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 .
Applicant’s election with traverse of Group I, claims 1-9 and 17-20 in the reply filed on 7/1/2026 is acknowledged.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(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 1-9 and 17-20 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 the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 is indefinite because "the surface", in line 1, lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 1, line 4, should recited "which said at least one laser beam". Claim 2 is indefinite because of the term "preferably", as it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. Claim 2 is further indefinite because "the circumference" lacks positive antecedent basis. Claims 3 and 17 are indefinite because "the direction of movement" lacks positive antecedent basis. Claims 4, 18-19 are indefinite because "the angle" and "the range" lack positive antecedent basis. Additionally, the dependent claims reciting "the laser beam" should be amended to recite "said at least one laser beam" to be consistent with claim 1. Claims 18-19 are further indefinite because of the phrase "or beams", as their dependency is from claim 2 and it is unclear because of the limitations directed to preferably. Claim 6 is indefinite because "the degree of contamination", "the parameters", "the laser irradiation", and "the detected degree of contamination" lack positive antecedent basis. Claim 7 is indefinite because "the cleaning result" lacks positive antecedent basis. Claim 7 is further indefinite because quality control is a measure of what parameter? Does quality control refer to quality control of the cleaning process, quality control of how well the lasers are irradiating the surface? Clarification is requested. Claim 8 is indefinite because it is unclear what is meant by "it is carried out a machining step". Specifically, what does "it is" refer to? Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear what "this is" refers to.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 and 17-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Guillotte et al. (WO2023/152548A1; US 2025/0135520A1) in view of Latouche et al. (US2021/0114072A1).
The examiner notes that US2025/0135520A1 of WO2023/152548A1 is relied upon for translational purposes.
Re claim 1, Guilotte et al. teach cleaning a metallic product, (i.e. wire 3 and other types of long metal products, paragraph 235) extending in a longitudinal direction, in which the wire is moved in a longitudinal direction through the cleaning station 17, the method further comprising at least one laser beam 13 directed onto the surface of the wire, wherein the laser beam removes impurities (i.e. oxides, abstract, paragraphs 24, 26, 235). Guilotte et al. teach the invention substantially as claimed with the exception of cleaning the surface of a metallic rod. Latouche et al. teach a method of laser stripping a metal product to remove unwanted oxides (paragraphs 1, 24-25), wherein the metal product includes wires, bars, (i.e. rods) and tubes (paragraph 51). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Guilotte et al. to include equivalent metal products, such as rods, as taught by Latouche et al., for purposes of performing the same function of removing impurities by laser ablation. Furthermore, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan to substitute cleaning of a wire of Guilotte et al. with cleaning of a metallic rod since Guilotte et al. teach the method can be used to cleaning other types of long metal products. Re claims 2-4, and 17-19, refer to element 13 of Fig. 1 of Guilotte et al. Re claim 4, the angle of the laser beam is 90 degrees based on Fig. 1 of Guilotte et al. Re claims 5 and 20, Guilotte et al. fail to teach evacuating impurities. Latouche et al. teach means for discharging and preferably collecting the oxides (paragraphs 31 and 78) to remove from the surface of the metal product. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the method of Guilotte et al., to include evacuating the impurities, as taught by Latouche et al., for purposes of removing contaminants from the metal surface. Re claim 6, Guilotte in view of Latouche et al. fail to teach detecting the degree of contamination before cleaning and controlling/ the parameters of laser irradiation. However, Latouche et al. teach an inspection means for verifying the cleaning effectiveness (paragraphs 28, 81, 84-88) in order to determine if additional laser irradiation is needed. In view of the teachings of Latouche et al., and in the absence of a showing of criticality and/or unexpected results, it would have been well within the level of the skilled artisan before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the inspection means to determine the degree of contamination before any additional cleaning and/or adjust the processing parameters of the laser irradiation in order to achieve the desired level of cleanliness, the parameters being dependent on the amount/thickness of the contaminants and the type of contaminants present on the metal surface. Additionally, re claim 7, the limitations of "the cleaning result" are met because the inspection means determines the cleaning effectiveness which is a measure of applicant's cleaning result.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-9 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art fails to teach the claimed method steps as part of a machining step of a screw manufacturing process. Claim 9 is allowable based on its dependency.
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Park et al. teach a device and method for cleaning a surface of a metal wire.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Sharidan Carrillo whose telephone number is (571)272-1297. The examiner can normally be reached M-F, 7:00am-4:00pm.
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, Michael Barr can be reached at 571-272-1414. 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.
Sharidan Carrillo
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1711
/Sharidan Carrillo/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1711 bsc
Prosecution Insights