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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because fig.5 #10a located on the bottom is understood to more correctly be referring to #10b. 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. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. 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.
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 4, 13 (and all claims dependent therefrom, 5-9, 14-18) 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.
Claims 4, 13 recites the limitation "the shaft disc" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as the claims first define “each of two ends is provided with a shaft disc” which means there are 2 shaft discs (one at each end), and it is not clear which of the 2 discs “the shaft disc” is referring to, making the scope unclear.
For purposes of examination, the limitation will be read as “a first shaft disc”.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 6, 10, 12, 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102a1 as being anticipated by Wakabayashi et al. (JP H0969660).
With respect to claim 1, Wakabayashi discloses a dustproof structure (fig.2) for a laser output window (fig.2 #12) of a laser (fig.2), comprising a discharge chamber (fig.2 #1), a gas purifier (fig.2 #16), a dust prevention pipeline (fig.2 #15 at center, #17 left/right, #61 left, #7 right), and a fan (fig.2 #2), wherein the gas purifier is configured to purify a working gas inside the discharge chamber (“The laser gas circulated in the laser chamber 1 is sent to a gas dust removing device (dust removing filter) 16 via a gas passage 15, where the dust is removed by the gas dust removing device 16.”); the discharge chamber is provided with the laser output window and a slit (fig.2 central opening in #18); a cavity is provided between the laser output window and the slit (fig.2 space between #12 and #18); and the dust prevention pipeline comprises a gas inlet end connected to the gas purifier (fig.2 #15), a middle part passing through the cavity (fig.2 #17s connected to each cavity), and a gas outlet end connected to the fan (fig.2 #61 on left and #7 on right connect to each end of fan #2); and at least a portion of the working gas purified by the gas purifier flows through the dust prevention pipeline to the cavity (fig.2 following arrows from #15 to #12) and forms a dustproof gas curtain on an inner side of the laser output window, so as to prevent the working gas that comes from the discharge chamber and enters the cavity through a window of the slit, from approaching and contaminating the laser output window (fig.2 based on clean gas flow, see arrows, from the dust removal means #16 to window #12 and through #18, thereby preventing incoming dust from chamber towards window #18; “The laser gas circulated in the laser chamber 1 is sent to a gas dust removing device (dust removing filter) 16 via a gas passage 15, where the dust is removed by the gas dust removing device 16. The clean laser gas after passing through the gas dust removal device 16 passes through a gas passage 17 formed in the wall of the laser chamber 1, and a part thereof passes through a labyrinth portion (laser light passage portion) 18 of a window. The gas is returned into the laser chamber 1 and the remainder is supplied to the above-mentioned room 6 via the gas passage 7.”).
With respect to claim 3, Wakabayashi discloses wherein the working gas in the dust prevention pipeline flows back directly (fig.2 gas flow from fan directly to chamber #1) or through a pipeline to the discharge chamber after passing through the fan.
With respect to claim 6, Wakabayashi discloses wherein the slit comprises a main body (fig.2 surrounding housing of #18) and a plurality of turbulence fins (fig.2 vertical portions of #18); on a projection plane perpendicular to a direction of laser output (fig.2 laser output left/right, vertical portions up/down), the plurality of turbulence fins are symmetrically arranged on left and right or upper and lower sides of the main body (fig.2 fins symmetrically up/down) to form a laser passage for allowing the laser to pass through (fig.2 through center of #18 to window); and in the direction of laser output, the plurality of turbulence fins are staggered on the left and right or upper and lower sides (fig.2 fins of #18 can be considered staggered as the even numbered upper fins are offset from the odd numbered lowered fins; noting the particular manner of staggering has not been defined).
With respect to claim 10, Wakabayashi discloses, a laser (fig.2), comprising the dustproof structure for the laser output window according to claim 1 (see claim 1 rejection above).
With respect to claim 12, Wakabayashi teaches the laser as outlined in the rejection to claim 3 above.
With respect to claim 15, Wakabayashi teaches the laser as outlined in the rejection of claim 6 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 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) 2, 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi in view of Fujimoto et al. (JP H06152030).
With respect to claim 2, Wakabayashi teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a gas pressure inside the cavity is less than or equal to a pressure inside the discharge chamber. Fujimoto teaches a related laser device (fig.1), which includes a dust filter (fig.2 #13), a pipeline (fig.2 #10, #11 on left) to a window (fig.2 #6 on left), a slit (fig.2 opening in #8 on left), a cavity between the window and slit (fig.2 space between #6 and #8) and a gas pressure inside the cavity is less than or equal to a pressure inside the discharge chamber ([0005]; “Since it is introduced into the chamber through the labyrinth after being introduced into the chamber to recover the static pressure, a clean laser medium gas can always be retained near the inside of the window. Therefore, the laser medium gas containing dust does not reach the inner surface of the window, and the window surface can be kept clean without blowing a large amount of purge gas on the window.”). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Wakabayashi to make the pressure static (i.e. equal) relative to the internal chamber as demonstrated by Fujimoto in order to reduce the amount of purge gas needed to be blown across the window to keep it clean.
