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 .
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 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.
Response to Amendment
Claims 21, 22, 24-33, 35-42 are pending. Claims 29 and 33 stand amended. Claims 41 and 42 are newly presented. Claims 23 and 34 are canceled by the instant amendment.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 7/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant contends that Herzog does not disclose that the housing channel and the cooling channel of the separate cooling body are each formed by at least one bore. As presented prior, and as noted by Applicant, Herzog discloses that it is conventional to drill channels. As in MPEP 2113, “[E]ven though product-by-process claims are limited by and defined by the process, determination of patentability is based on the product itself. The patentability of a product does not depend on its method of production. If the product in the product-by-process claim is the same as or obvious from a product of the prior art, the claim is unpatentable even though the prior product was made by a different process.” In re Thorpe, 777 F.2d 695, 698, 227 USPQ 964, 966 (Fed. Cir. 1985). Notwithstanding that the process is expressly contemplated as conventional for forming the disclosed channels, there is no evidence of record that the channels of Herzog are structurally distinct from those claimed. Accordingly the rejection is maintained.
Similar arguments apply for the product by process limitations presented in amended claim 33. Absent any evidence to the contrary, Herzog is considered to disclose the required structure.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 21, 22, 25-27, 29-32, and 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Herzog (DE 102013003939 A1, of record; a copy has been included with an accompanying English translation).
Regarding claim 21, Herzog discloses a scan system (Figs. 2, 3, 6, and 7) for guiding a laser beam (9), the scan system comprising:
a housing body (17) defining a housing interior (sequitur), the housing body including at least one housing channel (27) configured to distribute a coolant1, the at least one housing channel being formed in the housing body (as in Fig. 7); and
at least one cooling body (¶52, “separate housing”) arranged in the housing interior and being detachably connected to the housing body, the at least one cooling body defining a receiving recess (see Fig. 3, opening in the sidewall 21 of the massive area 23 that is then subdivided into separate areas) configured to receive a deflection unit (deflector 15 via its connector 20 attached to the galvo 19), the at least one cooling body having at least one cooling channel connected to the at least one housing channel that is configured to cool the deflection unit, the at least one cooling channel being formed in the at least one cooling body (Fig. 7 shows the branched cooling channels 31 continuing from channel 27 surrounding the galvo);
wherein: the at least one housing channel and the at least one cooling channel are each formed by at least one bore (“cooling channels are provided in the usually metallic housing, which are drilled into the housing”); and
the housing body and the at least one cooling body have corresponding contact surfaces across which the housing body and the at least one cooling body abut one another such that a channel opening of the at least one housing channel, which is formed in the contact surface of the housing body, and a channel opening of the at least one cooling channel, which is formed in the contact surface of the at least one cooling body, overlap one another (Fig. 7, channel 27 abuts branching channels 31 at the contact surface between the inlet section of 23 and the deflection mounting section 24).
PNG
media_image1.png
497
440
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
701
470
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 22, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, but does not explicitly show wherein the housing body has a first part on which the at least one cooling body and/or an aperture body are/is detachably mounted, and a second part in which an electronic-component heat sink is detachably mounted.
Regarding claim 25, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the at least one housing channel and/or the at least one cooling channel each have exclusively at least one inlet channel opening for introducing the coolant and at least one outlet channel opening for discharging the coolant (Figs. 6, 7-13).
Regarding claim 26, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the at least one housing channel and/or the at least one cooling channel are/is formed by at least one through-hole and/or at least one blind bore (Fig. 7, “cooling channels are provided in the usually metallic housing, which are drilled into the housing”; since the figures show linear channels that extend through a given area, a through-hole is considered disclosed).
Regarding claim 27, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the at least one housing channel and/or the at least one cooling channel are/is formed by at least two blind bores, the at least two blind bores being oblique with respect to one another and intersecting one another (Fig. 5, 7-13, ““cooling channels are provided in the usually metallic housing, which are drilled into the housing”; since the figures show linear channels and drilling, or boring, is known for forming channels, the limitation is considered disclosed).
Regarding claim 29, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, and further discloses wherein an inlet channel opening and an outlet channel opening of the at least one cooling channel are formed on the housing body (28) in different contact surfaces and/or on different sides of the housing body (note in particular Fig. 6 which clearly shows left and right contact surfaces for the inlet and outlet).
Regarding claim 30, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the at least one cooling body has a first cooling channel and a separate second cooling channel (Figs. 6-13, various branching geometries of cooling channels 27, 30, 31).
Regarding claim 31 and 32, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 30, and further discloses wherein the first and second cooling channels are identical to one another and/or are arranged in parallel and/or symmetrically to one another (Figs. 6-13 depicting symmetrical arrangements about the recess in which the deflector is received).
Regarding claim 40, Herzog further discloses a housing body or cooling body (Figs. 2, 3, 6, 7) designed for use in the scan system of claim 21.
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 of this title, 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 24, 28, and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog as applied to claim 21.
Regarding claim 24, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, and further discloses the at least one cooling body and surrounds the overlapped channel openings (Fig. 7), but does not explicitly show wherein a sealing element is positioned between the corresponding contact surfaces of the housing body.
Official Notice is taken that seals, gaskets, O-rings, etc. are exceptionally well known in the art of attaching fluid inlets and outlets. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized such features to connect the components of Herzog thus preventing leakage of the coolant.
Regarding claim 28, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, but does not explicitly show wherein an inlet channel opening and an outlet channel opening of the at least one cooling channel are formed on the at least one cooling body in the same contact surface of the at least one cooling body and/or on a same side of the at least one cooling body.
Nevertheless, rearrangement of parts that do not change the operating principle of the device e.g. relocating the outlet and redirecting the cooling channels thereto, are prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP 2144 VI. C.
Regarding claim 37, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, and explicitly shows wherein the housing body has an inlet and an outlet for the coolant (Figs. 6 and 7 showing the inlet and outlet on either side), but does not explicitly show the inlet and outlet being arranged on a same side of the housing body.
Nevertheless, rearrangement of parts that do not change the operating principle of the device e.g. relocating the outlet and redirecting the cooling channels thereto, are prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. MPEP 2144 VI. C.
Regarding claim 38 and 39, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 37, and further discloses wherein the scan system has a channel system extending from the inlet to the outlet and being at least partially formed by the at least one housing channel and the at least one cooling channel (Figs. 6-13, showing a variety of configurations of a common inlet housing channel branching into inlet parallel cooling channels around the scanning deflector unit and then to parallel outlet cooling channels converging to a common outlet housing channel).
Claim(s) 33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Herzog as applied to claim 21 above, and further in view of Gu (CN 106881417 A2).
Regarding claim 33, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 21, and further discloses wherein the housing body has at least one cooling chamber configured to cool an electronic component and/or an aperture formed at least partially in the housing body (Fig. 3, showing the mounting of the galvanometric deflector received in an aperture of the housing 17’s sidewall: “The galvanometric engine 19 is on a side wall 21 of the housing 17 attached so that the deflecting mirror 15 over the engine 19 rotatable on the side wall 21 is attached.”).
Herzog does not explicitly show wherein the at least one cooling chamber is die cut into the housing body.
However, Gu explicitly shows a die having cooling channels therein (second to last paragraph before the claims, “the die 2 is provided with multiple blanking holes uniformly distributed 6, the blanking hole 6 is a through hole, the second U-shaped cooling channel 4 inside”), and that it is common processing to cut dies (Abstract2, “The stamping die stripper plate with the cooling function is simple in structure and reasonable in design; and the two water cooling channels are correspondingly arranged on the inner side and the outer side of the periphery of the die cavity, and the periphery of the die-cut die cavity is cooled with cooling water, so that a stamping product on the die cavity can be indirectly cooled, and the defect that the periphery of the stamped product warps and deforms in the demolding process can be overcome effectively”).
Notwithstanding that the structure of the claimed invention does not appear to be affected by the limitation, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have utilized the conventional process of Gu to fabricate the device of Herzog and thus obtained a predictably effective cooling result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 41 and 42 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Applicant amended the application to cancel claims 23 and 34, previously indicated as allowable subject matter, and present them in independent form.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Claims 35, and 36 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 35, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 33, but does not explicitly show wherein the at least one cooling chamber comprises a first cooling chamber configured to cool the aperture, the first cooling chamber having a first manufacturing opening that is on an outer face of the housing and is tightly closed by an aperture body detachably connected to the housing.
Regarding claim 36, Herzog discloses the scan system of claim 35, but does not explicitly show wherein the at least one cooling chamber further comprises a second cooling chamber configured to cool the electronic component, the second cooling chamber having a second manufacturing opening that is on an inner face of the housing body and is tightly closed by an electronic-component heat sink detachably connected to the housing body.
Conclusion
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 COLLIN X BEATTY whose telephone number is (571)270-1255. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 10am - 6pm.
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, Pinping Sun can be reached on 5712701284. 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.
/COLLIN X BEATTY/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
1 It is noted that the machine translation provided occasionally uses both “tempering” and “cooling” to refer to channels having the same purpose of flowing coolant into the device, around the deflector, and out of the device.
2 Two Abstracts have been identified for this application, one of which is a superior translation, to which the citation in this rejection is directed.
Prosecution Insights