DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Restriction and Election-of-Species
Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I, Apparatus Species A, and Apparatus Species D, in the reply filed on 7/6/2026 is acknowledged.
Applicant filed amended claims reflecting applicant’s election on 7/6/2026.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1, 9, 10, and 27-28 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes. Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches the limitations of applicant’s claims 1, 9, 10, 12, and 27-28 as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary.
Claim 2 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 4, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claim 2, but since claim 2 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 2 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claim 4 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 4, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claim 4, but since claim 4 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 4 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claim 7 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 7, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claim 7, but since claim 7 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 7 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claim 8 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 8, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claim 8, but since claim 8 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 8 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claim 12 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 12, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by having generating a permitted access distance that is larger than the safe working distance, as this permitted access distance can be thought of as an extra layer of safety – under the well-known concept of “better safe than sorry”.
Claim 13 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 13, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claim 13, but since claim 9 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 9 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claim 14 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 14, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claim 14, but since claim 10 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 10 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claim 15 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 15, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claim 15, but since claim 11 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 11 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claims 16 and 39 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claims 16 and 39, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claims 16 or 39, but since claim 12 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 12 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claim 21 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 21, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary. Claim 3 of Clowes doesn’t recite the subject matter of applicant’s claim 21, but since claim 17 of Clowes does recite that same subject matter, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by adding the subject matter of claim 17 of Clowes, as their appearance in the same claim set suggests those claims could be combined.
Claim 23 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 23, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary, and as performing scan monitoring would clearly involve monitoring whether scanning is occurring.
Claim 24 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 24, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary, and as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the method of claim 3 of Clowes by having the scan monitoring comprise monitoring a physical parameter of the scanning apparatus (because that would clearly be an effective way of monitoring scanning).
Claim 33 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 33, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary, and having the effective divergence measured as time-averaged divergence is just a mental choice of how to account for effective divergence.
Claim 34 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 34, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by having the laser be a pulsed laser, as it is well-known in the art of laser-cleaning that pulsed lasers can effectively clean a surface.
Claim 35 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 35, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by having the scanning occur in a shorter time than a maximum exposure duration in order to limit the damage that the laser could potentially do to someone’s eye(s).
Claim 36 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 36, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary, as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by having the scanning occur in a shorter time than a maximum exposure duration in order to limit the damage that the laser could potentially do to someone’s eye(s), and as it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Clowes such that the safe working distance is a distance at which eye(s) cannot be harmed.
Claim 38 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 3 of U.S. Patent No. 12,145,180 to Clowes (this Clowes patent is referred to below as “Clowes” in this Double-Patenting section). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 3 of Clowes teaches limitations of applicant’s claim 38, as scanning of the laser light of Clowes would result in an effective divergence greater than the laser’s divergence when stationary, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of claim 3 of Clowes by having the wavelength be in the emission bandwidth of Erbium glass or Erbium doped crystals because it is well known that such glass/doped-crystals can successfully be used to produce laser light.
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, 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.
Claims 1, 2, 4, 7, 8, 15, 16, 23, 24, 33-37, and 39 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0251865 by Dajnowski in view of CN108246727 by Jin in view of U.S. 5,665,942 to Willams.
With regard to claims 1, 15, 16, 34, and 39, Dajnowski teaches a laser cleaning apparatus comprising a laser system configured to output pulsed laser light having a wavelength, wherein Dajnowski teaches wavelength examples of values greater than 1400 nm (Par. 0047, 0051, 0054, 0061, 0062, 0065, and 0068). Dajnowski teaches that the laser light for cleaning exits output optics (comprising lens 220) after being reflected by rotating mirrors 140 and 260, wherein the output optics focus the laser light, wherein mirror 140 is rotated by motor 120, wherein mirror 260 is rotated by motor 250, and wherein the mirrors are rotated to create a two-dimensional pattern (Par. 0043-0057). Dajnowski’s rotating mirrors cause the focused laser light to have a fluence at a focal plane, and this fluence is greater than an ablation threshold of a surface contamination to be removed from the to-be-cleaned surface (Abstract; Par. 0043-0057 and 0061-0068). Dajnowski’s arrangement of motor-drive rotating mirrors corresponds to applicant’s scanning apparatus, as these mirrors cause the laser light to form a pattern such that the laser light can be considered to have an effective divergence greater than the divergence of the laser light when stationary (Abstract; Par. 0043-0057 and 0061-0068). In the art of lasers, it is well known that a powerful stationary laser beam could potentially cause damage to a human eyeball. In the apparatus of Dajnowski, the effective divergence created by the rotating mirrors thus would cause the laser light to have some safe working distance where a human eyeball would not be in danger from the non-stationary, constantly-moving (due to the rotating mirrors) laser light.