Claim 11 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 2 above.
Claim(s) 4-8, 13-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi in view of Shinozaki et al. (US 6539043).
With respect to claim 4, Wakabayashi teaches the device outlined above including, the fan is a cross-flow fan (“The shaft 3 of the cross-flow fan 2 is extended to the outside of the laser chamber through an insertion hole 4 formed in the laser chamber 1, and is finally connected to a motor (not shown)”); each of two ends of the cross-flow fan is provided with a shaft disc (fig.2 as seen at either end of #2); the gas outlet end of the dust prevention pipeline is disposed facing the shaft disc (fig.2 outlet from #61 on left passes near shaft #3 to left side disc). Wakabayashi does not teach the shaft disc is provided with through-holes that communicate inner and outer sides of a hollow room of the cross-flow fan; and the working gas discharged from the dust prevention pipeline enters the hollow room of the cross-flow fan through the through-holes. Shinozaki teaches a related laser device (fig.1) with cross-flow fan (fig.1 #3) which has discs at the ends (fig.1/4) and wherein the shaft disc is provided with through-holes (fig.4a #3-1a) that communicate inner and outer sides of a hollow room of the cross-flow fan (fig.2 as seen between blades of #3 and arrow B showing gas entering space); and the working gas discharged from the dust prevention pipeline enters the hollow room of the cross-flow fan through the through-holes (fig.2 as seen with arrow B, col.9 lines 3-7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Wakabayashi to make use of the holes in the discs as taught by Shinozaki in order to pull clean gas through the fan motor mechanisms (Shinozaki, col.9 lines 9-30)
With respect to claim 5, Wakabayashi, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, including fan hole portions to be inclined (fig.4 holes through #8 at angle alpha) and spiral (disposed spiraling around center as in Applicant fig.10), but does not teach wherein the through-holes are spiral and inclined, tending to force a gas outside the shaft disc to flow into the hollow room of the cross-flow fan through the through-holes when a motor drives the shaft disc to rotate. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the holes within the discs to be inclined and spiraled in order to further pull clean gas through the fan mechanisms (“The axial flow fan 8 functions to flow gas in a direction parallel to the axis 3 by a plurality of guide blades 30 having a predetermined angle α.”).
With respect to claim 7, Wakabayashi, as modified, teaches a shaft body at each of the two ends of the cross-flow fan (fig.2 #3 at each end of #2) is rotatably provided on the discharge chamber through a bearing (fig.5 #51); an outer circle of the shaft body adjacent to an outer end surface of the bearing is provided with a threaded structure, a tooth structure or a blade structure (fig.1/3 blades #30 on #8); and when a motor drives the shaft body and the cross-flow fan to rotate, the threaded structure, the tooth structure or the blade structure forces the gas outside the bearing to move away from the bearing to prevent dust inside the discharge chamber from approaching and entering the bearing (fig.1 see arrows).
With respect to claim 8, Wakabayashi, as modified, teaches wherein a side wall of the discharge chamber is provided with a mounting hole (fig.2 #5); the threaded structure, the tooth structure or the blade structure on the shaft body is inserted into the mounting hole (fig.6); and when the cross-flow fan rotates, a dynamic sealing structure is formed between the threaded structure, the tooth structure or the blade structure and the mounting hole (see fig.6 based on gas flow, see arrows).
Claims 13-17 are rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claims 4-8.
Claim(s) 9, 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wakabayashi and Shinozaki and Amada et al. (US 8814522).
With respect to claim 9, Wakabayashi, as modified, teaches the device outlined above, but does not teach a plurality of blades are provided on an outer end surface of the shaft disc of the cross-flow fan and along a circumferential direction of the shaft body; and when the motor drives the bearing, the shaft disc and the plurality of blades to rotate, the plurality of blades tend to force the gas adjacent to the bearing and the shaft body to flow away from the bearing and the shaft body. Amada teaches a related gas laser (fig.2) including a cross-flow fan (fig.3) including a plurality of blades (fig.3 #66) are provided on an outer end surface of a shaft disc (fig.3 connection rings; blades connected at radial outer sides thereof) of the cross-flow fan and along a circumferential direction of the shaft body (blades disposed around central shaft); and when the motor drives the bearing, the shaft disc and the plurality of blades to rotate, the plurality of blades tend to force the gas adjacent to the bearing and the shaft body to flow away from the bearing and the shaft body (col.1 line 53- col.2 line ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the filing of the instant application to adapt the device of Wakabayashi to make use of the blades disposed as outlined by Amada on the discs in order to further control the flow of the gas and make use of the full impeller length (Amada, col.2 lines 1-7).
Claim 18 is rejected for the same reasons outlined in the rejection of claim 9.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Please see the included pto892 form for a list of related art.
Note JP H02288385, H06152030, US 5373523 all appear to teach at least claim 1.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TOD THOMAS VAN ROY whose telephone number is (571)272-8447. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8AM-430PM.
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, MinSun Harvey can be reached at 571-272-1835. 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.
/TOD T VAN ROY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2828
Prosecution Insights