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 .
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 3, 12, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 3, the limitation “said lasing apparatus has a working distance” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the working distance in this claim is same as the working distance in claim 1.
For the purpose of examination, the “working distance” is interpreted to the same “working distance” in claim 1.
Regarding claims 12 and 20, the limitations “said first member of said plurality” in claim 12, “said second member of said plurality” in claim 12, and “a first member of said plurality” in claim 20 are insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kawanishi (JP 2019026285A).
PNG
media_image1.png
396
306
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
328
338
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Kawanishi teaches a process for laser marking a measuring cup comprising steps of:
providing a measuring cup (measuring cap 4; see fig.2) comprising:
a bottom end (bottom end; see the annotation of fig.4), an open end (open end; see the annotation of fig.4) opposite said bottom end (bottom end), and a longitudinal axis passing through said bottom end (bottom end), wherein said bottom end (bottom end) defines a resting plane (see fig.4); and
a sidewall (cylinder portion 41) extending about said longitudinal axis from said bottom end (bottom end) to said open end (bottom end);
providing a lasing apparatus (laser device 22) comprising a lens having an optical axis, a working distance, and a field of view [Examiner’s note: A laser device is inherent including a lens, and optical axis, working distance, and field of view are basic characteristic of a lens];
positioning said measuring cup at least partially within said field of view such that a first worked portion of said sidewall is oriented towards said lens, within said field of view, spaced apart from said lens by said working distance, and is spaced apart from said optical axis, and said optical axis is oblique or askew of said longitudinal axis (See fig.4, measuring cap 4 is positioned at least partially within said field of view such that a first worked portion of said sidewall is oriented towards laser device 22, within said field of view, spaced apart from said lens by said working distance, and is spaced apart from said optical axis, and said optical axis is oblique or askew of said longitudinal axis.); and
lasing a dosing indicium into said first worked portion (See para.[0030] “The contour portion 62 is colored by irradiating the outer surface 41a of the three-dimensional portion 61 with laser light 20 as energy light along the contour.”).
PNG
media_image3.png
214
218
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kawanishi teaches said sidewall (cylinder portion 41) has a sidewall height between said resting plane and said open end (Cylinder portion 41 has a height between bottom end and open end), wherein said sidewall height is measured orthogonal to said resting plane (see fig.4, sidewall height is measured orthogonal to bottom end), wherein said dosing indicium has a dosing indicium height measured over a maximum extent of said dosing indicium orthogonal to said resting plane (See figs. symbols 54, 55, and 56 has a dosing indicium height measured over a maximum extent of said dosing indicium orthogonal to bottom end), wherein said dosing indicium height is from about 20% to about 100% of said sidewall height measured at said dosing indicium (See figs. the height of the symbols 54, 55, and 56 is from about 20% to about 100% of said sidewall height.)
Regarding claim 3, Kawanishi teaches said dosing indicium extends over said first worked portion of said sidewall (See figs. symbols 54, 55, and 56 extends over cylinder portion 41), wherein said lasing apparatus has a working distance, and wherein said first worked portion is within plus or minus 10%, optionally plus or minus 5%, optionally plus or minus 3.5% of said working distance [Examiner’s note: Since the laser device irradiates the measuring cup, it is inherent that the laser is positioned such that the measuring cup located within working distance of the laser device.]
Regarding claim 4, Kawanishi teaches said optical axis is oblique to said longitudinal axis (see fig.4, the optical axis of the laser beam is oblique to the longitudinal axis of the measuring cup).
Regarding claim 5, Kawanishi teaches said optical axis is askew of said longitudinal axis (see fig.4, the optical axis of the laser beam is askew of the longitudinal axis of the measuring cup).
Regarding claim 6, Kawanishi teaches rotating said measuring cup about said longitudinal axis such that a second worked portion of said sidewall is oriented towards said lens and is spaced apart from said optical axis; and lasing said dosing indicium into said sidewall (see figures and para.[0040] “Then, by irradiating the contour of the three-dimensional part 61 of the measuring cap 4 with laser light 20 from the laser device 22 at predetermined intervals, a contour part 62 is formed in which multiple colored dots D are arranged along the contour of the three-dimensional part 61 of the number "2" in symbol 55, as shown in Figure 5 as an example.” Hence, measuring cup is rotated with respect to the laser device, such that a next irradiation location is oriented towards said lens and is spaced apart from said optical axis; and lasing said dosing indicium into said sidewall.)
Regarding claim 7, Kawanishi teaches said sidewall has an exterior surface oriented away from said longitudinal axis and said first worked portion is in said exterior surface (see fig.4) [Examiner’s note: Since the longitudinal axis appears to an imaginary line along a length of the measuring cup that defined by operator. Operator can define an imaginary line such that the exterior surface of cylinder portion 41 oriented away from said longitudinal axis.]
Regarding claim 8, Kawanishi teaches said sidewall has an interior surface oriented towards said longitudinal axis and said first worked portion is in said interior surface [Examiner’s note: Since the longitudinal axis appears to an imaginary line along a length of the measuring cup that defined by operator. Operator can define an imaginary line such that the exterior surface of cylinder portion 41 oriented away from said longitudinal axis.]
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 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.
Claim(s) 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawanishi (JP 2019026285A) in view of Penny (US 2019/0118300).
Regarding claim 10, Kawanishi does not teach said first worked portion of said sidewall is entirely spaced apart from said optical axis.
However, Penny teaches in the same field of endeavor of a laser processing method, comprising lasing a first worked portion (worked portion; see the annotation of fig.1) of a workpiece (see fig.1), and said first worked portion (worked portion) of the workpiece is entirely spaced apart from an optical axis (optical axis; see the annotation of fig.1).
PNG
media_image4.png
588
540
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Kawanishi by replacing the laser of Kawanishi with the laser as taught by Penny, in order to use desired laser device to perform the method, since applicant does not disclose said first worked portion of said sidewall entirely spaced apart from said optical axis solves any stated problem or is for any particular purpose, a simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2143).
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kawanishi (JP 2019026285A).
Regarding claim 20, Kawanishi teaches providing a measuring cup within said field of view of said lasing apparatus; lasing said dosing indicium into said sidewall of a first member of said plurality (See the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach providing a plurality of said measuring cups within said field of view of said lasing apparatus; lasing said dosing indicium into said sidewall of a second member of said plurality.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the method of Kawanishi by repeat the process of the method, such that providing second measuring cup and lasing said dosing indicium into said sidewall of a second member of said plurality, in order to produce more product by the same apparatus and method, and it has been held that mere duplication of the method involves only routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04)
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 9 are 11-19 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.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights