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 .
Claim Objections
Claims 1-7, 11-12, and 14-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1-6 and 11-12 “galvos” should read --galvanometer mirror scanners-- for consistency.
In claims 14-19 and 23 “galvos” should read --galvanometers-- for consistency.
In claims 5-6 and 18-19, “wherein monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing” should read --wherein monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing--.
In claims 7 and 20, “at least two beam entry window” should read -- at least two beam entry windows--.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends. The limitation “wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing further comprises a conformal channel with a channel configured for thermal management through the single set of galvos” recited in claim 15 fails to further limit the subject matter of claim 14 upon which it depends.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4, 7, 9-10, 13-17, 21-22, and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by 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; Fig 1-3 and ¶0015,0018,0020,0029).
The limitations “a monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing configured to 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 2, 4, and 7, as applied to claim 1, Miller teaches an apparatus wherein the monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing further comprises a conformal channel with a channel configured for thermal management through the multiple sets of galvos (Fig 3 and ¶0023); 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 claim 13, as applied to claim 1, 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.
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 with a channel configured for thermal management through the single set of galvos (main body 20 of galvo block 18 and channels for liquid cooling 22; Fig 1-3 and ¶0015,0018,0020,0023,0029).
The limitations “a monolithic multi-optics scanner head housing configured 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 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.
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 5-6, 8, 11-12, 18-20, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miller (US 2015/0144608 A1).
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).
Conclusion
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 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m..
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