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 .
Status of Claims
The Amendment filed 05/18/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-24 are currently pending in the application. Claims 1-7, 11-19, and 23-24 have been amended. No new claims have been added.
Response to Amendment
Objection. The amendments to claims 1-7, 11-12, and 14-20 have overcome the objection as set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/19/2025. The objection is withdrawn.
35 USC 112(d). The amendments to claim 15 have overcome the rejection of claim 15 under 35 USC 112(d) as being in improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of a previous claim, or for not including every limitation of the claim from which it depends, as set forth in the Office Action mailed 12/19/2025. The rejection is withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
35 USC 102(a)(1). Applicant's remarks regarding the rejection of claims 1 and 14 under 35 USC 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Miller (US 2015/0144608 A1) are moot as they rely upon amended claim limitations not previously considered.
Applicant’s arguments that prior art cited in the rejection of dependent claims 2-13 and 15-24 do not make up for the deficiencies of the prior art cited in the rejection of independent claims 1 and 14 is not persuasive. The rejection of claims 1 and 14 is not considered to be deficient as argued above.
The rejection of amended claims 1-24 is provided below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
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 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 1-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2015/0144608 A1).
Regarding claims 1-3, and 9-10, Miller teaches an apparatus comprising a monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing (main body 20 of galvo block 18) and beam entry window Fig 1-3 and ¶0015,0018,0020,0029-).
Miller does not explicitly disclose an apparatus wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing comprises a conformal channel at least partially wrapped around at least one of the multiple sets of galvanometer mirror scanners; wherein the conformal channel extends to each of the multiple sets of galvanometer mirror scanners, and the conformal channel is configured for thermal management through the multiple sets of galvanometer mirror scanners
However, Miller teaches an apparatus wherein to prevent overheating of the components, warping or damaging of the mirrors and even distortion of the block itself, the block is formed with the liquid cooling system (¶0031). The liquid cooling system comprises a plurality of channels or passages integrally formed along a length of the block (¶0031). The integral liquid cooling channels surround the block, particular along its length (¶0031). The cooling channels use liquid flow to cool the block itself and the heat that accumulates from each galvo motor nested in the block as well as to dissipate any residual heat from the laser beam and individual mirrors (¶0031). The liquid cooling system may utilize cool water or other liquids which will act to cool the block by continuous flow (¶0031).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify apparatus disclosed in Miller such that the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing comprises a conformal channel at least partially wrapped around at least one of the multiple sets of galvanometer mirror scanners and wherein the conformal channel extends to each of the multiple sets of galvanometer mirror scanners, and the conformal channel is configured for thermal management through the multiple sets of galvanometer mirror scanners with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent overheating, warping or damaging of the mirrors and to cool the heat that accumulates from each galvo motor nested in the block as well as to dissipate any residual heat from the laser beam and individual mirrors (¶0031).
The limitations “receive multiple sets of galvanometer mirror scanners (galvos) and a beam entry window, wherein each set of galvos receives a laser and redirects the laser using a mirror,” “wherein each set of galvo further comprises a set of printed—in radiator fins, radiator structure, or heat exchangers for thermal management of the multiple sets of galvos,” “wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing is further configured to receive a camera for process monitoring,” and “wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing is further configured to receive a sensor” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Miller teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 14-16 and 21-22, Miller teaches an apparatus comprising a monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing; wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing comprises a conformal channel (main body 20 of galvo block 18 and channels for liquid cooling 22; Fig 1-3 and ¶0015,0018,0020,0023,0029).
Miller does not explicitly disclose an apparatus wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing comprises a conformal channel at least partially wrapped around the single set of galvanometers; wherein the conformal channel extends to each of the multiple sets of galvanometer mirror scanners, and the conformal channel is configured for thermal management through the single set of galvanometers.
However, Miller teaches an apparatus wherein to prevent overheating of the components, warping or damaging of the mirrors and even distortion of the block itself, the block is formed with the liquid cooling system (¶0031). The liquid cooling system comprises a plurality of channels or passages integrally formed along a length of the block (¶0031). The integral liquid cooling channels surround the block, particular along its length (¶0031). The cooling channels use liquid flow to cool the block itself and the heat that accumulates from each galvo motor nested in the block as well as to dissipate any residual heat from the laser beam and individual mirrors (¶0031). The liquid cooling system may utilize cool water or other liquids which will act to cool the block by continuous flow (¶0031).
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify apparatus disclosed in Miller such that the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing comprises a conformal channel at least partially wrapped around the single set of galvanometers, and the conformal channel is configured for thermal management through the single set of galvanometers with a reasonable expectation of success in order to prevent overheating, warping or damaging of the mirrors and to cool the heat that accumulates from each galvo motor nested in the block as well as to dissipate any residual heat from the laser beam and individual mirrors (¶0031).
The limitations “to receive a single set of galvanometers (galvos) configured to receive a laser and redirect the laser using a mirror,” “wherein each set of galvo further comprises a set of printed—in radiator fins, radiator structure, or heat exchangers for thermal management,” “wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing is further configured to receive a camera for process monitoring,” and “wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing is further configured to receive a sensor” are a recitation of intended use of the claimed monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing. A claim containing a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from a prior art apparatus if the prior art apparatus teaches all the structural limitations of the claim. MPEP 2114(II). Here, Miller teaches an apparatus which includes all the structural limitations of the claim.
Regarding claims 4 and 7, as applied to claim 1, Miller teaches an apparatus wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing further comprises a single air channel for thermal management of the multiple sets of galvos (Fig 2-3 and ¶0019,0023); and wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing further comprises at least two beam entry window for a plurality of lasers (Fig 2 and ¶0020,0029).
Regarding claims 5 and 18, as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, while Miller teaches a wherein monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing, Miller does not specify a single supply nozzle that is connected to each of the multiple sets of galvos to receive gas.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Miller such that a single supply nozzle is connected to each of the multiple sets of galvos to receive gas with a reasonable expectation of success in order to support the desired volume of airflow of the 100 cubic feet per hour to cool the galvos (¶0034).
Regarding claims 6 and 19, as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, while Miller teaches a wherein monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing, Miller does not specify a single data inlet or power inlet that connects to each of the multiple sets of galvos.
One of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Miller such that a single data inlet or power inlet that connects to each of the multiple sets of galvos with a reasonable expectation of success in order to power (via the power inlet) and control (using the data inlet) the at least one galvo motor of each galvo and to simplify the construction of the housing and minimize the number of penetrations of the housing required for providing power and/or data to the galvo motors.
Regarding claims 8 and 20, as applied to claims 6 and 18, respectively, Miller teaches an apparatus wherein monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing further comprises a respective beam entry window for each laser (Fig 2 and ¶0020,0029).
Regarding claims 11 and 23, as applied to claims 1 and 14, respectively, Miller teaches an apparatus wherein monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing further comprises a mounting mechanism configured to mount each set of galvos and a corresponding single hole for receiving a laser beam (Fig 1-3 and ¶0014,0020).
Although Miller does not explicitly disclose a set of mounting holes configured to mount each set of galvos, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Miller such that the mounting mechanism is in the form of a set of mounting holes configured to mount each set of galvos, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
Regarding claim 12, as applied to claim 1, although Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing further comprises a hexagonal shape, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Miller such that the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing is a hexagonal shape, since it has been held that the change in form or shape, without any new or unexpected results, is an obvious engineering design. MPEP 2144.04(IV)(A)-(B).
While Miller does not explicitly disclose wherein each side of the hexagonal shape comprises a set of mounting holes configured to receive at least a set of galvos, a camera, or a sensor, one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention would have found it obvious to modify the apparatus disclosed in Miller such that each side of the hexagonal shape comprises a set of mounting holes, since it has been held that rearranging parts of an invention is an obvious matter of design choice and would not have modified the operation of the device. MPEP 2144.04(VI)(C).
Regarding claim 13, as applied to claim 1, the limitation “wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing is additively manufactured with the conformal channel” is a recitation of a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps and the patentability of a product (monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing) does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113.
Regarding claim 17, as applied to claim 14, Miller teaches an apparatus wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing further comprises a single air channel for thermal management of the multiple sets of galvos (Fig 2-3 and ¶0019,0023).
Regarding claim 24, as applied to claim 14, the limitation “wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing is additively manufactured” is a recitation of a product-by-process claim. Product-by-process claims are not limited to the manipulations of the recited steps and the patentability of a product (monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing) does not depend on its method of production. MPEP 2113.
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 extension fee 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 date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JaMel M Nelson whose telephone number is (571)272-8174. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 9:00 AM ET - 5:00 PM ET.
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, Galen Hauth can be reached on (571) 270-5516. 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.
/JAMEL M NELSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1743
Prosecution Insights