR whose telephone number is (571)272-4999. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 10 a.m.-6 p.m. Eastern.
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 at 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 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.
/SCOTT J WALTHOUR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741