Dajnowski teaches that the laser cleaning apparatus take the form of a handheld embodiment (Par. 0004), but Dajnowski doesn’t provide much detail on what this handheld embodiment might look like. Dajnowski doesn’t recite that the handheld embodiment comprises a cleaning head and a delivery cable configured to deliver laser light from the laser to the cleaning head.
Jin teaches that a handheld laser cleaning embodiment can be successfully achieved by having a handheld cleaning head 10 with optics therein, a laser 20, and an optical fiber 30 for delivering the laser light to the cleaning head (Abstract; pages 4-7 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski by achieving the handheld embodiment by having a handheld cleaning head (comprising optics such as mirror 140, mirror 260, and lens 220 in the cleaning head, wherein lens 220 is located in an output aperture of the cleaning head), a laser, and a flexible cable connecting the laser to the cleaning head, wherein the flexible cable comprises an optical fiber for delivering the laser light to the cleaning head. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Jin, who teaches that a handheld laser cleaning embodiment can be successfully achieved by having a handheld cleaning head 10 with optics therein, a laser 20, and an optical fiber 30 for delivering the laser light to the cleaning head. Motivation for having the optical fiber inside a flexible cable was provided by the fact that, in the art of optical fibers, it is well known that an optical fiber can be successfully protected by being placed inside a flexible cable.
In the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin, the rotating mirrors move the laser beam in a scanning pattern such that the beam isn’t stationary. Since the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin teaches that the laser light is powerful enough to remove corrosion (Par. 0062 of Dajnowski), the laser light (when stationary) is clearly powerful enough to be potentially-damaging to a human eyeball. The combination of Dajnowski in view of Jim doesn’t teach monitoring the scanning of the laser light such that an alarm signal is generated in response to the effective divergence changing.
Williams teaches that, when using a motor-driven rotating mirror to produce a non-stationary scanning pattern of a laser beam in an environment where human(s) may be present, it is dangerous if the laser beam scanning slows or stops (for whatever reason) because a stationary or slow laser beam could damage a person’s eye (Abstract; Col. 2, line 65 to Col. 3, line 12; Col. 5, line 40 to Col. 6, line 44). Williams teaches avoiding this potential eye-damage by issuing an alarm signal that shuts down the laser whenever the rotary speed of the rotating mirror falls below a threshold speed (Col. 6, lines 11-18).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser cleaning apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin by having the laser cleaning apparatus comprise a scan monitoring apparatus configured to monitor the rotating speeds of the motor-driven scanning mirrors and issuing an alarm signal that shuts down the laser whenever the rotating speed(s) of one or both mirrors is below a threshold value, as this prevents a slow-moving or stationary laser beam from being able to linger on a person’s eye such that the eye is damaged. In this combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams, monitoring the speed(s)s of the rotating mirrors amounts to monitoring the effective divergence because the rotating speed(s) of the mirrors affect how quickly the laser beam is scanned around on the to-be-cleaned surface. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Williams, who teaches that, when using a motor-driven rotating mirror to produce a non-stationary scanning pattern of a laser beam in an environment where human(s) may be present, it is dangerous if the laser beam scanning slows or stops (for whatever reason) because a stationary or slow laser beam could damage a person’s eye, and Williams teaches avoiding this potential eye-damage by issuing an alarm signal that shuts down the laser whenever the rotary speed of the rotating mirror falls below a threshold speed (Col. 6, lines 11-18).
With regard to claim 2, in the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams, variables including laser wavelength, laser pulse rate, laser power, and effective divergence affect a safe working distance of the laser – meaning the distance wherein a person (not wearing eye protection) would not have to worry about potential eye damage. The combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams doesn’t teach using a controller to determined that safe working distance based on those variables. However, since it would be beneficial for workers to know how far away they need to be from a laser to feel safe (without wearing eye protection), it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams such that the apparatus comprises a computer controller that allows a user to input that variable data (wavelength, power, pulse rate, and effective divergence) such that software (with health data about how variables such wavelength, power, pulse rate, and effective divergence contribute to eye damage) can output safe working distance information to workers. The concept of customizing a safety rule to a particular situation is well-known, and the motivation for performing the modification would be to allow workers to know how far they need to be away from a laser if they aren’t wearing eye protection.
With regard to claim 4, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams does not specify that the laser has an average power of greater than 100W. However, Dajnowski is considered to teach that the power of the laser is a result-effective variable because Dajnowski teaches that some power levels are more appropriate for others when performing a particular cleaning task (Par. 0061 and 0062 of Dajnowski). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams by optimizing the average power of the laser, as Dajnowski is considered to teach that the power of the laser is a result-effective variable.
With regard to claims 7 and 8, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams doesn’t specify the safe working distance of the laser cleaning apparatus. However, Dajnowski is considered to teach that the power of the laser is a result-effective variable because Dajnowski teaches that some power levels are more appropriate for others when performing a particular cleaning task (Par. 0061 and 0062 of Dajnowski). In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams by optimizing the average power of the laser, as Dajnowski is considered to teach that the power of the laser is a result-effective variable. Since the average power of the laser would clearly affect how damaging the laser could be to an eyeball, this optimization of the laser power is also considered to optimize the safe working distance of the laser cleaning apparatus.
With regard to claim 23, in the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams, the scan monitoring apparatus is considered to monitor a scan speed and whether scanning is occurring because the scan monitoring apparatus is configured to monitor the rotating speeds of the motor-driven scanning mirrors and issuing an alarm signal that shuts down the laser whenever the rotating speed(s) of one or both mirrors is below a threshold value, as this prevents a slow-moving or stationary laser beam from being able to linger on a person’s eye such that the eye is damaged.
With regard to claim 24, in the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams, the scan monitoring apparatus is considered to monitor a physical parameter of the scanning apparatus because the scan monitoring apparatus is configured to monitor the rotating speeds of the motor-driven scanning mirrors and issuing an alarm signal that shuts down the laser whenever the rotating speed(s) of one or both mirrors is below a threshold value, as this prevents a slow-moving or stationary laser beam from being able to linger on a person’s eye such that the eye is damaged.
With regard to claim 33, in the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams, the effective divergence can be mentally thought of as time-averaged divergence across the scan region, as the mirrors rotating at their respective speeds cause the laser beam to scan over an area.
With regard to claim 35, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams is silent about how the scan time for the scan region compares to a maximum exposure duration. However, in the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams, the scan time for the scan region is considered to be a result-effective variable, as the scan time affects how long it takes to clean a given surface and how potentially dangerous it is to a human eye, as a slow laser beam might be able to cause eye damage. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams by optimizing the scan speed (and thus the scan time for the scan region) of the laser beam, as that speed can be considered a result-effective variable.
With regard to claim 36, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams does not specify that the maximum permitted exposure for an eyeball for the set maximum exposure duration of the laser is not exceeded at the safe working distance. However, since the safe working distance is a distance where a human (without eye protection) can be considered safe, the safe working distance is clearly a result-effective variable, as it affects whether a person could potentially have an eye injury from the laser or not. In accordance with MPEP 2144.05, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams by optimizing what is considered safe working distance, as the safe working distance is a result-effective variable that affects the safety of nearby human(s) without eye protection.
With regard to claim 37, the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams comprises a first mirror configured to scan the laser beam in a first dimension and a second mirror configured to scan the laser beam in a second dimension, and the scan monitoring apparatus is configured to monitor the rotating speeds of the motor-driven scanning mirrors. The combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams is silent about how the rotation speed is monitored. However, in the art of cleaning technology, it is well known that a sensor can be used to successfully monitor physical rotation driven by a motor. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams such that the scan monitoring apparatus comprises a first rotation sensor for monitoring the rotation speed of the motor-driven rotating mirrors and by having a second rotation sensor for monitoring the rotation speed of the other motor-driven rotating mirror. Motivation for performing the modification was provided by the fact that, in the art of cleaning technology, it is well known that a sensor can be used to successfully monitor physical rotation driven by a motor.
Claims 9, 10, and 12-14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0251865 by Dajnowski in view of CN108246727 by Jin in view of U.S. 5,665,942 to Willams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 9,121,703 to Droz.
With regard to claims 9, 10, and 13, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams does not teach that the apparatus comprises a proximity sensing apparatus configured to generate an alarm signal in response to an unauthorized person getting close to the laser.
Droz teaches that, when an apparatus uses a laser that could potentially damage a human eyeball, the apparatus can also comprise a camera for determining when a person is walking near the apparatus, and Droz teaches that a proximity sensor on the apparatus can advantageously be used to issue an alarm signal that shuts down the laser when a person comes too close to the laser – thus avoiding potential damage to that person’s eyeball (Col. 6, lines 22-29 and Col. 7, lines 5-15; Col. 9, lines 44-56; Col. 16, lines 31-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser cleaning apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams by adding a proximity sensing apparatus to the laser cleaning apparatus, wherein the proximity sensing apparatus comprises a camera for identifying unauthorized people, wherein the proximity sensing apparatus comprises a proximity sensor that can detect how far away a given unauthorized person is from the laser cleaning apparatus, and wherein the proximity sensing apparatus can issue an proximity alarm signal to shut down the laser with an unauthorized person gets within a permitted access distance of the laser cleaning apparatus, wherein the permitted access distance is greater than the safe working distance. The motivation for adding the proximity sensing apparatus was provided by Droz, who teaches that a camera can be used to identify people and who teaches that shutting down a laser when a person gets too close can advantageously prevent that person’s eyeball(s) from being harmed. The motivation for having the camera identify “unauthorized” people is that one wouldn’t want the laser to stop merely because an authorized worker is nearby. The motivation for having the permitted access distance be greater than the safe working distance would simply be the desire to err on the side of caution; damaging the eyesight of a random passerby (uninformed of how dangerous the laser is) would be a disaster.
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz, as developed thus far, does not teach determining the permitted access distance dependent on the amount of the change of the effective divergence. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, when one or more of the rotating mirrors are moving too slowly such that the effective divergence is reduced to an unsafe level, the laser is shut down. Since a shut down laser is not dangerous to a person’s eyes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz such that the permitted access distance is reduced to zero (meaning there is no limit to how close a person can approach the laser) when the laser is shut down as a result of the one or two mirrors moving too slowly. In this modified apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz, a control signal is generated to reduce the determined access signal down to zero when the laser is shut off.
With regard to claims 9, 13, and 14, the combination of Dajnowski in Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz, as developed thus far, does not teach that the apparatus comprises a proximity sensing apparatus configured to generate an alarm signal in response to an unauthorized person getting close to the laser.
Droz teaches that, when an apparatus uses a laser spread by scanning and the laser light could potentially damage a human eyeball, the apparatus can also comprise a camera for determining when a person is walking near the apparatus, and Droz teaches that a proximity sensor on the apparatus can advantageously be used to determine when a person is too close to the laser (Col. 6, lines 22-29 and Col. 7, lines 5-15; Col. 9, lines 44-56; Col. 16, lines 31-59). Droz teaches that one way to reduce the potential damage to the eyeball of a nearby human is to spread of the laser beam to reduce its effective intensity (Col. 3, lines 4-17).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser cleaning apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams by adding a proximity sensing apparatus to the laser cleaning apparatus, wherein the proximity sensing apparatus comprises a camera for identifying unauthorized people, wherein the proximity sensing apparatus comprises a proximity sensor that can detect how far away a given unauthorized person is from the laser cleaning apparatus, and wherein the proximity sensing apparatus can issue an proximity alarm signal to adjust one of the mirrors to increase the scan area (of the laser beam emitted from the cleaning head) by a determined amount when a person is determined to be within a permitted access distance that is greater than the safe working distance, as the increased scan area would increase the effective divergence (and thus decrease the safe working distance) and make the laser less dangerous to the unauthorized person. The motivation for adding the proximity sensing apparatus was provided by Droz, who teaches that a camera can be used to identify people, that a proximity sensor can determine how far away a person is, and that spatially spreading a laser can reduce its dangerous (to an eyeball) effective intensity. In this combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz, increasing the scan region is the technique for decreasing the effective intensity of the laser light (and thus decreasing the potential damage to an eyeball). The motivation for having the camera identify “unauthorized” people is that one wouldn’t want the laser to be adjusted merely because an authorized worker is nearby. The motivation for having the permitted access distance be greater than the safe working distance would simply be the desire to err on the side of caution; damaging the eyesight of a random passerby (uninformed of how dangerous the laser is) would be a disaster.
