FINAL REJECTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 05/12/2026 has been entered. Claims 10-14 are newly added. Claims 1-14 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Drawings, Specification and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Non-Final Office Action mailed 02/13/2026.
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, 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcena (US 2021/0138582 A1, previously cited) in view of Luten (US 2016/0114523 A1, previously cited).
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. See Response to Arguments below.
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 (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, and Barcena further teaches 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).
Regarding claim 10, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 6, and Barcena further teaches wherein the plurality of parallel lines are inclined to the folding line at an angle of 30 to 50° (Para. 0243, “In the example of FIG. 9 the angle that each segment of the plurality of segments forms with respect to the folding direction is 45°”).
Claim 7 & 12 are 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, previously cited)
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.
Regarding claim 12, Barcena in view of Luten & Smirnov teaches the method according to claim 7 thus far, but fails to teach wherein the laser beam is moved along the cardboard by two galvanometer scanners such that the laser beam can be moved over a surface of the cardboard in all directions.
Smirnov teaches wherein the laser beam is moved along the cardboard by two galvanometer scanners 304, 306 such that the laser beam can be moved over a surface of the cardboard in all directions (Fig. 3A-4A, Para. 0061-63, “the scanner 300 may move and position a reflected laser-beam 334 in two dimensions. The scanner 300 may rotate the reflecting plane 304 around an axis 312 in the directions indicated by arrow 322, wherein axis 312 may be along the center of the length of the reflecting plane 304. Further, the scanner 300 may rotate the reflecting plane 306 around an axis 314 in the directions indicated by arrow 324, wherein axis 314 may be along the center of the width of the reflecting plane 306”; 0064-66).
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 & Smirnov to include using two galvanometer scanners to move the laser beam over a surface of the cardboard in all directions, as taught by Smirnov, in order to provide a large coverage area and allow the laser beam to access the entire surface of the cardboard to be processed (Smirnov Para. 0061-66, Fig. 3A & 4A).
Claim 9 & 11 are 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, previously cited).
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.
Regarding claim 11, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 9, but fails to teach wherein the laser beam is diverged by a diverging lens having an adjustable position.
Ryu teaches wherein the laser beam is diverged by a diverging lens 411 (concave lens, Para. 0053-56) having an adjustable position (Para. 0057, “a divergence angle of the laser beam may be corrected by adjusting a distance between the cylindrical concave lens 411 and the cylindrical convex lens 412, and a position of the cylindrical concave lens 411 or the cylindrical convex lens 412 may be changed by the moving unit 600”; Para. 0060-62).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify the system of Barcena in view of Luten & Ryu such that the diverging lens 411 has an adjustable position, as taught by Ryu, in order to allow for correction of the divergence angle by adjusting a distance between the diverging lens a focusing lens (Ryu Para. 0057, 0060-62).
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcena in view of Luten, further in view of Murphy (US 2021/0227836 A1)
Regarding claim 13, Barcena in view of Luten teaches the method according to claim 4, but fails to explicitly teach wherein the laser beam is moved along the two parallel lines in a dot-dashed pattern, and wherein dots and dashes of the two parallel lines are displaced with respect to each other in an axial direction.
Barcena does discuss having the laser beam forming a pattern along at least two parallel lines, the lines including dots or dashes (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)”).
Murphy teaches a cardboard article 10 having scored/etched line 20 (“rupture line”) that can be formed as a dot-dashed pattern (Para. 0214, “the perforations may be a mix of shapes, for instance… a pattern of alternating dots and dashes”; the dots and dashes would be formed along the rupture line 20, and would thus have the dots and dashes displaced with respect to each other along the axial direction of the line).
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 pattern of the two parallel lines which the laser beam is moved along in the system of Barcena, such that the two parallel patterns are dot-dashed patterns, as taught in Murphy, in order to provide a pattern that provides a desired degree of weakness along the line for cutting or folding the cardboard blank without penetrating completely through the cardboard (Murphy Para. 0209-204). Murphy teaches laser etched patterns along a “rupture line” that can include dots/pinholes, and slits/dashes, or a combination of the two, and that the scoring pattern affects the mechanical properties of the material at the line. Barcena already discusses use of either dots or dashes in the laser scoring pattern as shown in Fig. 7 & 8. One skilled in the art would thus know to explore the known options of scoring patterns to achieve a desired level of performance in the fold lines formed by the method. Applying such a known technique as the dot-dash pattern as taught in Murphy would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings to improve similar methods; see KSR, 550 U.S., MPEP 2141 III C.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Barcena in view of Luten, further in view of Ryu, further in view of Smirnov.
Regarding claim 14, Barcena in view of Luten teaches a device for carrying out the method according to claim 1, and Barcena further teaches the device comprising:
a laser beam source 10 from which the laser beam 15 emerges (Fig. 5A, Para. 0226);
a focusing lens (Para. 0227, “the laser 10 may comprise a first lens that is fixed and which may be used for focusing the beam 15 as it reaches the scanner 20”);
a deflection device 20 (“scanner”) configured to deflect the laser beam such that the laser beam is moved over the cardboard along the desired folding line, the deflection device comprising two scanning mirrors such that the laser beam is moved over a surface of the cardboard in all directions (Para. 0026, “The scanner 20 comprises two mirrors (not illustrated) for scanning a laser beam 15 of the laser 10 such that it may be aimed at different positions on a surface of a cardboard blank 30 resting on the support 90”).
Barcena in view of Luten fails to teach a diverging lens through which the laser beam passes after emerging from the laser beam source, wherein a position of the diverging lens is adjustable; the focusing lens through which the laser beam passes after the diverging lens, wherein a position of the focusing lens is adjustable, and wherein the focusing lens is configured to adjust a focus of the laser beam such that the laser beam is focused below or above the cardboard; and a deflection device configured to deflect the laser beam such that the laser beam is moved over the cardboard along the desired folding line, the deflection device comprising two galvanometer scanners such that the laser beam is moved over a surface of the cardboard in all directions.
Ryu teaches a device 1 including a laser beam source 300 (Fig. 1), and a diverging lens 411 (concave lens, Fig. 3, Para. 0051-59) through which the beam passes after the laser beam source, the position of the diverging lens being adjustable (Para. 0057, “a divergence angle of the laser beam may be corrected by adjusting a distance between the cylindrical concave lens 411 and the cylindrical convex lens 412, and a position of the cylindrical concave lens 411 or the cylindrical convex lens 412 may be changed by the moving unit 600”; Para. 0060-62); and a focusing lens 412 receiving the laser after the diverging lens 411 (Fig. 3).
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 adjustable diverging lens, as taught by Ryu, in order to be able to correct a divergence angle of the laser beam to a required angle, and to permit shaping of the laser beam to a desired size and shape (Ryu Para. 0051-62). 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.
Smirnov teaches a device (Fig. 3A) for processing cardboard 310 including a focusing lens 308 that has a position that is adjustable (Para. 0059, “a servo-controlled lens 308, usually called a `focus shifter` or `z-shifter`… the lens 308 may be placed between the emitted laser-beam and the reflecting plane 304. The lens 308 may move in direction similar or opposite to direction of arrow 320”).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to have incorporated into the device of Barcena in view of Luten & Ryu, the focusing lens having an adjustable position, as taught by Smirnov, in order to permit adjustment of the focus position of the laser beam (Smirnov Para. 0059).
Lutens further teaches the focusing lens configured to adjust a focus of the laser beam such that the laser beam is focused below or above the cardboard (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 device of Barcena in view of Luten & Ryu & Smirnov 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. See Response to Arguments below.
Smirnov further teaches a deflection device comprising two galvanometer scanners 304, 306 such that the laser beam can be moved over a surface of the cardboard in all directions (Fig. 3A-4A, Para. 0061-63, “the scanner 300 may move and position a reflected laser-beam 334 in two dimensions. The scanner 300 may rotate the reflecting plane 304 around an axis 312 in the directions indicated by arrow 322, wherein axis 312 may be along the center of the length of the reflecting plane 304. Further, the scanner 300 may rotate the reflecting plane 306 around an axis 314 in the directions indicated by arrow 324, wherein axis 314 may be along the center of the width of the reflecting plane 306”; 0064-66).
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 & Ryu & Smirnov to include using two galvanometer scanners to move the laser beam over a surface of the cardboard in all directions, as taught by Smirnov, in order to provide a large coverage area and allow the laser beam to access the entire surface of the cardboard to be processed (Smirnov Para. 0061-66, Fig. 3A & 4A).
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to independent claim 1 in the Remarks filed 05/12/2026 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Applicant argues that the disclosure of Barcena teaches away from the modification of the laser beam focus to be above of below the cardboard/working piece as taught in Luten, since Barcena is focused on reducing collateral damage by maintaining the laser beam diameter on the cardboard at particular “small spot” so that energy does not spread out to surfaces adjacent to the spot (Remarks Pg. 6, Barcena Para. 0076). Applicant asserts that this contradicts the proposed modification from Luten, since Barcena discusses advantages of small spots of energy and Luten’s teachings would allegedly change the principle operation of Barcena (Remarks Pg. 8). However, the examiner respectfully disagrees.
While Barcena does discuss the advantages of a smaller spot where the laser beam interacts with the cardboard, Barcena also discusses that the diameter of the spot can have a range of values resulting in acceptable performance and results. Such diameters are disclosed by Barcena as including ranges of 0.10mm to 2.00mm (Barcena Para. 0074). Barcena discusses the laser beam is focusing an amount of energy on a “small spot”, but does not explicitly preclude the focal point of the laser itself not coinciding with this spot, and focuses mainly on ensuring “no sufficient energy spreads out to surfaces adjacent to the spot” by having the spot be within the diameter ranges mentioned (Para. 0076). Barcena is also capable of focusing and defocusing the laser beam as desired (Para. 0227).
Luten is also focused on reducing collateral damage to a surface of their work piece, and suggests a defocusing of the laser beam at the work piece can also reduce collateral damage to the area surrounding the spot where the laser contacts the work piece compared to directly focusing the laser beam on the work piece, reducing diffraction artifacts and preventing the spread of damage to surrounding surfaces (Lutens Para. 0036-37). Luten does not explicitly discuss the exact size of the resulting defocused laser spot, but does mention the size of the ablated spot that results being in the micron (μm) range, including a “160μm ablated spot” (Luten Para. 0040, which equates to 0.160mm). Consequently, the concept of defocusing the laser onto the work piece can still achieve the desired diameter ranges of the laser discussed in Barcena, since a slight change in the focal position above or below the work piece can result in the benefits discussed by Luten while keeping the diameter of the laser beam at the spot within Barcena’s ranges. While there would be a reduction of energy at the laser spot as a result of the defocusing, one skilled in the art would have known to weigh the benefits of the defocused laser taught by Luten with the teachings of Barcena, in order to achieve a desired level of performance of the laser. Consequently, applicant’s arguments that Barcena contradicts the modification of Luten are unpersuasive. Furthermore, while Luten is directed to a different material of the work piece than Barcena, they are both analogous art in that they are each focused on ways to reduce collateral damage to their workpieces by manipulating properties of the laser beam and its interaction with the work piece. Based on their similar goals, the teachings of Luten would have been at least obvious to try since applying a known technique in the art (in this case defocusing a laser beam such that the focal point is above or below a work piece) to achieve a predictable result (reducing collateral damage to a work piece adjacent to a spot where the laser interacts with the work piece, as taught by Luten) would have been an obvious extension of prior art teachings (KSR, MPEP 2141, III, C).
Therefore, the rejection of claim 1 is maintained.
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 for disclosing examples of cardboard blanks having folding lines with discontinuous scoring patterns.
Contact Information
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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 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 at 571 272 7118. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ALAIN CHAU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights