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 § 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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ikeno et al (JP 2008-044327) in view of Uchino et al. (JP 2018-164932) with references made to applicant provided machine translations.
Ikeno discloses, Regarding claim 1, a laser processing method executed by an electronic device that draws an image (multi-gradation image, See Paragraph [0017]) by irradiating the surface (30) with a laser beam, wherein the laser processing method includes a division step in which the electronic device divides the image into a plurality of gradations (See Paragraph [0026], the images are divided based on gradation [greyscale]), a creation step of creating a plurality of layers according to the plurality of gradations (performing image processing on a picture of a painting to convert it into a gray scale and making five images having different color densities into layers 1,2,3,4,5),
Ikeno fails to disclose, scanning the laser beam and irradiating the laser beam linearly to each of the plurality of layers in a single direction.
However, Uchino discloses, regarding claims 1 and 3, that the laser beam is irradiated linearly while being scanned along a single direction in the processing step (paragraph 0031 and Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to adapt Ikeno in view of Uchino to provide the linear irradiation for drawing the image based on the different color densities.
Ikeno discloses regarding claim 2, the gradiations are the plurality of layers as shown in Fig 5.
Regarding claim 8, A laser machining apparatus comprising: a laser device configured to irradiate a surface of a machining object with a laser beam;
an image processing part configured to divide an image into a plurality of gradations and create a plurality of layers according to the plurality of gradations (See Paragraph [0026], the images are divided based on gradation [greyscale], performing image processing on a picture of a painting to convert it into a gray scale and making five images having different color densities into layers 1,2,3,4,5),; and
Ikeno fails to disclose, scanning the laser beam and irradiating the laser beam linearly to each of the plurality of layers in a single direction.
However, Uchino discloses that the laser beam is irradiated linearly while being scanned along a single direction in the processing step (paragraph 0031 and Fig. 9). It would have been obvious to adapt Ikeno in view of Uchino to provide the linear irradiation for drawing the image based on the different color densities.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 4-7 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 BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