With regard to claim 12, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz used above to reject claim 14 does not teach determining the permitted access distance dependent on the amount of the change of the effective divergence. However, as discussed in the rejection of claim 1, when one or more of the rotating mirrors are moving too slowly such that the effective divergence is reduced to an unsafe level, the laser is shut down. Since a shut down laser is not dangerous to a person’s eyes, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz such that the permitted access distance is reduced to zero (meaning there is no limit to how close a person can approach the laser) when the laser is shut down as a result of the one or two mirrors moving too slowly. In this modified apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz, a control signal is generated to reduce the determined access signal down to zero when the laser is shut off.
Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0251865 by Dajnowski in view of CN108246727 by Jin in view of U.S. 5,665,942 to Willams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of GB2330653 by Jagjit.
With regard to claim 21, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams does not teach using a camera to identify a type of surface contamination and determine a size of a scan region in response to the identified contamination type.
Jagjit teaches that laser cleaning of a surface can be improved by having a camera identify the thickness of contamination at particular area(s) on the to-be-cleaned surface such that a controller can send signals to scan the laser beam over area(s) determined to have thick contamination with a different power (pages 4-7).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams by having the laser cleaning apparatus comprise a camera and controller module that can identify thick contamination vs non-thick contamination (thick and non-thick being types of contamination) and send a control signal to adjust the size of the scan region (and thus the effective power experienced by a given point within that region) based on whether thick or non-thick contamination is currently being removed. The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Jagjit, who teaches that laser cleaning of a surface can be improved by having a camera identify the thickness of contamination at particular area(s) on the to-be-cleaned surface such that a controller can send signals to scan the laser beam over area(s) determined to have thick contamination with a different power. Controlling the size of the scan region would allow the effective power experienced by a given point within the region to be adjusted.
Claims 27 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0251865 by Dajnowski in view of CN108246727 by Jin in view of U.S. 5,665,942 to Willams as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of U.S. 9,121,703 to Droz.
With regard to claims 27 and 28, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams does not teach that the apparatus comprises a proximity sensing apparatus configured to generate an alarm signal in response to an unauthorized person getting close to the laser.
Droz teaches that, when an apparatus uses a laser that could potentially damage a human eyeball, the apparatus can also comprise a camera for determining when a person is walking near the apparatus, and Droz teaches that a proximity sensor on the apparatus can advantageously be used to issue an alarm signal that shuts down the laser when a person comes too close to the laser – thus avoiding potential damage to that person’s eyeball (Col. 6, lines 22-29 and Col. 7, lines 5-15; Col. 9, lines 44-56; Col. 16, lines 31-59).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser cleaning apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams by adding a proximity sensing apparatus to the laser cleaning apparatus, wherein the proximity sensing apparatus comprises a camera for identifying unauthorized people, wherein the proximity sensing apparatus comprises a proximity sensor that can detect how far away a given unauthorized person is from the laser cleaning apparatus, and wherein the proximity sensing apparatus can issue an proximity alarm signal to shut down the laser with an unauthorized person gets within a safe working distance. The motivation for adding the proximity sensing apparatus was provided by Droz, who teaches that a camera can be used to identify people and who teaches that shutting down a laser when a person gets too close can advantageously prevent that person’s eyeball(s) from being harmed. The motivation for having the camera identify “unauthorized” people is that one wouldn’t want the laser to stop merely because an authorized worker is nearby. The motivation for having the laser shut down when an unauthorized person is within the safe working distance would be that it is dangerous to be that close to the laser, and an unauthorized person might not understand the danger level of their situation.
Claim 38 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over U.S. 2018/0251865 by Dajnowski in view of CN108246727 by Jin in view of U.S. 5,665,942 to Willams in view of U.S. 9,121,703 to Droz as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of NL2008567 by Wit.
With regard to claim 38, the combination of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz does not teach that the laser emits a wavelength in the emission bandwidth of Erbium glass or Erbium doped crystals.
Wit teaches that when using laser light to remove contaminants, laser light (comprising light wavelength at 1550 nm) made with Erbium glass can successfully be used to remove contaminants (Abstract; pages 3-5 of translation).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the apparatus of Dajnowski in view of Jin in view of Williams in view of Droz such that the laser is a laser that uses Erbium glass to generate laser light (comprising light wavelength at 1550 nm). The motivation for performing the modification was provided by Wit, who teaches that when using laser light to remove contaminants, laser light (comprising light wavelength at 1550 nm) made with Erbium glass can successfully be used to remove contaminants.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN L COLEMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7376. The examiner can normally be reached 9-5 Monday-Friday.
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, Kaj Olsen can be reached at (571)272-1344. 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.
/RLC/
Ryan L. Coleman
Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
/KAJ K OLSEN/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1714
