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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I, claims 1-15, in the reply filed on 9/14/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 16-20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 9/14/2026.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because:
reference character “189” has been used to designate both the client application (Fig. 3.3) and the laser control application (Fig. 3.6); and
reference character “a” and “b” have been used to designate the sample and the pressured air knife in Figs. 1.1 and 2.2, and the stripe-removed area and the control area in Fig. 2.5.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: “146” (laser parameter in, e.g., p. 18, lns. 11, 18 & 19-20). Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) 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.
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: “226” in Fig. 3.5. 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.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(u) because partial views must separately numbered with the same figure number followed by a capital letter. Figs. 1.2, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.14, 2.15, 2.18, 2.19, and 2.23 designate partial views with lowercase letters (e.g., “a”, “b”, “c”) rather than as Fig. 1.2A, Fig. 1.2B, etc. in addition, the pair of images appearing below Fig. 2.5 on drawing sheet 9/33 is not designated by any figure number.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(1) and (p)(3) because the view label “a” in Fig. 2.1 and the view labels “a” and “c” in Fig. 2.3 are obscured by the shading of the photographs and are not plain and legible.
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(o) because the legend “A temporarily file” below Fig. 2.5 is not understandable, and the legend “**In-door RMSE values can be found” in Fig. 2.11 is incomplete.
The drawings are objected to because they are inconsistent with the description. A paragraph in page 61, lines 7-11 describes views “1a”, “1b”, and “1c” of Fig. 2.21, and a paragraph in page 61, lines 12-14 describes views “1a” and “1b” of Fig. 2.2. however, each of Figs. 2.1 and 2.2 consists of a single undesignated view. Furthermore, a paragraph in page 61, lines 15-20 describes views “1a” through “1d” of Fig. 2.23; however, Fig. 2.23 designates its views “a” through “d”.
The drawings objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(b)(1) because the photographs in Figs. 2.6, 2.10, 2.13, 2.14, 2.17, and 2.18 are not of sufficient quality that all details are reproducible in the printed patent. For example, the reference label adjacent to “0.16” in Fig. 2.6 is illegible.
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.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
“The sensor 103” in page 11, lines 25-26 should read “The sensor 126”;
“the system 126” in page 12, line 4 should read “the system 100”;
“the client device 149” in page 16, lines 10 & 13-14 should read “the client device 159”;
“blocks 213 and 213 of FIG. 3.4” in page 22, line 13 should read “blocks 213 and 216 of FIG. 3.4”;
“Fig 1.2” should read “Fig 1.1” in page 29, line 11, which depicts the labeled elements a-f;
“as shown in Fig. 1a” in page 44, line 21 refers to a figure that does not exist in the drawings; and
“as shown in Fig. 6” in page 53, line 12 refers to a figure that does not exist in the drawings.
Appropriate correction is required.
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it is less than 50 words in length and uses phrases which can be implied (i.e., “The present disclosure provides”). A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be present on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP 608.01(b).
Claim Objections
Claims 2, 4, 6-8, 10, and 12-14 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “and a fill pitch” in lines 8-9, which should read “or a fill pitch” so that the claim clearly recites alternatives following “at least one of” in line 2.
Claim 4 recites “passing the laser over the residual mark” in lines 4-5, which should read “passing the laser beam over the residual mark.”
Claim 6 recites “prior to activating the laser” in line 2, which should read “prior to activating the laser system.”
Claim 7 recites “passing the laser over the second type of pavement marking in a scan direction” in line 7, which should read “passing the laser beam over the second type of pavement marking in the scan direction.”
Claim 8 recites “passing the laser over” in line 3, which should read “passing the laser beam over.”
Claim 10 recites “and a fill pitch” in lines 8-9, which should read “or a fill pitch” so that the claim clearly recites alternatives following “at least one of” in line 2.
Claim 12 recites “the laser beam from exiting the laser system.” in line 3. The period following “the laser system” should be a semicolon, and the recitation “a determination of a residual mark” in line 6 should read “the determination of the residual mark.”
Claim 13 recites “exiting the laser system.” in line 3. The period following “the laser system” should be a semicolon, and the recitation “receiving a determination” in line 6 should read “receiving the determination.”
Claim 14 recites “a plurality of laser parameters” in line 6, which should read “the plurality of laser parameters.” Also, the recitation “in a scan direction” in line 11 should read “in the scan direction.”
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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “laser control application” in claims 9 and 11-15.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Regarding the term “laser control application” in claims 9 and 11-15, the recited functions are receiving a vehicle aligned indication, a pavement type indication, and pavement marking type indications; determining a plurality of laser parameters; and sending requests to the laser system to aim the laser beam, set the laser parameters, initiate the laser, move the laser beam in a scan direction and a second scan direction, block and unblock the laser beam, and sending a request to a user to find a next pavement marking. The corresponding structure disclosed in the specification is the computing device 149 of the laser system 106, comprising a processor and a memory, executing the laser control application 183 to perform the algorithm shown in Figs. 3.4-3.6 and described in paragraphs in page 17, line 25-page 19, line 7, page 20, line 4-page 22, line 15, page 23, line 8-page 24, line 4, and equivalent 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.
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 14-15 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.
Claim 14 recites “determining, by the laser control application, a plurality of laser parameters based at least in part on the second pavement marking type indication” in lines 6-7, and “sending, by the laser control application, a movement request to the laser system to pass the laser beam over the type of pavement marking in a scan direction” in lines 10-11. The recitation “the type of pavement marking” in line 11 refers back to the type of pavement marking recited in claim 9. It is therefore unclear whether the claim requires passing the laser beam over the pavement marking of claim 9 using laser parameters determined for a different, second pavement marking type, or over a second pavement marking corresponding to the second pavement marking type indication. For examination purposes, the limitation is interpreted as passing the laser beam over a second pavement marking corresponding to the second pavement marking type indication.
Claim 15 recites “pass the laser beam over the type of pavement marking in the second scan direction” in line 5, and is rejected for the same reason above.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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 text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
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.
Claims 1-3 and 9-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garmire et al. (US 5643476 A) hereinafter Garmire, in view of Regentova et al. (NDOT Research Report No. 340-13-830) hereinafter Regentova, and further in view of Lavoie et al. (US 20220241891 A1) hereinafter Lavoie.
Regarding claim 1, Garmire teaches, in Fig. 1, a method, comprising:
aligning a vehicle (36, “van”) with a type of pavement marking (“graffiti”) on a type of pavement (23, “sign”) (abstract: “A laser system for the removal of graffiti from a retro-reflective highway sign”; col. 9, lns. 9-12: “allowing the driver to visually align the van 36 with the sign 23. Once the van has been aligned the operator parks the vehicle and proceeds to activate the laser system”; the graffiti paint on the sign surface is interpreted as a coating on a surface), the vehicle (36) having a laser system (20, “laser system”) (col. 4, lns. 19-21: “the present invention is preferably mounted within the flatbed portion of a van 36”);
aiming the laser system (20) at the type of pavement marking (“graffiti”) (col. 8, lns. 37-39: “The laser scan routine 260 positions the laser beam 262 at a point convenient to begin scanning of the graffiti”; col. 6, lns. 23-26: “a visible red dot 97 at the intersection point where the ablating laser path intersects an object. The red dot functions as a target indicator to identify where the invisible ablating laser pulse will contact the highway sign”; the examiner construes Garmire as teaching that positioning the ablating laser beam at the starting point of the graffiti, confirmed by the red dot 97, aims the laser system at the coating);
activating the laser system (20) to produce a laser beam (Fig. 4: 79, “laser pulse”) (col. 8, lns. 44-45: “The computer then signals 266 the laser switch circuit to begin pulsing the Q-switched laser”); and
passing the laser beam (79) over the type of pavement marking (“graffiti”) in a scan direction (col. 8, lns. 46-48: “signaling 268 the scanner to scan the laser intersection point across a computer-selected portion of the highlighted graffiti”; col. 8, lns. 62-64: “the computer-selected portions are rows or columns of the graffiti-covered highlighted area”; the examiner construes Garmire as teaching that scanning the laser beam across rows or columns of the graffiti passes the laser beam over the coating in a scan direction).
PNG
media_image1.png
545
1279
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1 & 3 of Garmire
Regarding claim 1, Garmire does not explicitly teach that the coating is a pavement marking on a type of pavement.
However, Regentova teaches a type of pavement marking (“paint stripe”) on a type of pavement (“asphalt substrate”) removed by laser (p. iii: “The project was concerned with adopting the laser technology for pavement stripe and markers removal”; p. 4, ln. 12: “Laboratory tests and results for ablation of paint stripe from asphalt substrate”; the examiner construes Regentova as teaching that the coating removed by the laser is a pavement marking on a type of pavement).
Garmire and Regentova are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser removal of coatings from roadway infrastructure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire such that the coating removed is a pavement marking on a type of pavement, as taught by Regentova, in order to obtain “absence of ghost lines” and “practically no pavement damage” (Regentova, p. iii), thereby removing the pavement marking with the vehicle-aligned, computer-controlled laser system (20) of Garmire.
Regarding claim 1, Garmire in view of Regentova does not explicitly teach detecting the type of pavement marking using a sensor; detecting the type of pavement using the sensor; and setting a plurality of laser parameters based at least in part on detection of the type of pavement marking and detection of the type of pavement.
However, Lavoie teaches, in Figs. 1 and 5,
detecting the type of pavement marking (19, “layer”) using a sensor (24, “detection means”; 64, “spectrometer”) (¶ [0043]: “detection means 24 for characterizing the spectra emitted during the ablation event”; ¶ [0073]: “computing means 25 queries database 67 or 69 to determine if the acquired spectra data corresponds to any of the stored spectra data attributed to known substrate materials 18 and coatings 19”; ¶ [0075]: “characteristics of layer 19 e.g. paint, lead paint, resin...”; the examiner construes Lavoie as teaching that identifying the coating (19) from the spectral data is detecting the type of pavement marking);
detecting the type of pavement (18, “substrate material”) using the sensor (24) (¶ [0047]: “Plasma plume 41 comprises atomized and partially ionized matter constituting substrate material 18 and layer sample 19”; ¶ [0075]: “if there is a match then the characteristics of substrate material 18 e.g. aluminum, steel etc., ... may be presented”; ¶ [0059]: “substrate materials 18, such as ... a concrete block”; the examiner construes Lavoie as teaching that identifying the substrate material 18 from the same spectral data is detecting the type of pavement); and
setting a plurality of laser parameters based at least in part on detection of the type of pavement marking (19) and detection of the type of pavement (18) (¶ [0075]: “based on the identified substrate material 18 and layer 19, an appropriate ablating protocol is selected, step 322. ...step 324... provides calibration settings or desired parameters for the selected ablating protocol to laser power controller 32 and laser head 14”; ¶ [0072]: “ablating protocol may include parameters pertaining to the characteristics of laser beam 17, such as pulse width, frequency, scan speed, power level and shape size”).
Garmire, Regentova, and Lavoie are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser removal of coatings from substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova, to detect the type of pavement marking and the type of pavement using a sensor and to set the plurality of laser parameters based at least in part on both detections, as taught by Lavoie, in order that “the substance on the surface material to be removed and the material to be kept intact are determined automatically” (Lavoie, ¶ [0032]), thereby removing the pavement marking with laser parameters of the laser system (20) of Garmire suited to both the pavement marking and the type of pavement beneath it.
PNG
media_image2.png
462
641
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Lavoie
PNG
media_image3.png
734
629
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5 of Lavoie
Regarding claim 2, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 1, wherein the plurality of laser parameters includes at least one of:
a laser power (Lavoie, ¶ [0072]: “power level”; ¶ [0044]: “the power output level is set at 80 watts (W)”);
a laser wavelength (Lavoie, ¶ [0076]: “laser pulse 17 having a particular wavelength, pulse width and output level is generated”);
a laser fluence (Lavoie, ¶ [0044]: “the parameters of laser beam 17 are selected to optimize the average energy density (energy per unit area) on substrate material 18”; the examiner construes energy per unit area as laser fluence);
a pulse frequency (Lavoie, ¶ [0072]: “frequency”; ¶ [0044]: “at a frequency of 400 kilohertz (kHz)”;
a pulse width (Lavoie, ¶ [0072]: “pulse width”; ¶ [0044]: “with a pulse width at 350 ns”);
a velocity (Lavoie, ¶ [0072]: “scan speed”; the examiner construes the scan speed of laser beam 17 as a velocity); and
a fill pitch (Garmire, col. 8, lns. 62-65: “the computer-selected portions are rows or columns of the graffiti-covered highlighted area. The width of each column or row corresponds to the width of the laser pulse”; the examiner construes the spacing of adjacent scan rows or columns as a fill pitch).
Regarding claim 3, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 1. Garmire, as modified, does not explicitly teach changing the scan direction to a second scan direction; and passing the laser beam over the type of pavement marking in the second scan direction.
However, Regentova teaches
changing the scan direction to a second scan direction (p. 4, lns. 20-21: “the scan speed of the galvo-mirrors moving back and forth across the material surface in the 0.5" strip width”; the examiner construes the reversal of the galvo-mirror travel from the “forth” direction to the “back” direction as changing the scan direction to a second scan direction); and
passing the laser beam over the type of pavement marking (“paint stripe”) in the second scan direction (p. 4, lns. 20-21; Table 1: “Complete ablation” at a scan speed of 100 ips; the examiner construes the continued ablation of the paint stripe during the return travel of the galvo-mirrors as passing the laser beam over the pavement marking in the second scan direction).
Garmire, Regentova, and Lavoie are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser removal of coatings from substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova and Lavoie, to change the scan direction to a second scan direction and pass the laser beam over the pavement marking in the second scan direction, as taught by Regentova, in order to obtain “[c]omplete ablation” of the paint stripe (Regentova, p. 4, Table 1), thereby removing the pavement marking with the scanner of Garmire traveling in both directions across the marking.
Regarding claim 9, Garmire teaches, in Fig. 1, a method, comprising:
receiving, by a laser control application (32, “computer”; col. 4, lns. 26-28: “laser control and optical feedback software stored in memory that, when activated, functions as a laser control and optical feedback circuit for operating the laser system”), a vehicle aligned indication that a vehicle (36) has been aligned with a type of pavement marking (“graffiti”) on a type of pavement (23) (col. 7, lns. 9-14: “allowing the driver to visually align the van 36 with the sign 23. Once the van has been aligned the operator parks the vehicle and proceeds to activate the laser system. Upon activation, the computer 32, under the control of software, initiates a conventional initialization and diagnostic routine 200”; the graffiti paint on the sign surface is interpreted as a coating on a surface; the examiner construes the operator’s activation of the laser system after the van has been aligned, received by the computer 32, as a vehicle aligned indication);
sending, by the laser control application (32), a request to a laser system (20) to aim a laser beam (79) at the type of pavement marking (“graffiti”) (col. 8, lns. 37-39: “The laser scan routine 260 positions the laser beam 262 at a point convenient to begin scanning of the graffiti”; col. 6, lns. 29-31: “The scanner... is connected to the computer 32... and responsive to signals therefrom to change the laser path”; the examiner construes the computer’s signal positioning the laser beam at the starting point of the graffiti as a request to aim the laser beam);
sending, by the laser control application (32), an initiation request to the laser system (20) (col. 8, lns. 44-45: “The computer then signals 266 the laser switch circuit to begin pulsing the Q-switched laser”); and
sending, by the laser control application (32), a movement request to the laser system (20) to pass the laser beam (79) over the type of pavement marking (“graffiti”) in a scan direction (col. 8, lns. 46-48: “signaling 268 the scanner to scan the laser intersection point across a computer-selected portion of the highlighted graffiti”; col. 8, lns. 62-64: “the computer-selected portions are rows or columns of the graffiti-covered highlighted area”).
Regarding claim 9, Garmire does not explicitly teach that the coating is a pavement marking on a type of pavement.
However, Regentova teaches a type of pavement marking (“paint stripe”) on a type of pavement (“asphalt substrate”) removed by laser (p. iii: “The project was concerned with adopting the laser technology for pavement stripe and markers removal”; p. 4, ln. 12: “Laboratory tests and results for ablation of paint stripe from asphalt substrate”; the examiner construes Regentova as teaching that the coating removed by the laser is a pavement marking on a type of pavement).
Garmire and Regentova are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser removal of coatings from roadway infrastructure. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire such that the coating removed is a pavement marking on a type of pavement, as taught by Regentova, in order to obtain “absence of ghost lines” and “practically no pavement damage” (Regentova, p. iii), thereby removing the pavement marking with the vehicle-aligned, computer-controlled laser system (20) of Garmire.
Regarding claim 9, Garmire in view of Regentova does not explicitly teach receiving, by the laser control application, a pavement type indication from a sensor; receiving, by the laser control application, a pavement marking type indication from the sensor; determining, by the laser control application, a plurality of laser parameters based at least in part on the pavement type indication and the pavement marking type indication; and sending, by the laser control application, the plurality of laser parameters to the laser system.
However, Lavoie teaches, in Figs. 1 and 5,
receiving, by the laser control application (25, “computing means”), a pavement type indication from a sensor (24, “detection means”; 64, “spectrometer”) (¶ [0073]: “computing means 25 receives spectral information from the spectrometer 64 and CCD 66 of detector means 24”; ¶ [0075]: “if there is a match then the characteristics of substrate material 18 e.g. aluminum, steel etc., ... may be presented”; ¶ [0059]: “substrate materials 18, such as ... a concrete block”; the examiner construes the spectral information identifying the substrate material 18 as a pavement type indication);
receiving, by the laser control application (25), a pavement marking type indication from the sensor (24) (¶ [0073]: “computing means 25 queries database 67 or 69 to determine if the acquired spectra data corresponds to any of the stored spectra data attributed to known substrate materials 18 and coatings 19”; ¶ [0075]: “characteristics of layer 19 e.g. paint, lead paint, resin...”; the examiner construes the spectral information identifying the layer 19 as a pavement marking type indication);
determining, by the laser control application (25), a plurality of laser parameters based at least in part on the pavement type indication and the pavement marking type indication (¶ [0075]: “based on the identified substrate material 18 and layer 19, an appropriate ablating protocol is selected, step 322”; ¶ [0072]: “ablating protocol may include parameters pertaining to the characteristics of laser beam 17, such as pulse width, frequency, scan speed, power level and shape size”); and
sending, by the laser control application (25), the plurality of laser parameters to the laser system (12, “laser”; 14, “laser ablating head”) (¶ [0075]: “provides calibration settings or desired parameters for the selected ablating protocol to laser power controller 32 and laser head 14”);
Garmire, Regentova, and Lavoie are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser removal of coatings from substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova, such that the laser control application receives the pavement type and pavement marking type indications from a sensor, determines the plurality of laser parameters based on both indications, and sends the parameters to the laser system, as taught by Lavoie, in order that “the substance on the surface material to be removed and the material to be kept intact are determined automatically” (Lavoie, ¶ [0032]), thereby removing the pavement marking with laser parameters of the laser system (20) of Garmire, as determined by the computer (32), suited to both the pavement marking and the type of pavement beneath it.
Regarding claim 10, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 9, wherein the plurality of laser parameters includes at least one of:
a laser power (Lavoie, ¶ [0072]: “power level”; ¶ [0044]: “the power output level is set at 80 watts (W)”);
a laser wavelength (Lavoie, ¶ [0076]: “laser pulse 17 having a particular wavelength, pulse width and output level is generated”);
a laser fluence (Lavoie, ¶ [0044]: “the parameters of laser beam 17 are selected to optimize the average energy density (energy per unit area) on substrate material 18”; the examiner construes energy per unit area as laser fluence);
a pulse frequency (Lavoie, ¶ [0072]: “frequency”; ¶ [0044]: “at a frequency of 400 kilohertz (kHz)”;
a pulse width (Lavoie, ¶ [0072]: “pulse width”; ¶ [0044]: “with a pulse width at 350 ns”);
a velocity (Lavoie, ¶ [0072]: “scan speed”; the examiner construes the scan speed of laser beam 17 as a velocity); and
a fill pitch (Garmire, col. 8, lns. 62-65: “the computer-selected portions are rows or columns of the graffiti-covered highlighted area. The width of each column or row corresponds to the width of the laser pulse”; the examiner construes the spacing of adjacent scan rows or columns as a fill pitch).
Regarding claim 11, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 9, and Garmire further teaches wherein the laser control application (32) sends requests to the scanner of the laser system (20) (col. 6, lns. 40-44: “galvanometer... incrementally rotates the mirror 98 on the axle 100 in response to signals from the computer to adjust the radial direction of laser beam from the boom”). Garmire, as modified, does not explicitly teach sending, by the laser control application, a request to the laser system to change the scan direction to a second scan direction; and sending, by the laser control application, a movement request to the laser system to pass the laser beam over the type of pavement marking in the second scan direction.
However, Regentova teaches
sending, by the laser control application, a request to the laser system to change the scan direction to a second scan direction (p. 4, lns. 20-21: “the scan speed of the galvo-mirrors moving back and forth across the material surface in the 0.5" strip width”; the examiner construes the reversal of the galvo-mirror travel from the “forth” direction to the “back” direction as changing the scan direction to a second scan direction; in the combination, the galvo-mirrors are driven by requests from the laser control application (32) of Garmire); and
sending, by the laser control application, a movement request to the laser system to pass the laser beam over the type of pavement marking in the second scan direction (p. 4, lns. 20-21; Table 1: “Complete ablation” at a scan speed of 100 ips; the examiner construes the continued ablation of the paint stripe during the return travel of the galvo-mirrors as passing the laser beam over the pavement marking in the second scan direction, in the combination by a movement request from the laser control application (32) of Garmire).
Garmire, Regentova, and Lavoie are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser removal of coatings from substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova and Lavoie, such that the laser control application (32) sends a request to the laser system (20) to change the scan direction to a second scan direction and a movement request to pass the laser beam over the pavement marking in the second scan direction, as taught by Regentova, in order to obtain “[c]omplete ablation” of the paint stripe (Regentova, p. 4, Table 1), thereby removing the pavement marking with the galvanometer scanner of Garmire driven by the computer (32), traveling in both directions across the marking.
Claims 4-5, 7-8 and 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garmire et al. (US 5643476 A) hereinafter Garmire, in view of Regentova et al. (NDOT Research Report No. 340-13-830) hereinafter Regentova, Lavoie et al. (US 20220241891 A1) hereinafter Lavoie, and further in view of Benicewicz et al. (US 20030218745 A1) hereinafter Benicewicz.
Regarding claim 4, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 1, and Garmire further teaches
determining a residual mark of a plurality of residual marks exists (col. 8, lns. 48-51: “The computer, upon completing a scan, checks the image of the area scanned using the telephoto camera and determines 270 whether the area has been cleaned”; the examiner construes graffiti remaining in the scanned portions as a residual mark of a plurality of residual marks); and
in response to determining a residual mark, passing the laser over the residual mark (col. 8, lns. 54-55: “If the computer comparison result 271 indi[]cates graffiti remains 272, then the scan is repeated”).
Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie does not explicitly teach blocking the laser beam from exiting the laser system.
However, Benicewicz teaches, in Fig. 1, blocking the laser beam (110, “laser”) from exiting the laser system (100, “portable diagnostic system”) (¶ [0027]: “the PMT triggers shutter control electronics 136 which operate a shutter 122 to block the light output from laser 110 so that no further ablation of the surface can occur”; ¶ [0029]: “any further pulses of light from the laser are blocked due to activation of the shutter”).
Garmire, Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser ablation of material from the surface of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova and Lavoie, to block the laser beam from exiting laser system, as taught by Benicewicz, in order that “no further ablation of the surface can occur” (Benicewicz, ¶ [0027]), thereby protecting the pavement beneath the removed marking while the computer (32) of Garmire determines whether a residual mark remains.
PNG
media_image4.png
483
618
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Benicewicz
Regarding claim 5, Garmire in view of Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz teaches the method of claim 4, further comprising:
blocking the laser beam from exiting the laser system (Benicewicz: 100) (Benicewicz, ¶ [0029]: “any further pulses of light from the laser are blocked due to activation of the shutter”);
determining the type of pavement is free of residual marks (Garmire, col. 8, lns. 56-61: “Once the computer has determined that the scanned portion is clean 274, it checks to determine if all high[l]ighted portions have been scanned 276... This routine is repeated until the entire highlighted area has been cleaned of graffiti 280”; the examiner construes the determination that the scanned portion is clean as determining the type of pavement is free of residual marks); and
in response to determining the type of pavement is free of residual marks, blocking the laser beam from exiting the laser system (Benicewicz: 100) (Benicewicz, ¶ [0028]: “If (or whenever) material of the examined object 126 (i.e., the substrate/material of the object which lies beneath a surface deposit) becomes vaporized by a laser pulse, only atomic emissions from the resulting plasma indicative of the object material will be passed through to the PMT to generate a signal that triggers shutter control 136 for closing the mechanical shutter device 122”; the examiner construes Benicewicz’s closing of the shutter upon detecting the exposed substrate, i.e., the surface free of the deposit, as blocking the laser beam in response to determining the type of pavement is free of residual marks).
Regarding claim 7, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 1, and Lavoie further teaches:
detecting a second type of pavement marking (¶ [0066]: “Layer 19 may include multiple layers of the same coating or different coatings”; ¶ [0048]: “perform comparisons between the acquired spectral data and stored spectral data to determine the identity of substrate material 18 and/or layer 19”; the examiner construes identifying a different coating of layer 19 from the spectral data as detecting a second type of pavement marking);
adapting the plurality of laser parameters, based at least in part on the second type of pavement marking and the type of pavement (¶ [0075]: “based on the identified substrate material 18 and layer 19, an appropriate ablating protocol is selected, step 322”; ¶ [0078]: “another set of calibration settings or desired parameters are selected, in step 338”; the examiner construes selecting another set of calibration settings for the identified layer 19 and substrate material 18 as adapting the plurality of laser parameters);
unblocking the laser beam (¶ [0076]: “The components of optical assembly 20 and shutter 42 are configured to transmit laser light 17 to achieve a desired shape and focused beam on substrate material 18, in step 328”; the examiner construes configuring shutter 42 to transmit laser light 17 as unblocking the laser beam); and
passing the laser over the second type of pavement marking in a scan direction (¶ [0076]: “laser beam 17 impinges layer 19 on substrate material 18... Laser head 14 is moved in any one of a x, y and z direction, depending on the structural shape of substrate material 18 to remove layer 19, in step 331”).
Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie does not explicitly teach blocking the laser beam from exiting the laser system.
However, Benicewicz teaches, in Fig. 1, blocking the laser beam (110, “laser”) from exiting the laser system (100, “portable diagnostic system”) (¶ [0027]: “the PMT triggers shutter control electronics 136 which operate a shutter 122 to block the light output from laser 110 so that no further ablation of the surface can occur”; ¶ [0029]: “any further pulses of light from the laser are blocked due to activation of the shutter”).
Garmire, Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser ablation of material from the surface of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova and Lavoie, to block the laser beam from exiting laser system, as taught by Benicewicz, in order that “no further ablation of the surface can occur” (Benicewicz, ¶ [0027]), thereby keeping the laser beam of the laser system (20) of Garmire blocked while the plurality of laser parameters are adapted for the second type of pavement marking, before the laser beam is unblocked to remove it.
Regarding claim 8, Garmire in view of Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz teaches the method of claim 7, and Regentova further teaches:
changing the scan direction to a second scan direction (p. 4, lns. 20-21: “the scan speed of the galvo-mirrors moving back and forth across the material surface in the 0.5" strip width”; the examiner construes the reversal of the galvo-mirror travel from the “forth” direction to the “back” direction as changing the scan direction to a second scan direction); and
passing the laser over the second type of pavement marking (“paint stripe”) in the second scan direction (p. 4, lns. 20-21; Table 1: “Complete ablation” at a scan speed of 100 ips; the examiner construes the continued ablation of the paint stripe during the return travel of the galvo-mirrors as passing the laser over the second type of pavement marking in the second scan direction).
Garmire, Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser ablation of material from the surface of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova, Lavoie and Benicewicz, to change the scan direction to a second scan direction and pass the laser beam over the second type of pavement marking in the second scan direction, as further taught by Regentova, in order to obtain “[c]omplete ablation” of the paint stripe (Regentova, p. 4, Table 1), thereby removing the second type of pavement marking with the scanner of Garmire traveling in both directions across the marking.
Regarding claim 12, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving, from the sensor (Lavoie: 24), a determination of a residual mark of a plurality of residual marks (Lavoie, ¶ [0080]: “A determination is made regarding whether the desired area of substrate material 18 has been cleaned in accordance with a desired level of ablation and quality based on any one of the analyzed image, acoustic, thermal, and spectra data from the sensor means 22 and detector means 24, in step 346”; the examiner construes a determination that the area has not yet been cleaned as a determination of a residual mark of a plurality of residual marks);
in response to receiving a determination of a residual mark, sending, by the laser control application, a request to the laser system to unblock the laser beam (Lavoie, ¶ [0080]: “When it is determined that the desired area of substrate material 18 has not been cleaned, the process returns to step 330”; ¶ [0076]: “The components of optical assembly 20 and shutter 42 are configured to transmit laser light 17 to achieve a desired shape and focused beam on substrate material 18, in step 328”; the examiner construes the computing means (25) returning to the ablation event, in which shutter 42 is configured to transmit laser light 17, in response to the determination that the area has not been cleaned, as sending a request to the laser system to unblock the laser beam); and
sending, by the laser control application, a movement request to the laser system to pass the laser beam over the residual mark (Garmire, col. 8, lns. 54-55: “If the computer comparison result 271 indicates graffiti remains 272, then the scan is repeated”; col. 8, lns. 46-48: “signaling 268 the scanner to scan the laser intersection point across a computer-selected portion of the highlighted graffiti”).
Garmire, Regentova and Lavoie does not explicitly teach sending, by the laser control application, a request to the laser system to block the laser beam from exiting the laser system.
However, Benicewicz teaches, in Fig. 1,
sending, by the laser control application, a request to the laser system (100, “portable diagnostic system”) to block the laser beam (110, “laser”) from exiting the laser system (¶ [0027]: “the PMT triggers shutter control electronics 136 which operate a shutter 122 to block the light output from laser 110 so that no further ablation of the surface can occur”; ¶ [0029]: “alternative means may also be used to prevent the laser from causing any further ablation to the object, such as, for example, cutting power to the laser in response to a signal from PMT 140”; the examiner construes the triggering signal to shutter control electronics 136 as a request to block the laser beam, which in the combination is sent by the laser control application (32) of Garmire).
Garmire, Regentova, Lavoie and Benicewicz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser ablation of material from the surface of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova and Lavoie, such that the laser control application sends a request to the laser system to block the laser beam from exiting the laser system, as taught by Benicewicz, in order that “no further ablation of the surface can occur” (Benicewicz, ¶ [0027]), thereby protecting the pavement while the laser control application (32) of Garmire receives the residual mark determination, before unblocking the laser beam to pass over the residual mark.
Regarding claim 13, Garmire in view of Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz teaches the method of claim 12, further comprising:
sending, by the laser control application (Garmire: 32), a request to the laser system to block the laser beam from exiting the laser system (Benicewicz, ¶ [0027]: “the PMT triggers shutter control electronics 136 which operate a shutter 122 to block the light output from laser 110 so that no further ablation of the surface can occur”; the examiner construes the triggering signal to shutter control electronics 136, sent in the combination by the laser control application (32) of Garmire, as a request to block the laser beam); and
receiving, from the sensor (Lavoie: 24), a determination that the type of pavement is free of residual marks (Lavoie, ¶ [0080]: “When it is determined that the desired area of substrate material 18 has not been cleaned, the process returns to step 330; else the ablating process ends in step 344”; the examiner construes the determination, from the data of detector means 24 in step 346, that the desired area has been cleaned as a determination that the type of pavement is free of residual marks).
Garmire in view of Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz does not explicitly teach in response to receiving a determination that the type of pavement is free of residual marks, sending, by the laser control application, a request to a user to find a next pavement marking.
However, Garmire, as modified by Regentova, further teaches
in response to receiving a determination that the type of pavement is free of residual marks (col. 8, lns. 56-61: “This routine is repeated until the entire highlighted area has been cleaned of graffiti 280”; col. 3, lns. 35-36: “The optical sensor is then directed by the operator to the next region to be scanned”; the examiner construes the operator’s action, taken after the laser control application (32) determines that the area has been cleaned, as occurring in response to a determination that the type of pavement is free of residual marks), sending, by the laser control application (32), a request to a user (34, “operator”) (col. 7, lns. 56-58: “the operator is prompted 226 to ensure the area has been correctly identified”; col. 8, lns. 18-19: “prompts 246 the operator to verify 248 or modify 250 the computer's identification of the graffiti”; the examiner construes the prompts of the computer (32) to the operator (34) as sending, by the laser control application, a request to a user) to find a next pavement marking (col. 3, lns. 35-36: “The optical sensor is then directed by the operator to the next region to be scanned”; the examiner construes the operator directing the optical sensor to the next region, in the combination with the pavement markings of Regentova (p. iii: “pavement stripe and markers removal”), as finding a next pavement marking).
Garmire, Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser ablation of material from the surface of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz, such that, in response to receiving a determination that the type of pavement is free of residual marks, the laser control application (32) sends a request to the user (34) to find a next pavement marking, in order to prompt the operator at the completion of the removal routine in the same manner that the laser control application (32) already prompts the operator at other stages of the same routine (col. 7, lns. 56-58: prompt 226; col. 8, lns. 18-19: prompt 246), thereby providing a removal system “that enables the user to remove graffiti from a highway sign or other with a minimal amount of effort” (Garmire, col. 2, lns. 37-39), the operator being cued to the next step that Garmire already assigns to the operator.
Regarding claim 14, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 9, further comprising:
receiving, by the laser control application (Lavoie: 25), a second pavement marking type indication from the sensor (Lavoie: 24) (Lavoie, ¶ [0066]: “Layer 19 may include multiple layers of the same coating or different coatings”; ¶ [0073]: “computing means 25 receives spectral information from the spectrometer 64 and CCD 66 of detector means 24”; ¶ [0048]: “perform comparisons between the acquired spectral data and stored spectral data to determine the identity of substrate material 18 and/or layer 19”; the examiner construes the spectral information identifying a different coating of layer 19 as a second pavement marking type indication);
determining, by the laser control application (Lavoie: 25), a plurality of laser parameters based at least in part on the second pavement marking type indication (Lavoie, ¶ [0075]: “based on the identified substrate material 18 and layer 19, an appropriate ablating protocol is selected, step 322”; ¶ [0078]: “another set of calibration settings or desired parameters are selected, in step 338”; the examiner construes selecting another set of calibration settings for the identified coating of layer 19 as determining a plurality of laser parameters based at least in part on the second pavement marking type indication);
sending, by the laser control application (Lavoie: 25), a request to the laser system to unblock the laser beam (Lavoie, ¶ [0078]: “in step 338, and the ablating process returns to step 326”; ¶ [0076]: “The components of optical assembly 20 and shutter 42 are configured to transmit laser light 17 to achieve a desired shape and focused beam on substrate material 18, in step 328”; the examiner construes the computing means (25) configuring shutter 42 to transmit laser light 17, after the calibration settings are selected for the identified coating, as sending a request to the laser system to unblock the laser beam); and
sending, by the laser control application (Garmire: 32), a movement request to the laser system (Garmire: 20) to pass the laser beam over the type of pavement marking in a scan direction (Garmire, col. 8, lns. 46-48: “signaling 268 the scanner to scan the laser intersection point across a computer-selected portion of the highlighted graffiti”; col. 8, lns. 62-64: “the computer-selected portions are rows or columns of the graffiti-covered highlighted area”; as discussed under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, “the type of pavement marking” is interpreted as the second type of pavement marking).
Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie does not explicitly teach sending, by the laser control application, a request to the laser system to block the laser beam from exiting the laser system.
However, Benicewicz teaches, in Fig. 1, sending, by the laser control application, a request to the laser system (100, “portable diagnostic system”) to block the laser beam (110, “laser”) from exiting the laser system (¶ [0027]: “the PMT triggers shutter control electronics 136 which operate a shutter 122 to block the light output from laser 110 so that no further ablation of the surface can occur”; ¶ [0029]: “any further pulses of light from the laser are blocked due to activation of the shutter”; the examiner construes the triggering signal to shutter control electronics 136 as a request to block the laser beam, which in the combination is sent by the laser control application (32) of Garmire).
Garmire, Regentova, Lavoie and Benicewicz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser ablation of material from the surface of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova and Lavoie, such that the laser control application sends a request to the laser system to black the laser beam from exiting the laser system, as taught by Benicewicz, in order that “no further ablation of the surface can occur” (Benicewicz, ¶ [0027]), thereby keeping the laser beam of the laser system (20) of Garmire blocked while the plurality of laser parameters are determined for the second type of pavement marking, before the laser beam is unblocked to remove it.
Regarding claim 15, Garmire in view of Regentova, Lavoie and Benicewicz teaches the method of claim 14, and Garmire further teaches wherein the laser control application (32) send requests to the scanner of the laser system (20) (col. 6, lns. 40-44). Garmire, as modified, does not explicitly teach that the requests change the scan direction to a second scan direction and pass the laser beam over the type of pavement marking in the second scan direction.
However, Regentova teaches
sending, by the laser control application, a request to the laser system to change the scan direction to a second scan direction (p. 4, lns. 20-21: “the scan speed of the galvo-mirrors moving back and forth across the material surface in the 0.5” strip width”; the examiner construes the reversal of the galvo-mirror travel from the “forth” direction to the “back” direction as changing the scan direction to a second scan direction; in the combination, the galvo-mirrors are driven by requests from the laser control application (32) of Garmire); and
sending, by the laser control application, a movement request to the laser system to pass the laser beam over the type of pavement marking in the second scan direction (p. 4, lns. 20-21; Table 1: “Complete ablation” at a scan speed of 100 ips; the examiner construes the continued ablation of the paint stripe during the return travel of the galvo-mirrors as passing the laser beam over the second type of pavement marking in the second scan direction, in the combination by a movement request from the laser control application (32) of Garmire; as discussed under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) above, “the type of pavement marking” is interpreted as the second type of pavement marking of claim 14).
Garmire, Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser ablation of material from the surface of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova, Lavoie, and Benicewicz, such that the laser control application (32) sends a request to the laser system (20) to change the scan direction to a second scan direction and a movement request to pass the laser beam over the second type of pavement marking in the second scan direction, as further taught by Regentova, in order to obtain “[c]omplete ablation” of the paint stripe (Regentova, p. 4, Table 1), thereby removing the second type of pavement marking with the galvanometer scanner of Garmire, driven by the computer (32), traveling in both directions across the marking.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Garmire et al. (US 5643476 A) hereinafter Garmire, in view of Regentova et al. (NDOT Research Report No. 340-13-830) hereinafter Regentova, Lavoie et al. (US 20220241891 A1) hereinafter Lavoie, and further in view of Crocker et al. (US 20210403030 A1) hereinafter Crocker.
Regarding claim 6, Garmire in view of Regentova and Lavoie teaches the method of claim 1, but does not explicitly teach removing a plurality of glass beads from the type of pavement marking prior to activating the laser.
However, Crocker teaches removing a plurality of glass beads from the type of pavement marking prior to activating the laser (¶ [0005]: “Paint, which sometimes includes additives such as retro-reflective glass beads, is generally used to mark travel lanes”; ¶ [0007]: “When surface markings are to be replaced and renewed, methods of surface marking removal may be a grinder head or water blaster, or combination thereof... The vehicles may be separate wherein one vehicle is used to grind away a majority of the stripe and another vehicle is uses ultra high pressure fluid to remove the remainder of the strip”; the examiner construes grinding away a majority of a surface marking containing glass beads, before a second process removes the remainder, as removing a plurality of glass beads from the type of pavement marking prior to activating the laser, the laser of Garmire being the second process in the combination).
Garmire, Regentova, Lavoie, and Crocker are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of removal of coatings from substrates. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the method of Garmire, as modified by Regentova and Lavoie, to grind away a majority of the pavement marking, including a plurality of its glass beads, before activating the laser to remove the remainder, as taught by Crocker, in order to provide “minimal surface impact... without damaging the road surface” (Crocker, ¶ [0007]), thereby leaving only the remainder of the pavement marking for removal by the laser system (20) of Garmire.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Lovoi et al. (US 4588885 A), Janke et al. (US 7546765 B1), Coughtry (US 8360827 B1), Ream et al. (US 9375974 B2), Simula et al. (US 20160350907 A1), Sprentall et al. (US 9573226 B2), Qi et al. (CN 215414955 U).
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JE HWAN JOHN PARK whose telephone number is (571)272-6405. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 9AM-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, Edward F. Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/J.J.P./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights