Detailed Action1
Election/Restriction
Claims 14-15 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to nonelected groups and species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-13, in the reply filed on July 6, 2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant timely traversed the restriction requirement in the reply filed on January 17, 2011.
The traversal between groups I and II is on the ground that no undue burden would be placed upon the examiner. This argument lacks merit because the different groups would require searches in different classes and the use of different text searches. The restriction requirement between Group I and II is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
America Invents Act 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 USC 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.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: measuring device in claim 1.
Because this claim limitation is being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it is being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. Thus, the measuring device is interpreted as a touch probe or optical device.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figures 1-3 and 5-6 are pixelated/grey shading giving them unsatisfactory reproduction characteristics (37 CFR § 1.84(l)). Spaced lines for shading are preferred (37 CFR § 1.84(m)). 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 Objections
Claim 7 is objected to because of an informality: the word “a” should be inserted before “milling process” in step (b). Claim 10 is objected to because of an informality: the word “at” should be removed from “at outside”. Claim 13 is objected to because of an informality: the phrase “emitting laser beam” should be changed to “emitting a laser beam” or “emitting laser beams”. Appropriate correction is required.
Rejections under 35 USC 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112:
(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.
Claims 1-13 are 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 applicant regards as the invention.
Claims 1, 8, and 10 each recite in particular … . It is unclear if the limitation after “in particular” is required or optional. For purposes of examination, the limitations will be treated as optional.
Claim 1 also recites selectively machining the structure of the intermediate part. It is unclear how the intermediate part can have the structure when the structure was previously defined as correlating to the target geometry.
Claim 6 recites machining multiple slots (10). In light of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, it is unclear if the slots (10) are the same as the depressions (10) introduced in claim 4, or how the slots and depressions are different.
Claim 7 adds steps that are similar to claim 1 with more detail, i.e. the machining being a milling process and laser machining, and, the target/intermediate geometries being target/intermediate depths. In light of Applicant’s originally filed disclosure, it is unclear the steps of claim 7 are additional steps of the method, or if the steps of claim 1 are merely being further defined. For purposes of examination, claim 7 will be interpreted as further defining the steps of claim 1. If this is the correction interpretation, the steps of claim 1 should be further modified instead of adding new steps. For example: “wherein machining the workpiece further includes … “.
Claim 7 recites the first machine tool. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation.
Regarding claim 10, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first machine tool and the second machine tool.
Regarding claim 11, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the first machine tool and the second machine tool.
Regarding claim 12, there is insufficient antecedent basis for the second machine tool.
The res of the claims are rejected for depending from at least one of the rejected claims above.
Rejections under 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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 3-4, 6, and 8-9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPGPub No. 2015/0328802 (“Bazinksi”).
Claim 1 recites a method of manufacturing a stamping tool having a structure. Bazinksi teaches manufacturing a forming tool for structures wherein the forming tool is capable of being used as a stamping tool since it can be formed out of steel and has cavities that can shape structures (figs. 1-2, ¶ [0001], [0020] & [0024]). Bazinksi further teaches defining for the structure a target geometry (fig. 2, ¶ [0020], i.e. planes 40 & 42) and an intermediate geometry (fig. 2, ¶ [0020], i.e. rough planes 46 & 48), wherein the intermediate geometry defines the geometry of an intermediate part, which requires further machining to achieve the target geometry (figs. 5-8, ¶ [0020]-[0022] & [0026]); b. mounting a workpiece in a machine tool (¶ [0022], i.e. the workpiece is fixed/mounted in a CNC cutting machine); c. machining the workpiece by a first type of machining based on the defined intermediate geometry to obtain the intermediate part (fig. 5, ¶ [0022]); d. measuring the geometry of the machined intermediate part by a measuring device to obtain geometry data of the machined intermediate part (fig. 7, ¶ [0026], wherein based on figure 7 and the description of the scanning apparatus, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer the scanning apparatus 90 is a laser scanner—which is a type of optical device); e. determining a geometry deviation data representing the difference between the machined intermediate part geometry and the target geometry based on the measured geometry data and the defined target geometry by a processing unit (¶ [0026]); f. computing a machining path based on the determined geometry deviation data by the processing unit (fig. 8, ¶ [0026], i.e. a path that removes the specific finishing portions 92 that were measured); and g. selectively machining the structure of the intermediate part by a second type of machining different than the first type of machining in accordance with the computed machining path to obtain a final part having the structure with the target geometry by removing the material on the intermediate part to eliminate the difference between the machined intermediate part geometry and the target geometry (fig. 8, ¶ [0021] & [0026]).
Regarding claim 3, Bazinksi further teaches the first type of machining is conducted by a first machine tool and the second type of machining is conducted by a second machine tool (¶ [0022] & [0026], i.e. a CNC cutting machine and fine cutting apparatus).
Claim 4 recites machining the structure includes machining multiple depressions, each of which has two sidewalls and a bottom surface. As illustrated in figs. 1-2 of Bazinksi, machining the workpieces 10 & 12 includes the machining delimiting and modifying the depth of multiple depressions 16 which each have opposite, i.e. at least two, sidewalls and a bottom surface (¶ [0018]-[0019]).
Claim 6 recites machining the structure includes machining multiple slots (10). As illustrated in figs. 1-2 of Bazinksi, machining the workpieces 10 & 12 includes the machining delimiting and modifying the depth of multiple depressions 16.
Claim 8 recites the measurement is conducted mechanically or optically, in particular the measurement is conducted by a coordinate measuring machine. Based on figure 7 of Bazinksi, and the description of the scanning apparatus, one of skill in the art will reasonably infer the scanning apparatus 90 is a laser scanner—which is a type of optical device.
Claim 9 recites the measurement is conducted in a machining pause during the first type of machining or at the end of the first type of machining. Bazinksi teaches the measurement being performed after the first type of machining is completed and before the second type of machining is started (¶ [0024]-[0026]), i.e. machining pause.
Rejections under 35 USC 1032
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 obvious3 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(a) 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazinksi.
Regarding claim 1, as detailed above, Bazinksi teaches all the limitations of claim 1. Assuming arguendo Bazinksi fails to teach the measuring device being an optical device, the examiner is taking Official Notice that laser scanning is a well-known scanning technique to determine geometry of a surface. For example, LiDAR is a well-known and widely used laser scanning device that maps surfaces. Thus, it would be obvious to use an optical device such as a laser scanner/laser distance sensor to determine the geometry of the surface.
Regarding claim 2, Bazinksi further teaches the second type of machining is laser-ablating machining (¶ [0021] & [0026]). Bazinksi also teaches the first type of machining being performed on a CNC machine, but fails to explicitly teach the first type of machining is milling. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that CNC milling, i.e. milling on a CNC machine, is a well-known manufacturing technique that has tolerances of around 130 microns or less depending upon the machine. Since Bazinksi teaches the first type of machining can be a variety of different types of machining tools including cutting machines having a tolerance of approximately 130 microns, it would be obvious to use CNC milling for the first type of machining.
Regarding claim 3, assuming arguendo that Bazinksi fails to teach the first type of machining is conducted by a first machine tool and the second type of machining is conducted by a second machine tool, this would be obvious. The examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known to have assembly line type manufacturing processes wherein each step is performed at a different location/machine to increase efficiency as each machine tool can be operating simultaneously to machine two different products. Thus, in order to increase production efficiency, it would be obvious for each manufacturing step (including the first and second types of machining) to be performed at different tools, i.e. first and second tools.
Claim 5 recites only the bottom surface of the depression is machined by the second type of machining. Bazinksi is silent as to how the bottom surface of the depressions 16 are formed. However, MPEP 2143(I)(D) states that it is obvious to apply a known technique to a known device/structure ready for improvement to yield predictable results. In this case, Bazinksi teaches a manufacturing method to form planes 40 & 42 that create a more precise surface (¶ [0001] & [0020]-[0026]). Bazinksi also teaches the forming tool having other surfaces/planes that are both exposed and parallel to the planes 40 & 42, one being the bottom surface of depressions 16 (see figs. 1-2). Thus, in order to make the bottom surface of depression 16 more precise, it would be obvious to use the method of Bazinksi to form the bottom surface of depressions 16 so that the finished plane of the bottom surfaces are a precise depth from surfaces 22, and ultimately from planes 40 & 42. Since the bottom surfaces of depressions 16 are parallel to planes 40 & 42, and exposed to machining tools placed thereabove, it would be predictable to machine the bottom surfaces of depressions 16 via the method of Bazinksi.
Claim 7 recites a. defining for each slot at least one target depth (df) and at least one intermediate depth (d1), wherein the intermediate depth is smaller than the target depth; b. machining the workpiece by milling process conducted by the first machine tool to obtain the intermediate part having the multiple slots with the intermediate depth; c. measuring the intermediate part by the measuring device to obtain measured geometry data of the intermediate part; d. determining depth deviation data representing the difference between the machined intermediate part depth and the target depth based on the measured geometry data and the defined target geometry by the processing unit; and e. machining the bottom surface of the slot of the intermediate part by laser machining based on the determined depth deviation data to obtain a final part having the structure with the target depth by removing the material on the bottom surface of the slot to eliminate the difference between the machined intermediate part depth and the target depth. This claim is clarifying that the method of claim 1 is performed on the slots so that the target and intermediate geometries are target and intermediate depths, wherein the intermediate depth is smaller than the target depth.
These steps are taught when Bazinksi is modified as detailed in the rejection to claim 5, above (wherein the modification of claim 5 is incorporated in this rejection). Given this modification, the intermediate and target planes of the bottom surface of the slots will be at intermediate and target depths with respect to surface 22 and/or the top surface of portion 18 when viewing fig. 5 of Bazinksi. In addition, since more material is removed after the intermediate plane/depth is reached, the intermediate depth is smaller than the target depth.
Further, Bazinksi teaches the second type of machiing being laser machining (¶ [0021] & [0026]). Bazinksi also teaches the first type of machining being performed on a CNC machine, but fails to explicitly teach the first type of machining is milling process. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that CNC milling, i.e. milling on a CNC machine, is a well-known manufacturing technique that has tolerances of around 130 microns or less depending upon the machine. Since Bazinksi teaches the first type of machining can be a variety of different types of machining tools including cutting machines having a tolerance of approximately 130 microns, it would be obvious to use CNC milling for the first type of machining.
Claims 4, 6, and 9 are rejected for the same reasons detailed in the 102 rejections, above.
Claim 8 recites the measurement is conducted mechanically or optically, in particular the measurement is conducted by a coordinate measuring machine. This is taught as detailed in the rejection to claim 1, above.
Claim 10 recites the measurement device is arranged at outside of the machine tool or integrated in the first machine tool or integrated in the second machine tool. While Bazinksi suggests that the measurement device is its own apparatus (see ¶ [0026]), the measurement device 90 is either integrated into one of the first or second machine tools or is not within the first or second machine tools, i.e. outside the machine tools.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazinksi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2021/0107103 (“Sano”).
Regarding claim 11, Bazinksi fails to explicitly teach the workpiece is clamped on a pallet and after the milling process the pallet with the intermediate part is automatically transferred from the first machine tool to the measuring device or to the second machine tool. However, this would have been obvious in view of Sano.
As an initial matter, assuming arguendo that Bazinksi fails to teach the first type of machining is conducted by a first machine tool and the second type of machining is conducted by a second machine tool, this would be obvious for the same reasons detailed in the rejection to claim 3 (the modification of claim 3 being incorporated herein). Specifically, in order to increase production efficiency, it would be obvious for each manufacturing step (including the first and second types of machining and the measuring step) to be performed at different tools, i.e. first and second tools and a measuring tool.
Sano is directed to a machine tool (¶ [0024]). The workpiece the machine tool works on is affixed on a pallet (fig. 1, ¶ [0024]). The pallet is detachably attached to a table 122 and can be positioned and removed via an automatic pallet exchanging device (fig. 1, ¶ [0024] & [0026]).
In this case, each of Bazinksi and Sano are directed to machine tools for machining a workpiece. Sano teaches one of skill in the art that pallets having workpieces affixed thereto can be automatically positioned and removed from the table of the machine tool. Thus, in order to increase the efficiency of the machining process of Bazinksi, it would be obvious to affix the workpiece to a pallet and to automatically position the pallet on a worktable of the first machine tool and automatically remove the pallet from the first machine tool after machining.
While the above modification does not state that the pallet with the intermediate part is automatically transferred from the first machine tool to the measuring device, MPEP 2144.04(III) states that providing an automatic means to replace a manual activity which accomplished the same result is not sufficient to distinguish over the prior art. Thus, merely transferring the pallet from the first machine tool to the measuring device or to the second machine tool via automatic means does not distinguish the claim over the prior art because the prior art accomplishes the same result.
Further, while the above modification affixes the workpiece to the pallet, Bazinksi et al. fail to explicitly teach the workpiece is clamped on the pallet. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art of machining to clamp workpieces to a support. Thus, in order to prevent the workpiece from moving on the pallet during machining it would be obvious to affix the workpiece by clamping it on the pallet.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazinksi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2002/0157241 (“Yamamoto”).
Regarding claim 11, Bazinksi fails to explicitly teach the workpiece is clamped on a pallet and after the milling process the pallet with the intermediate part is automatically transferred from the first machine tool to the measuring device or to the second machine tool. However, this would have been obvious in view of Yamamoto.
Yamamoto is directed to an assembly apparatus to increase production volume and efficiency (¶ [0001]). The apparatus has an assembly line wherein workpieces are on a pallet that is automatically conveyed to each station (fig. 1, ¶ [0057] & [0069]-[0072]). The pallets may be fixed in position at each station via pins that engage holes 50d of the pallet (figs. 2 & 4, ¶ [0071]-[0072]).
In this case, each of Bazinksi and Yamamoto are directed to a manufacturing apparatus/system that has multiple steps and/or stations/tools. Yamamoto teaches a known and predictable way to increase efficiency of the system, i.e. providing the workpieces on respective pallets that are automatically conveyed to each station/tool. Thus, in order to increase production efficiency, it would be obvious to affix each workpiece of Bazinksi on a respective pallet and automatically transfer the pallets to each station/machine tool. Yamamoto teaches there is a reasonable expectation of locking the pallets in each station, e.g. with the use of pins engaging holes in the pallets.
Bazinksi et al. fail to explicitly teach the workpiece is clamped on the pallet. However, the examiner is taking Official Notice that it is well known in the art of machining to clamp workpieces to a support. Thus, in order to prevent the workpiece from moving on the pallet during machining it would be obvious to affix the workpiece by clamping it on the pallet.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazinksi as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of US Patent No. 5,149,937 (“Babel”).
Regarding claim 12, Bazinksi fails to explicitly teach the second machine tool comprises a machine table for mounting the intermediate part thereon and during machining the machine table is tilted or rotated. However, this would have been obvious in view of Babel.
Babel is also directed to a laser ablating machine (col. 1 lines 6-10 & col. 2 lines 13-22). The machine comprises a table 10 having the workpiece clamped thereon (fig. 1, col. 4 lines 66-667), wherein the table can be tilted during machining along curvilinear path 14 (fig. 1, col. 5 lines 1-5) and can be rotated about the vertical axis (figs. 1 & 3-7, col. 2 lines 23-38, col. 5 lines 40-46, col. 6 lines 8-27, cols. 6-7 lines 68-2).
In this case, each of Bazinksi and Babel teach a laser machine tool for ablating a workpiece. While Bazinksi is silent as to the specific structure of the laser tool, Babel teaches that it is known to rotate the table the workpiece is mounted on during laser machining. One of skill in the art appreciates that rotating a workpiece during machining can increase efficiency of the machining process by reducing or eliminating repositioning and reducing cycle time. Thus, it would be obvious to rotate the machine table that the workpiece is mounted to during laser machining.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bazinksi as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of USPGPub No. 2023/0191535 (“Conseil”).
Regarding claim 13, Bazinksi fails to explicitly teach the second machine tool comprises a machining head including a galvanometer for emitting laser beam and during machining the machine head is rotated. However, this would have been obvious in view of Conseil.
Conseil is directed to laser machining/ablating (¶ [0002]). The laser machine tool has a laser head 3 that can be moved in the X, Y, and Z directions, and should also rotate about rotation axes to obtain greater accuracy and flexibility (¶ [0024] & [0060]). Further, the laser head comprises a laser source, optical devices, and a galvanometer, wherein galvanometers direct the laser beam in a large range of direction (¶ [0005] [0060]).
In this case, each of Bazinksi and Conseil teach a laser machine tool for ablating a workpiece. While Bazinksi is silent as to the specific structure of the laser tool, Conseil teaches that it is known of laser ablation heads to have a galvanometer, and can have greater accuracy by being able to rotate. Thus, to more accurately machine the workpiece of Bazinksi, it would be obvious for the laser tool to comprise a laser head that rotates during machining, and that also comprises a galvanometer to better direct the laser beam.
Citation of Relevant Prior Art
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure and to the knowledge of one of skill in the art.
Ronan Ye, A Complete Guide to Standard Machining Tolerances, 3ERP, Screen shot taken on March 9, 2023, available at https://www.3erp.com/blog/cnc-machining-tolerances/ teaches that milling is a known CNC machining process and has a tolerance of around 130 microns.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Kyle Cook whose telephone number is 571-272-2281. The examiner’s fax number is 571-273-3545. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday-Friday 9AM-5PM EST.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner's supervisor Thomas Hong (571-272-0993). The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
/KYLE A COOK/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3726
1 The following conventions are used in this office action. All direct quotations from claims are presented in italics. All information within non-italicized parentheses and presented with claim language are from or refer to the cited prior art reference unless explicitly stated otherwise.
2 In 103 rejections, when the primary reference is followed by “et al.”, “et al.” refers to the secondary references. For example, if Jones was modified by Smith and Johnson, subsequent recitations of “Jones et al.” mean “Jones in view of Smith and Johnson”.
3 Hereafter all uses of the word “obvious” should be construed to mean “obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.”
Prosecution Insights