DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Preliminary Amendments
Receipt and entry of Applicant’s Preliminary Amendment filed on 09/13/2023 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-9 have been amended.
Overall, claims 1-9 are pending in this application.
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.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 2, the phrase "in particular" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitation following the phrase (“up to 2mm”) are part of the claimed invention. Description of examples or preferences is properly set forth in the specification rather than the claims. If stated in the claims, examples and preferences may lead to confusion over the intended scope of a claim. It is unclear whether the claimed narrower range (i.e. at least 0.3 mm up to 2mm) is a limitation or not. See MPEP § 2173.05(d).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claims 1-6, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcena (US 2021/0138582 A1) in view of Luten (US 2016/0114523 A1, cited in the 09/23/2025 Information Disclosure Statement).
Regarding independent claim 1, Barcena discloses a method for processing cardboard with a laser beam 15 (Abstract, Fig. 5A), the method comprising:
moving the laser beam 10, 15 is over the cardboard 30 (“cardboard blank”) along a desired folding line such that an upper layer of the cardboard is ablated without cutting through the cardboard (Para. 0228-230, “the laser 10 irradiates the surface of the cardboard blank 30 with the laser beam 15 following particular trajectories and removes material from the cardboard blank 30 so as to cut it and/or form the fold lines therein”).
Barcena fails to disclose adjusting the laser beam such that the laser beam is focused below or above the cardboard.
Barcena does discuss controlling the size of the laser beam spot on the cardboard and the speed of the laser beam to avoid collateral burning (Barcena Para. 0074-76).
Luten teaches a method of adjusting a laser beam such that the laser beam is focused above or below the material target surface (Fig. 3, Para. 0008, 0035, “An exemplary method of reducing the intensity of the laser spot includes laser ablation performed with the beam out of focus—i.e., with the focal plane of the laser beam spaced apart from the surface from which the material is to be removed. In other words, the working distance between a lens focusing the laser beam and the target surface is different than the focal length produced by the lens. In one embodiment, the surface from which material is to be removed is above focus, with the focal plane of the laser beam located beyond the removal surface in the direction of laser propagation as shown in FIG. 3”; Para. 0037-39).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Barcena such that the laser beam is adjusted to focus beyond the target material surface (i.e. below the cardboard) as taught by Luten, in order to utilize the laser beam at a reduced intensity at the target, to reduce damage to the surface of the ablated region while reducing diffraction artifacts of the ablation process, without having to change out optical elements of the laser beam apparatus (Luten Para. 0008, 0035-39). Barcena already discusses adjusting the laser beam to avoid collateral damage to the cardboard (Barcena Para. 0074-76), and one skilled in the art, based on the teachings of Luten, would be motivated to adjust the laser beam to be out of focus at the cardboard ablation surface to reduce the intensity of the laser beam and thus reduce the damage to the surface of the cardboard beyond the intended amount of material ablation.
Regarding claim 2, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 1, and Barcena further teaches wherein the laser beam impinges on the cardboard with a diameter of at least 0.3 mm and in particular up to 2 mm (Para. 0074, “a spot of the laser beam of the first laser at the surface of the cardboard blank comprises a diameter greater than or equal to 0.10 mm and less than or equal to 2.00 mm…the diameter of the spot of the laser beam of the first laser is approximately equal to one of: 0.25 mm, 0.40 mm, 0.50 mm, 0.70 mm, 1.00 mm, and 1.50 mm”).
Regarding claim 3, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 1, and Barcena further teaches wherein the laser beam 10,15 is moved along the cardboard in a continuous line, a dashed line, and/or a dot-dashed line (Barcena Fig. 7-10, a continuous line is shown in Fig. 10, dashed/dotted lines in Fig. 7 & 8, angled dashed lines in Fig. 9; Para. 0238-244).
Regarding claim 4, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam 10,15 is moved along the desired folding line in two parallel lines (Para. 0230, the laser is moved by adjusting mirrors of a scanner 20 to form the desired fold lines; Fig. 7 & 8 depicts possible fold lines created, Para. 0238-240, “Fig. 7 shows…A second fold line 42 comprises two parallel segments (in the form of dotted lines) extending along the first direction of the cardboard blank 32… Fig. 8 shows… Each of the two fold lines 43 comprises three parallel segments (in the form of dashed lines)”).
Regarding claim 5, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 4, and Barcena further teaches wherein the two parallel lines 42, 43 do not overlap (Fig. 7 & 8, Para. 0238-240, the lines are parallel and thus do not overlap).
Regarding claim 6, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 1, and Barcena further teaches wherein the laser beam is moved along the folding line 45 in a plurality of parallel lines that are inclined to the folding line (Fig. 9, Para. 0242, “The fold line 45 comprises a plurality of segments (in the form of continuous lines) arranged with an angle with respect to a folding direction (i.e. a vertical direction according to the representation of FIG. 9)”).
Regarding claim 8, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam 10, 15 is focused by focusing lens (Para. 0227, “The laser 10 generally comprises optics such as one or more lenses for focusing and defocusing the beam 15 thereof”, Fig. 5A).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcena in view of Luten, further in view of Smirnov (US 2013/0296150 A1, cited in the 09/13/2023 Information Disclosure Statement)
Regarding claim 7, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 1, but fails to teach wherein the laser beam is moved along the cardboard by at least one galvanometer scanner.
Barcena teaches moving the laser beam 10, 15 using a scanner 20, but does not specify the type of scanner (Barcena Para. 0226-227).
Smirnov teaches a method of moving a laser beam 332 for ablating cardboard 310 using a scanner 300 that can be a galvanometer, Para. 0061, “Some scanners 300 may utilize a rotary encoder (not shown in the drawing) and control electronics (not shown in the drawing) to move or position the light reflecting planes 304 and 306 to a required position and/or angle at a required velocity. The encoder and control electronics can provide a suitable electrical current to a motor or to a galvanometer for a desired angle or phase”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Barcena in view of Luten such that the laser beam is moved by at least one galvanometer scanner, as taught by Smirnov, in order to provide a well-known type of scanner that can utilize electric current to move or position the laser beam to a desired angle or phase (Smirnov Para. 0061). Use of galvanometer scanners to position/move a laser beam by adjusting an angle of a reflecting plane/mirror is well-known and common in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcena in view of Luten, further in view of Ryu (US 2012/0111310 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 8, but fails to teach wherein the laser beam is diverged before entering the focusing lens.
Barcena does discuss using lenses for focusing and defocusing the laser beam (Para. 0227).
Ryu teaches a method of adjusting a laser beam for processing a target object 200, including wherein the laser beam is diverged (using a concave lens 411, Fig. 3, Para. 0053-56) before entering a focusing lens 430 (condensing lens) to correct a divergence angle of the laser beam to a required angle (Para. 0051-59).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have modified the method of Barcena in view of Luten to include diverging the laser beam before the beam enters the focusing lens, as taught by Ryu, in order to correct a divergence angle of the laser beam to a required angle, to permit shaping of the laser beam to a desired size and shape (Ryu Para. 0051-59). Use of diverging/negative lenses to diverge a laser beam prior to the laser beam entering a focusing lens is well-known in the art.
Pertinent Prior Art
The prior art made of record on the attached PTO-892 and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Equis (US 20180318958 A1), Miikki (US 2019/0389011 A1), Davison (US 2002/0123418 A1), Zimmer (US 11059253 B2) teach prior art methods for processing cardboard using laser apparatus to form folding lines.
Contact Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALAIN CHAU whose telephone number is (571)272-9444. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9am-6pm PST.
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 on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741