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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(b) because the use of photographs in Figures 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 3C are not of sufficient quality such that all the details are reproducible. Additionally, the use of photographs is only acceptable if photographs are the only practicable medium for illustrating the claimed invention, as evident from Fig 1, 3, 4, 5, and 6, drawings are capable of showing the subject matter of the application; Examiner requires applicant submit drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.84 in place of the current photographs currently submitted.
The drawings are objected to for failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(m) because the use of shading in Figures 1, 2A, 2B, 3A, 3B, and 3C only obscures the claimed elements. Additionally, the use of solid black shading should only be used in a manner used to represent a bar graph.
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: reference numeral [189] in Fig 4. 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: Line 17 of page 17 includes the following phrase “What is claimed is:”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean (US-20170137329-A1), in view of Francois (US-2009224178-A1), and Bekir (US-20170137329-A1).
Regarding Claim 1, Jean teaches a handheld pulsed laser, with a laser source (10), configured to emit a laser beam (20), where the laser emits radiation that may include infrared radiation, heat-induced radiation, plasma light radiation, light radiation ([0068], [0069], [0072], [0073], [0134]). Jean further teaches that the handheld laser can be integrated into a single compact and robust housing, where the integration into a single housing allows the convenience of the device being handheld and operated by the user holding the device ([0097]). Jean further teaches that the laser source (10) can emit both a continuous beam, as well as a pulsed laser beam ([0135]).
With regards to Claim 1, Jean does not specifically teach a duty cycle less than 100%, a pulse-repetition frequency of at least frequency of at least 10 kilohertz, a FWHM pulse duration in the range of 1 microsecond to 10 milliseconds, or an optical fiber coupling the handheld apparatus to the laser source.
Francois teaches (Fig 1) a method and device for laser ablation of a surface coating from a wall ([0001]). Francois teaches that the pulse repetition frequency is generally greater than 500 Hz, and it is normal to use frequencies above 10 kHz, even up to 100 kHz ([0050], [0064]-[0068]). Francois also teaches that the ablation device can have pulse durations of 20 nanoseconds and 500 microseconds ([0062]). Francois also teaches that the laser is preferably an optical fiber laser in which the medium is an optical fiber (4a) ([0049] & [0090]). Francois goes on to teach the laser being used to ablate a cleaning zone, where the laser is emitted by a laser head connected to the pumping means delivering the radiation to the emitting head via an optical fiber ([0060]).
Bekir teaches a laser ablation method, where an ablating method is performed by directing a laser beam with a duty cycle of 20-90%, 30-80%, 40-70%, or 45-65% ([0059]). Bekir further clarifies that pulse frequency is the measure of the cycles of emitted light per second, where the duty is the on/off ratio for every one cycle ([0059]).
Regrading Claim 2, Francois further teaches that the laser beams (7) can have a pulse repetition frequency of 20kHz ([0050] & [[0091]).
Regarding Claim 3, Jean further teaches the laser source (10) may have a power in between 10 and 1000 watts ([0135]).
Regarding Claim 4, Bekir teaches the duty cycle range of 20-90% ([0059]).
Regarding Claim 14, Jean teaches the laser source (10) configured to emit a laser beam (20) to clean a wall surface ([0134]). Francois teaches the method for cleaning a wall surface with a laser, using a laser source (10) configured to emit a laser beam (20) ([0001], [0134]). Francois also teaches the pulse repetition frequency above 10 kHz, where the pulsed laser beams (7) can even be or exceed a pulse repetition frequency of 20 kHz ([0050], [0091]). Francois further teaches the ablation device with pulse durations between 20 nanoseconds and 500 microseconds ([0062]). Francois goes on to teach the laser being used to ablate a cleaning zone, where the laser is emitted by a laser head connected to the pumping means delivering the radiation to the emitting head via an optical fiber ([0060]). Bekir teaches the ablating method with duty cycles of 20-90%, 30-80%, 40-70%, or 45-65% ([0059])
Regarding Claim 15, Francois further teaches that the laser beams (7) can have a pulse repetition frequency of 20kHz ([0050] & [[0091]).
Regarding Claim 16, Jean further teaches the laser source (10) may have a power in between 10 and 1000 watts ([0135]).
Regarding Claim 19, Jean teaches the handheld laser cleaner that emits multiple types of radiation when using the laser ([0068]-[0072]).
Regarding Claim 17, Bekir teaches the duty cycle range of 20-90% ([0059]).
In this case, Jean teaches the handheld laser contained with a housing and comprising a laser source that emits radiation during use of a laser beam to clean or treat a surface. Jean also teaches the laser source having a power between 10 and 1000 watts. Bekir teaches the duty cycles being in the range of 20-90% duty cycles. Francois teaches the method and device for ablating a wall surface, where an optical fiber delivers the laser to the head for the cleaning or ablating process, and the laser uses a pulse-repetition frequency above 10 kilohertz, even reaching or exceeding 20 kilohertz. Francois also teaches the pulse duration in the range of 20 nanoseconds and 500 microseconds.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to use a cleaning laser with a duty cycle less than 100%, more specifically between 10-95%; a pulse repetition frequency of at least 10 kilohertz, more specifically in the range of 10-55 kilohertz; a laser with a maximum power of 1500 watts; or a pulse duration in the range of 1 microsecond to 10 milliseconds. Under MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”, as well as wehere the prior art reference “discloses a range encompassing a somewhat narrower claimed range”. Regarding the claimed ranges for a duty cycle of “less than 100%” in Claim 1 or “10-95%” in Claim 4, Bekir discloses the narrower range of a duty cycle of “20-90%”. Regarding the claimed ranges for pulse-repetition frequencies of “at least 10 kilohertz” in Claim 1, or “10-55 kilohertz” in Claim 2, Francois discloses the range for pulse-repetition frequencies above 10 kilohertz, where the frequency can even exceed 20 kilohertz, a frequency within the aforementioned claimed range. Regarding the claimed range for a pulse duration in the “range of 1 microsecond to 10 milliseconds” in Claim 1, Francois discloses the overlapping range of 20 nanoseconds to 500 microseconds. Regarding the claimed range for a laser having a “maximum power of 1500 watts” in Claim 3, Jean discloses the narrower range of “10 to 1000 watts”. The claimed ranges, as previously noted, either overlap ranges with the prior art references or claim ranges that are broader than that of the prior art. Accordingly, Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 14, 15, 16, 17, and 19 are rejected as obvious over Jean in view of Francois and Bekir.
Claims 6 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean, Francois, and Bekir, in view of Iurii (US-20200101566-A1).
Regarding Claim 6, Jean, Francois, and Beikr teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim at least one moveable mirror positioned within the housing, where the at least one moveable mirror is configured to wobble a laser beam of the laser radiation such that the laser beam has a wobble amplitude greater than 5 mm.
Regarding Claim 18, Jean, Francois, and Beikr teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim wobbling a laser beam of the emitted laser radiation, such that the laser beam has a wobble length greater than 5 mm.
Iurii teaches (Fig 1 and 2) a welding head that uses movable mirrors (132, 134) to wobble the laser beam (118) within a relatively small field of view, less than 30x30 mm, by pivoting the beam within a scan angle of less than 10 degrees ([0023]). Iurii also provides that conventional lasers typically have a much larger field of view, typically around 50x50 mm to 250x250 mm, the smaller field of view allows the faster speeds and the ability to use less expensive components ([0023]).
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). Additionally, the MPEP states in 2144.05 that it is prima facie obvious if the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art”.
In this case, Jean, Francois, and Bekir teach the laser cleaner method and device to clean a surface as previously mentioned, and Iurii teaches the moveable mirror to wobble a laser beam less than 30x30 mm. A laser with a wobble of area of less than 30x30 mm discloses the claimed range of a wobble amplitude of at least 5 mm. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the handheld laser cleaning device that emits a laser beam operating between 10 and 1000 watts as taught by Jean; with the method and device for ablating a wall surface using an laser carried over optical fiber to the emitter head, where the pulse repetition frequency is around 20 kilohertz, the pulse duration is up to 500 microseconds, as taught by Francois; the laser ablation method and device of a duty cycle between 20 and 90% as taught by Bekir; and the movable mirror to wobble a laser beam at less than 30x30 mm as taught by Iurii, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single laser cleaning method and device.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld laser cleaning device taught by Jean, the method and device for laser ablating a wall surface taught by Francois, the laser ablation method taught by Bekir, along with the movable mirror to wobble a laser beam at least 5mm as taught by Iurii, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 7, 8, 10, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean, Francois, and Bekir, in view of Lin (US-5882487-A).
Regarding Claim 7, Jean, Francois, and Beikr teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim the cleaning nozzle to attach to the housing and deliver laser radiation emitted in the cleaning mode onto a surface to be cleaned.
Regarding Claim 8, Jean, Francois, and Beikr teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim the cleaning nozzle is configured with an opening that permits the passage of laser radiation.
Regarding Claim 10, Jean, Francois, and Beikr teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim the opening is further configured to deliver gas to the surface.
Regarding Claim 20, Jean, Francois, and Beikr teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim the cleaning nozzle is configured to attach to the handheld device and to deliver laser radiation emitted in the cleaning mode onto the surface to be cleaned.
Lin teaches (Fig 1) a method and device of removing the surface of a substance by directing a laser beam at the substance ([Col 1, lines 8-14]). Lin further teaches a handset (4), including an operator handle (14), a laser source (1), a laser beam (2, 3), lens (4a), scanning means (5), gas supply unit (8), interaction zone (9), surface (12), windows (6), and an internal nozzle (7) and external nozzle (7), waste collection unit (11), where the gas is delivered to a treatment region via the inner nozzle and extracted via the outer nozzle ([Col 2, lines 6-10], [Col 2, line 52 – Col 3, line 6]). Lin also teaches that the internal nozzle (7) has a suitable exit and shape, such as a rectangle, used to pass the laser beam and gas to the interaction zone on the surface ([Col 2, line 52 – Col 3, line 6]). Lin further teaches that the handset includes a scanning means which sweeps the laser beam over the surface to be treated with a controlled sweep speed, pattern, and rate ([Col 2, lines 17-27]).
In this case, Jean, Francois, and Bekir teach the laser cleaner method and device to clean a surface as previously mentioned, and Lin teaches an internal and external nozzle used to remove and clean contamination from a surface, where the nozzles are part of the operator’s handset, and includes an opening for the laser radiation and gas emitted from the handset to interact on a surface, thereby removing contamination. An ordinary skilled artisan could have implemented the known handheld laser cleaning device that emits a laser beam operating between 10 and 1000 watts as taught by Jean; with the method and device for ablating a wall surface using an laser carried over optical fiber to the emitter head, where the pulse repetition frequency is around 20 kilohertz, the pulse duration is up to 500 microseconds, as taught by Francois; the laser ablation method and device of a duty cycle between 20 and 90% as taught by Bekir; and the nozzles supplying gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single laser cleaning method and device.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handheld laser cleaning device taught by Jean, the method and device for laser ablating a wall surface taught by Francois, the laser ablation method taught by Bekir, along with the nozzles supplying gas and laser radiation to the contaminated surface taught by Lin, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Jean, Francois, Bekir, and Lin, in view of Ota (US-2016/0318122-A1).
Regarding Claim 9, Jean, Francois, Bekir, and Lin teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the laser radiation forms a scan line on the surface.
Ota teaches (Fig 1 and 2) a laser material processing method and system, where a wobble function is included that can controllably vary the width of the scan line formed on the substrate surface ([0091]-[0093]).
In this case, Jean, Francois, Bekir, and Lin teach the laser cleaner method and device to clean a surface as previously mentioned, and Ota teaches using a line as the scan line pattern when scanning a material to be processed. An ordinary skilled artisan could have taken the handheld laser cleaning device that emits a laser beam operating between 10 and 1000 watts as taught by Jean; implemented the method and device for ablating a wall surface using an laser carried over optical fiber to the emitter head, where the pulse repetition frequency is around 20 kilohertz, the pulse duration is up to 500 microseconds, as taught by Francois; the laser ablation method and device of a duty cycle between 20 and 90% as taught by Bekir; the nozzles supplying gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, and the scan line pattern technique taught by Ota, because the known elements would improve their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single laser cleaning method and device.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the known handheld laser cleaning device taught by Jean, the method and device for laser ablating a wall surface taught by Francois, the laser ablation method taught by Bekir, the nozzles supplying gas and laser radiation to the contaminated surface taught by Lin, along with a scan line pattern taught by Ota, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the technique known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin, in view of Kwee (WO-2013141810-A1).
Regarding Claim 21, Lin teaches the method and device of removing the surface of a substance by directing a laser beam at the substance, as well as an internal and external nozzle used to remove and clean contamination from a surface, where the nozzles are part of the operator’s handset, and includes an opening for the laser radiation and gas emitted from the handset to interact on a surface, thereby removing contamination. However, Lin does not teach the use of a laser processing head.
Kwee teaches (Figs 2, 17) a laser cleaning method and apparatus, where a device (100) uses a processing head (102) removably attached to a handle (104), where optical cables (56) carry laser beams to clean a surface ([Pg. 6, lines 21-34], [Pg. 7, lines 9-22]). Kwee further teaches that the device (100) can be configured onto a mobile work base, with modes such as spot ablation mode for cleaning bolts, nuts, supporting brackets; and can be mounted on robotic arms, climbing elevators, or cherry pickers that are remotely controlled from the console of automated from a software program ([Col 18, lines 18-35]).
In this case, Lin teaches the handset that includes nozzles for supplying gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned, with an opening to allow the gas and radiation onto the surface as previously mentioned, and Kwee teaches a laser processing head as part of a laser cleaning method and apparatus. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the handheld laser cleaning nozzle that emits laser radiation and gas onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, with the laser processing head for laser cleaning a surface as taught by Kwee, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single laser cleaning method and device.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handset that includes nozzles to deliver gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, along with the laser processing head taught by Kwee, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 22 and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Kwee in view of Xie (CN-110919189-A).
Regarding Claim 22, Lin and Kwee teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim a cleaning nozzle with a nozzle tip configured into a one-point configuration, a two-point configuration, or a groove.
Regarding Claim 23, Lin and Kwee teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim the nozzle tip being coupled onto a tubular body portion of the cleaning nozzle, and the tubular body is configured to be coupled to the laser processing head.
Xie teaches (Figs 6-8) a handheld laser for welding equipment. The handheld laser uses a nozzle (11) and a guide end (15) attached to a tubular end of the welding head (Fig 6, 8). Xie further includes a shielding gas device (5), a shielding gas inlet (8), a guide rail (10), guide grove (13), and a push switch (9) connected to the control box (2) that controls the laser device ([0048], [0052]).
In this case, Lin teaches the handset that includes nozzles for supplying gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned, with an opening to allow the gas and radiation onto the surface as previously mentioned, Kwee teaches a laser processing head as part of a laser cleaning method and apparatus, and Xie teaches a nozzle tip that has a groove and two points on the end of the tip of a tubular body that is mounted as part of a laser device. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the handheld laser cleaning nozzle that emits laser radiation and gas onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, the laser processing head for laser cleaning a surface as taught by Kwee, along with the groove and two-point nozzle tip at the end of a tubular body connected to the laser device taught by Xie, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single laser cleaning method and device.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have implemented the known handset that includes nozzles to deliver gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, with the laser processing head taught by Kwee, and the nozzle tip and tubular body taught by Xie, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 26 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Kwee in view of Ota.
Regarding Claim 26, Lin and Kwee teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claim that the laser radiation that is delivered to the surface forms a scan line.
Ota, as previously mentioned, teaches the laser material processing method and system, where a wobble function is included that can controllably vary the width of the scan line formed at the substrate surface ([0091]-[0093]).
In this case, Lin teaches the handset that includes nozzles for supplying gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned, with an opening to allow the gas and radiation onto the surface as previously mentioned, Kwee teaches a laser processing head as part of a laser cleaning method and apparatus, and Ota teaches the laser processing scan device that delivers the radiation through a scan line. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the handheld laser cleaning nozzle that emits laser radiation and gas onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, the laser processing head for laser cleaning a surface as taught by Kwee, along with the laser radiation being delivered via a scan line as taught by Ota, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single laser cleaning method and device.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handset that includes nozzles to deliver gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, with the laser processing head taught by Kwee, along with the laser radiation scan line taught by Ota, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Claim 27 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lin and Kwee in view of Iurii.
Regarding Claim 27, Lin and Kwee teach all of the claimed elements as previously mentioned, but fails to specifically claims the laser processing head being configured to wobble a laser beam.
Iurii, as previously mentioned, teaches (Fig 1 and 2) the welding head that uses movable mirrors (132, 134) to wobble the laser beam (118) within a relatively small field of view, less than 30x30 mm, by pivoting the beam within a scan angle of less than 10 degrees ([0023]). Iurii also provides that conventional lasers typically have a much larger field of view, typically around 50x50 mm to 250x250 mm, the smaller field of view allows the faster speeds and the ability to use less expensive components ([0023]).
In this case, Lin teaches the handset that includes nozzles for supplying gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned, with a large enough opening to allow the gas and radiation onto the surface as previously mentioned, Kwee teaches a laser processing head as part of a laser cleaning method and apparatus, and Iurii teaches mirrors used to wobble a laser beam being delivered to the surface. An ordinary skilled artisan could have combined the handheld laser cleaning nozzle that emits laser radiation and gas onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, the laser processing head for laser cleaning a surface as taught by Kwee, and the wobbling of the laser beam being delivered to the surface as taught by Iurii, because the known elements would retain their respective functions and yield predictable results when combined into a single laser cleaning method and device.
It would have been obvious to one or ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the handset that includes nozzles to deliver gas and laser radiation onto a surface to be cleaned as taught by Lin, the laser processing head taught by Kwee, along with the laser beam wobbling taught by Iurii, because all the claimed elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements were known in the prior art and one skilled in the art could have combined the elements as claimed by known methods with no change in their respective functions, and the combination yielded nothing more than predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to HUNTER HEMMINGS whose telephone number is (571)467-0070. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00-5:00.
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, Ned 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.
/HUNTER G HEMMINGS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights