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
Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 9 recites “configured tof1 emit,” which should be corrected as follows “configured to emit.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 27 objected to because of the following informalities: claim 27 recites “dept of field,” which should be corrected as follows “depth of field.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 5-6, 16, 17-18, 20-23, and 26-27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier (US11648623) in view of Akarapu (US10730783).
PNG
media_image1.png
408
946
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6A of Gollier
PNG
media_image2.png
652
948
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6C of Gollier
Regarding claim 1, Gollier discloses a Bessel beam laser-cutting system comprising:
an ultrafast laser light source configured to emit a beam into an axicon (Col. 17 lines 15-20 a laser source 3 operable to emit a pulsed laser through axicon 10);
the axicon configured to diffract the beam into a first Bessel beam in a near field of the axicon (Col. 17 lines 15-20 system comprises a laser source 3 (not shown) and an optical assembly 6′ configured to transform a Gaussian profile laser beam 2 into a Bessel profile laser beam having a focal line 2 b),
and an annular beam in a far field of the axicon (Col. 14 lines 5-10 laser radiation formed by axicon 10 is circularly incident on the outer radial portion of lens 11),
a first lens configured to focus the annular beam (Col. 17 lines 20-30 a first lens element 5 having a first focal length F1); and a second lens configured to converge the focused annular beam into a second Bessel beam to modify a transparent material (Col. 17 lines 20-30 a second lens element 11 having a second focal length F2),
wherein a depth of the modification generated by the second Bessel beam is to be within the transparent material (Col. 13 lines 5-10 The laser beam focal line 2 b can have a length 1 in a range of between about 0.1 mm and about 100 mm or in a range of between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm),
the second lens (11) is configured to be a first distance from the first lens (5) based on the first distance (Fig. 6C) being determined by a first focal length value (F1) of the first lens (5) added to a second focal length value (F2) of the second lens (11),
the form factor length is a distance (Col. 14 lines 1-15, Col. 17 lines 15-20 a laser source 3 operable to emit a pulsed laser through axicon 10, second lens 11, z1 and z2 taken to be the form factor length between axicon 10 and lens 11).
Gollier is silent on a first lens configured to be a convex lens to focus the annular beam.
Akarapu teaches teaches a first lens (130) configured to be a convex lens to focus the annular beam (Col. 27 lines 45-60 first lens 130 being plano-convex).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gollier to incorporate the teachings of Akarapu to have the first lens be convex in order to collimate the pulsed laser beam between the two lenses, where the formation of the convex lens is advantageously placed in the laser beam path for the purpose of changing the shape and size of the focused area that is formed by the first lens, given that it is a convex lens, and to produce a beam with the desired output intensity about a specific optical axis, even if the desired shape and size of the focused area is non-symmetric (Akarapu Col. 27 lines 45-50, Col. 29 lines 1-20).
Gollier discloses a distance from the axicon to the second lens being 320 mm in total (Col. 14 lines 1-15). However, Gollier does not expressly disclose a form factor length of the Bessel beam laser-cutting system be less than or equal to 100 millimeters wherein the form factor length is a distance between the ultrafast light source and the second lens. Gollier discloses the distance between the axicon and the second lens, understood to be the equivalent of a form factor length as the distance between an axicon and the light source is adjustable and chosen in order to be able to have laser radiation formed by the axicon be circularly incident on an outer radial portion of an intermediate lens between the axicon and the second less, such that the intermediate lens is able to focus the circular radiation of the second lens, and as a result the entire laser energy can be concentrated in a focal line (Gollier Col. 14 lines 1-15). Additionally, as explained in Col. 14 lines 20-45, it is advantageous if a focal line is formed at a certain distance from the laser optics, which can be adjusted by the distance between an axicon, being indicative of the position of the light source, and subsequent lenses, for the prevention of crack formation at a particular depth of a substrate. The distance between axicon, being indicative of the position of the light source, and subsequent lenses is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the laser source and the lenses affects the concentration of energy on a focal line at a desired depth of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by having a form factor length less than or equal to 100 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Gollier and Akarapu disclose the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above and Gollier further discloses the second lens (11) is configured to be a first distance from the first lens (5) based on the first distance being determined by a first focal length value (F1) of the first lens (5) added to a second focal length value (F2) of the second lens (11) as taught in Figs. 6C and 6E and Col. 19 lines 1-30 of Gollier. However, Gollier not expressly disclose wherein the second lens is configured to be a first distance from the first lens based on the first distance being determined by a first focal length value of the first lens added to 1.5 times a second focal length value of the second lens. Gollier discloses (Col. 15 lines 1-30) that the distance between the first lens and second lens needs to be optimized as the distance between the first and second lens adjusts the width of the laser ring received from the axicon, which is optimized in order to be able to generate short focal lines. As seen in Figs. 6C and 6E, the first and second lens are a distance apart, determined by the focal lengths F1 and F2, such that the distance between the first and second lens is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the first and second lens changes the width of the laser ring received from the axicon which affects the ability to generate short focal lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by making the second lens be configured to be a first distance from the first lens based on the first distance being determined by a first focal length value of the first lens added to 1.5 times a second focal length value of the second lens as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 5, Gollier and Akarapu teach the Bessel beam laser-cutting system of claim 1, and Gollier teacheswherein the ultrafast laser light source is configured to emit a burst of ultrashort laser pulses as the beam (Col. 6 lines 15-20 The laser pulse duration may be 10^−10 s or less, or 10^−11 s or less, or 10^−12 s or less, or 10^−13 s or less. These “bursts” may be repeated at high repetition rates (e.g. kHz or MHz)), and wherein:
a burst energy associated with the burst of ultrashort laser pulses is to be within a range of 100 microjoules to 250 microjoules (Col. 20 lines 30-40 average laser power per burst measured at the material can be greater than 40 microJoules per mm thickness of material, for example between 40 microJoules/mm and 2500 microJoules/mm, or between 500 and 2250 microJoules/mm),
a power associated with the burst of ultrashort laser pulses is to be within a range of 8 watts to 20 watts (Col. 22 lines 52-58 the laser power of the pulse burst ps laser is 6 watts or higher);
and a repetition rate associated with the burst of ultrashort laser pulses is to be within a range of 70 kilohertz to 80 kilohertz (Col. 22 lines 20-25 a laser repetition rate of about 100 kHz. In some embodiments the burst repetition frequency is in a range of between about 1 kHz and about 200 kHz).
Regarding claim 6, Gollier and Akarapu teach the Bessel beam laser-cutting system of claim 1, and Gollier teaches wherein the beam is to have a Gaussian intensity profile or a top-hat intensity profile (Col. 1 lines30-35 glass cutting by laser processes employing Gaussian laser beams require a large number of pulses to create the desired damage lines within the glass substrate due to the tight focus of the laser beam).
Regarding claim 16, Gollier teaches a Bessel beam cutting system comprising:
a light source configured to emit a beam into an axicon (Col. 17 lines 15-20 a laser source 3 operable to emit a pulsed laser through axicon 10),
wherein a diameter of the beam is associated with a clear aperture of the axicon (Col. 17 lines 20-25 a transparent (i.e. acting as a refractive element) axicon 10), the axicon configured to diffract the input beam into a first Bessel beam in a near field of the axicon (Col. 17 lines 15-20 system comprises a laser source 3 (not shown) and an optical assembly 6′ configured to transform a Gaussian profile laser beam 2 into a Bessel profile laser beam having a focal line 2 b),
and an annular beam in a far field of the axicon (Col. 14 lines 5-10 laser radiation formed by axicon 10 is circularly incident on the outer radial portion of lens 11),
wherein an apex angle of the axicon is configured to be 170 degrees (Col. 13 lines 25-40 axicon 10 with a cone angle of 10°, which is positioned perpendicularly to the beam direction and centered on laser beam),
and a first lens and a second lens configured to demagnify the annular beam into a second Bessel beam (Col. 19 lines 35-40 reflective axicon 19 creates a ring of collimated light), to modify a transparent material (Col. 19 lines 40-45 second lens element 11 focuses the circular radiation SR to generate the laser beam line focus 2 b),
the second lens (11) is configured to be a first distance from the first lens (5) based on the first distance (Fig. 6C) being determined by a first focal length value (F1) of the first lens (5) added to a second focal length value (F2) of the second lens (11)
wherein a modification depth of the second Bessel beam is to be within the transparent material (Col. 13 lines 5-10 The laser beam focal line 2 b can have a length 1 in a range of between about 0.1 mm and about 100 mm or in a range of between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm),
the form factor length is a distance (Col. 14 lines 1-15, Col. 17 lines 15-20 a laser source 3 operable to emit a pulsed laser through axicon 10, second lens 11, z1 and z2 taken to be the form factor length between axicon 10 and lens 11).
Gollier is silent on a first lens configured to be a convex lens to focus the annular beam.
Akarapu teaches teaches a first lens (130) configured to be a convex lens to focus the annular beam (Col. 27 lines 45-60 first lens 130 being plano-convex).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gollier to incorporate the teachings of Akarapu to have the first lens be convex in order to collimate the pulsed laser beam between the two lenses, where the formation of the convex lens is advantageously placed in the laser beam path for the purpose of changing the shape and size of the focused area that is formed by the first lens, given that it is a convex lens, and to produce a beam with the desired output intensity about a specific optical axis, even if the desired shape and size of the focused area is non-symmetric (Akarapu Col. 27 lines 45-50, Col. 29 lines 1-20).
Gollier discloses a distance from the axicon to the second lens being 320 mm in total (Col. 14 lines 1-15).
However, Gollier does not expressly disclose a form factor length of the Bessel beam laser-cutting system be less than or equal to 100 millimeters wherein the form factor length is a distance between the light source and the second lens. Gollier discloses the distance between the axicon and the second lens, understood to be the equivalent of a form factor length as the distance between an axicon and the light source is adjustable and chosen in order to be able to have laser radiation formed by the axicon be circularly incident on an outer radial portion of an intermediate lens between the axicon and the second less, such that the intermediate lens is able to focus the circular radiation of the second lens, and as a result the entire laser energy can be concentrated in a focal line (Gollier Col. 14 lines 1-15). Additionally, as explained in Col. 14 lines 20-45, it is advantageous if a focal line is formed at a certain distance from the laser optics, which can be adjusted by the distance between an axicon, being indicative of the position of the light source, and subsequent lenses, for the prevention of crack formation at a particular depth of a substrate. The distance between axicon, being indicative of the position of the light source, and subsequent lenses is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the laser source and the lenses affects the concentration of energy on a focal line at a desired depth of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by having a form factor length less than or equal to 100 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (MPEP 2144.05).
Gollier and Akarapu discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above and and Gollier further discloses the second lens (11) is configured to be a first distance from the first lens (5) based on the first distance (Fig. 6C) being determined by a first focal length value (F1) of the first lens (5) added to a second focal length value (F2) of the second lens (11), as taught in Figs. 6C and 6E and Col. 19 lines 1-30 of Gollier. However, Gollier not expressly disclose wherein the second lens is configured to be a first distance from the first lens based on the first distance being determined by a first focal length value of the first lens added to 1.5 times a second focal length value of the second lens. Gollier discloses (Col. 15 lines 1-30) that the distance between the first lens and second lens needs to be optimized as the distance between the first and second lens adjusts the width of the laser ring received from the axicon, which is optimized in order to be able to generate short focal lines. As seen in Figs. 6C and 6E, the first and second lens are a distance apart, determined by the focal lengths F1 and F2, such that the distance between the first and second lens is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the first and second lens changes the width of the laser ring received from the axicon which affects the ability to generate short focal lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by making the second lens be configured to be a first distance from the first lens based on the first distance being determined by a first focal length value of the first lens added to 1.5 times a second focal length value of the second lens as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 17, Gollier and Akarapu teach the Bessel beam cutting system of claim 16, and Gollier teaches wherein an axial magnification amount of the annular beam by the first lens and the second lens is to correspond to a ratio between a length of a depth of field of the first Bessel beam and a length of a depth of field of the second Bessel beam (Col. 17 lines 30-35 magnification of the telescope defined by the first lens element 5 and the second lens element 11 is given by M=F2/F1).
Regarding claim 18, Gollier and Akarapu teach Bessel beam cutting system of claim 16, and Gollier teaches a distance between the first lens and the second lens (Col. 15 lines 20-25 distance of focusing lens 11 from collimating lens 12 as z1b), but is silent on wherein a focal length of the first lens is configured to be 30 millimeters, and a focal length of the second lens is configured to be 8 millimeters.
Gollier discloses a distance between a first and second lens and the second lens being 140 mm in total (Col. 14 lines 1-15). However, Gollier does not expressly disclose a distance between the first lens and the second lens be configured to be 42 millimeters. Gollier discloses the distance between the first lens and the second lens is chosen and is adjusted in order to be able to achieve a desired circle width of the laser the is circularly radiated from the laser source (Gollier Col. 14 lines 1-35). The circle width of the laser being desired to adjust in order to affect the length of the subsequent focal line used for cutting. The distance between the first lens and the second lenses is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the first lens and the second lens affects the circle width of the laser and the focal line of the subsequent laser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by having a distance between the first lens and the second lens be configured to be 42 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Akarapu teaches wherein a focal length of the first lens is configured to be 30 millimeters (Col. 28 lines 1-10 the first and second lens 130, 132 may have focal lengths F1, F2. respectively, of from about 10 mm to about 200 mm), and a focal length of the second lens (Col. 28 lines 1-10 the first and second lens 130, 132 may have focal lengths F1, F2. respectively, of from about 10 mm to about 200 mm).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gollier to incorporate the teachings of Akarapu to have a focal length of a first lens be configured to be 30mm in order to collimate the pulsed laser beam between the two lenses (Akarapu Col. 27 lines 45-50).
Akarapu discloses a focal length of the seconds lens being about 10 mm to 200 mm (Col. 28 lines 1-15). However, Akarapu does not expressly disclose a focal length of the seconds lens being 8 millimeters. Akarapu discloses the focal length of the second lens is chosen and is adjusted in order to be able to achieve a desired magnification of the laser, being understood to be a ratio of the first focal length and a second focal length width of the laser the is circularly radiated from the laser source, which affects the sports or peaks of intensity of the laser beam (Akarapu Col. 38 lines 10-35). The focal length of the seconds lens is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the focal length of the second lens is known to affect the magnification of the laser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by having a disclose a focal length of the seconds lens be 8 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 20, Gollier and Akarapu teach the Bessel beam cutting system of claim 16, and Gollier teaches wherein the second Bessel beam is to create an energy curtain within the transparent material to prepare the transparent material for mechanical or thermal separation (Col. 6 lines 15-25 thermal separation: fault line created along a contour defined by a series of perforations or defect lines for separation).
Regarding claim 21, Gollier and Akarapu teach the Bessel beam laser cutting system of claim 1, and Gollier teaches wherein an apex angle of the axicon is configured to be 170 degrees (Col. 13 lines 25-40 axicon 10 with a cone angle of 10°, which is positioned perpendicularly to the beam direction and centered on laser beam), but is silent on wherein a focal length of the first lens is configured to be 30 millimeters, and a focal length of the second lens is configured to be 8 millimeters.
Akarapu teaches wherein a focal length of the first lens is configured to be 30 millimeters (Col. 28 lines 1-10 the first and second lens 130, 132 may have focal lengths F1, F2. respectively, of from about 10 mm to about 200 mm), a focal length of the second lens (Col. 28 lines 1-10 the first and second lens 130, 132 may have focal lengths F1, F2. respectively, of from about 10 mm to about 200 mm).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gollier to incorporate the teachings of Akarapu to have a focal length of a first lens be configured to be 30mm in order to collimate the pulsed laser beam between the two lenses (Akarapu Col. 27 lines 45-50).
Akarapu discloses a focal length of the seconds lens being about 10 mm to 200 mm (Akarapu Col. 28 lines 1-15). However, Akarapu does not expressly disclose a focal length of the seconds lens being 8 millimeters. Akarapu discloses the focal length of the second lens is chosen and is adjusted in order to be able to achieve a desired magnification of the laser, being understood to be a ratio of the first focal length and a second focal length width of the laser the is circularly radiated from the laser source, which affects the sports or peaks of intensity of the laser beam (Akarapu Col. 38 lines 10-35). The focal length of the seconds lens is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the focal length of the second lens is known to affect the magnification of the laser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by having a disclose a focal length of the seconds lens be 8 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980)(MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 22, Gollier and Akarapu teach Bessel beam cutting system of claim 1, and Gollier teaches a distance between the first lens and the second lens (Col. 15 lines 20-25 distance of focusing lens 11 from collimating lens 12 as z1b).
Gollier discloses a distance between a first and second lens and the second lens being 140 mm in total (Col. 14 lines 1-15). However, Gollier does not expressly disclose a distance between the first lens and the second lens be configured to be 42 millimeters. Gollier discloses the distance between the first lens and the second lens is chosen and is adjusted in order to be able to achieve a desired circle width of the laser the is circularly radiated from the laser source (Gollier Col. 14 lines 1-35). The circle width of the laser being desired to adjust in order to affect the length of the subsequent focal line used for cutting. The distance between the first lens and the second lenses is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the first lens and the second lens affects the circle width of the laser and the focal line of the subsequent laser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by having a distance between the first lens and the second lens be configured to be 42 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 23, Gollier and Akarapu teach the Bessel beam laser-cutting system of claim 1, and Gollier teaches wherein the form factor length is a distance between the ultrafast laser light source and the second lens (Col. 14 lines 1-15, Col. 17 lines 15-20 a laser source 3 operable to emit a pulsed laser through axicon 10, second lens 11, z1 and z2 taken to be the form factor length between axicon 10 and lens 11).
Regarding claim 26, Gollier and Akarapu teach the Bessel beam laser-cutting system of claim 1, and Gollier teaches wherein the first lens (5) and the second lens (11) are configured to magnify at least one of the annular beam or the first Bessel beam into the second Bessel beam (Col. 17 lines 25-40 first lens element 5 and the second lens element 11 magnifies the line focus 2 b′ formed by the axicon 10 into the line focus 2 b that is applied to the material).
Regarding claim 27, Gollier and Akarapu teach the Bessel beam laser-cutting system of claim 26, and Gollier teaches wherein an axial magnification amount of the first lens (5) and the second lens (11) is configured to correspond to a ratio between the length of the dept of field of the first Bessel beam divided by the length of the depth of field of the second Bessel beam (Col. 17 lines 25-40 magnification of the telescope defined by the first lens element 5 and the second lens element 11 is given by M=F2/F1).
Gollier discloses an axial magnification corresponding to a ratio between the length of the dept of field of the second Bessel beam divided by the length of the depth of field of the first Bessel beam. However, Gollier does not expressly an axial magnification corresponding to ratio between the length of the dept of field of the first Bessel beam divided by the length of the depth of field of the second Bessel beam. Gollier discloses the axial magnification may be adjusted by a ratio of a first and second lens in order to be able achieve a different magnifications by changing one or two lens elements, such that a desired length and diameter of the laser beam is readily achieved (Gollier Col. 17 lines 25-40, Col. 1 lines 1-47). The magnification of the laser beam is adjusted in order to affect the length of the subsequent focal line used for cutting. The axial magnification between the first lens and the second lens is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the magnification between the first lens and the second lens affects the length and diameter of the subsequent laser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by having an axial magnification corresponding to ratio between the length of the depth of field of the first Bessel beam divided by the length of the depth of field of the second Bessel beam as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Claims 9-12, and 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier (US11648623) in view of Akarapu (US10730783) in further view of Wittwer (US11154948).
Regarding claim 9, Gollier teaches a cutting system comprising:
An ultrafast light source configured to emit an ultrashort laser pulse into an axicon (Col. 17 lines 15-20 a laser source 3 operable to emit a pulsed laser through axicon 10),
the axicon configured to diffract the ultrashort laser pulse into a first Bessel beam in a near field of the axicon (Col. 17 lines 15-20 system comprises a laser source 3 (not shown) and an optical assembly 6′ configured to transform a Gaussian profile laser beam 2 into a Bessel profile laser beam having a focal line 2 b) and an annular beam in a far field of the axicon (Col. 14 lines 5-10 laser radiation formed by axicon 10 is circularly incident on the outer radial portion of lens 11),
a first lens configured to focus the annular beam (Col. 17 lines 20-30 a first lens element 5 having a first focal length F1); and a second lens configured to converge the focused annular beam into a second Bessel beam to modify a transparent material (Col. 17 lines 20-30 a second lens element 11 having a second focal length F2),
wherein a length of a depth of field of the second Bessel beam is to be in air (Figs. 6A,C second Bessel beam coming from lens 11 is in the air)
wherein a cutting depth of the second Bessel beam is to be within transparent material (Col. 13 lines 5-10 The laser beam focal line 2 b can have a length 1 in a range of between about 0.1 mm and about 100 mm or in a range of between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm),
the form factor length is a distance (Col. 14 lines 1-15, Col. 17 lines 15-20 a laser source 3 operable to emit a pulsed laser through axicon 10, second lens 11, z1 and z2 taken to be the form factor length between axicon 10 and lens 11),
Gollier does teach a first lens configured to be a convex lens to focus the annular beam.
Akarapu teaches a first lens (130) configured to be a convex lens to focus the annular beam (Col. 27 lines 45-60 first lens 130 being plano-convex).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gollier to incorporate the teachings of Akarapu to have the first lens be convex in order to collimate the pulsed laser beam between the two lenses (Akarapu Col. 27 lines 45-50).
Gollier discloses a distance from the axicon to the second lens being 320 mm in total (Col. 14 lines 1-15). However, Gollier does not expressly disclose a form factor length of the Bessel beam laser-cutting system be less than or equal to 100 millimeters wherein the form factor length is a distance between the light source and the second lens. Gollier discloses the distance between the axicon and the second lens, understood to be the equivalent of a form factor length as the distance between an axicon and the light source is adjustable and chosen in order to be able to have laser radiation formed by the axicon be circularly incident on an outer radial portion of an intermediate lens between the axicon and the second less, such that the intermediate lens is able to focus the circular radiation of the second lens, and as a result the entire laser energy can be concentrated in a focal line (Gollier Col. 14 lines 1-15). Additionally, as explained in Col. 14 lines 20-45, it is advantageous if a focal line is formed at a certain distance from the laser optics, which can be adjusted by the distance between an axicon, being indicative of the position of the light source, and subsequent lenses, for the prevention of crack formation at a particular depth of a substrate. The distance between axicon, being indicative of the position of the light source, and subsequent lenses is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the laser source and the lenses affects the concentration of energy on a focal line at a desired depth of a substrate. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by having a form factor length less than or equal to 100 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(MPEP 2144.05).
Gollier discloses the invention essentially as claimed as discussed above and further discloses the second lens (11) is configured to be a first distance from the first lens (5) based on the first distance (Fig. 6C) being determined by a first focal length value (F1) of the first lens (5) added to a second focal length value (F2) of the second lens (11), as taught in Figs. 6C and 6E and Col. 19 lines 1-30 of Gollier. However, Gollier not expressly disclose wherein the second lens is configured to be a first distance from the first lens based on the first distance being determined by a first focal length value of the first lens added to 1.5 times a second focal length value of the second lens. Gollier discloses (Col. 15 lines 1-30) that the distance between the first lens and second lens needs to be optimized as the distance between the first and second lens adjusts the width of the laser ring received from the axicon, which is optimized in order to be able to generate short focal lines. As seen in Figs. 6C and 6E, the first and second lens are a distance apart, determined by the focal lengths F1 and F2, such that the distance between the first and second lens is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the first and second lens changes the width of the laser ring received from the axicon which affects the ability to generate short focal lines. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device as taught by Gollier and Akarapu by making the second lens be configured to be a first distance from the first lens based on the first distance being determined by a first focal length value of the first lens added to 1.5 times a second focal length value of the second lens as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that “where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation." In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955)(MPEP 2144.05).
Wittwer teaches wherein a length of a depth of field of the first Bessel beam is to be within a range of less than 190 millimeters in air (Col. 9 lines 10-30 small focus having depth of focus/Rayleigh length of 1.4 mm or 0.7 mm).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gollier and Akarapu to incorporate the teachings of Wittwer to have a length of a depth of field of the first Bessel beam is within a range less than 190 millimeters in order to be able to adjust the convergence of the laser beam exiting from the lens according to whether a shorter distance or longer distance is required (Wittwer Col. 3 lines 10-15).
Regarding claim 10, Gollier, Akarapu, and Wittwer teach cutting system of claim 9, and Gollier teaches wherein the ultrafast laser light source is configured to emit the ultrashort laser pulse in a burst mode (Col. 6 lines 15-20 The laser pulse duration may be 10^−10 s or less, or 10^−11 s or less, or 10^−12 s or less, or 10^−13 s or less. These “bursts” may be repeated at high repetition rates (e.g. kHz or MHz)).
Regarding claim 11, Gollier, Akarapu, and Wittwer teach cutting system of claim 9, and Gollier teaches wherein an apex angle of the axicon is configured to be 170 degrees (Col. 13 lines 25-40 axicon 10 with a cone angle of 10°, which is positioned perpendicularly to the beam direction and centered on laser beam).
Regarding claim 12, Gollier, Akarapu, and Wittwer teach cutting system of claim 9, and Gollier teaches an energy of the ultrashort laser pulse is to be within a range of 100 microjoules to 250 microjoules (Col. 20 lines 30-40 average laser power per burst measured at the material can be greater than 40 microJoules per mm thickness of material, for example between 40 microJoules/mm and 2500 microJoules/mm, or between 500 and 2250 microJoules/mm.); and a power of the ultrashort laser pulse is to be within a range of 8 watts to 20 watts (Col. 22 lines 52-58 the laser power of the pulse burst PS laser is 6 watts or higher).
Regarding claim 13, Gollier, Akarapu, and Wittwer teach cutting system of claim 9, and Gollier teaches the cutting depth of the second Bessel beam is to be 1 millimeter in the transparent material (Col. 13 lines 5-10 The laser beam focal line 2 b can have a length 1 in a range of between about 0.1 mm and about 100 mm or in a range of between about 0.1 mm and about 10 mm, for example), an apex angle of the axicon is configured to be 170 degrees (Col. 13 lines 25-40 axicon 10 with a cone angle of 10°, which is positioned perpendicularly to the beam direction and centered on laser beam), but is silent on a focal length of the first lens is configured to be 30 millimeters; a focal length of the second lens is configured to be 8 millimeters.
Akarapu teaches a focal length of the first lens is configured to be 30 millimeters (Col. 28 lines 1-10 the first and second lens 130, 132 may have focal lengths F1, F2. respectively, of from about 10 mm to about 200 mm), a focal length of the second lens (Col. 28 lines 1-10 the first and second lens 130, 132 may have focal lengths F1, F2. respectively, of from about 10 mm to about 200 mm).
It would have been obvious to have modified Gollier and Wittwer to incorporate the teachings of Akarapu to have a focal length of a first lens be configured to be 30mm and a focal length of a second lens be 8mm in order to collimate the pulsed laser beam between the two lenses (Col. 27 lines 45-50).
Akarapu discloses a focal length of the seconds lens being about 10 mm to 200 mm (Col. 28 lines 1-15). However, Akarapu does not expressly disclose a focal length of the seconds lens being 8 millimeters. Akarapu discloses the focal length of the second lens is chosen and is adjusted in order to be able to achieve a desired magnification of the laser, being understood to be a ratio of the first focal length and a second focal length width of the laser the is circularly radiated from the laser source, which affects the sports or peaks of intensity of the laser beam (Akarapu Col. 38 lines 10-35). The focal length of the seconds lens is disclosed to be a result effective variable in that changing the distance between the focal length of the second lens is known to affect the magnification of the laser. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to modify the device of Akarapu by having a disclose a focal length of the seconds lens be 8 millimeters as a matter of routine optimization since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980) (MPEP 2144.05).
Regarding claim 14, Gollier, Akarapu, and Wittwer teach cutting system of claim 9, and Gollier teaches wherein the first lens is configured to be a distance from the axicon (Fig. 6C lens 5 at a distance from axicon 10), and wherein the distance is to correspond to a numerical aperture of the first lens (Col. 14 lines 40-45 the numerical aperture along the focal line, on the other hand, can be adjusted via the distance z1 axicon-lens and via the cone angle of the axicon. In this way, the entire laser energy can be concentrated in the focal line).
Regarding claim 15, Gollier, Akarapu, and Wittwer teach cutting system of claim 9, and Gollier teaches wherein the second lens is configured to be a distance from the first lens (Col. 15 lines 20-25 distance of focusing lens 11 from collimating lens 12 as z1b), and wherein the distance is to correspond to a focal length of the first lens and a focal length of the second lens (Col. 15 lines1-15 distance of focusing lens 11 from collimating lens 12 as z1b adjusted by focal length of collimating lens 12 and focusing lens 11).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gollier (US11648623) and Akarapu (US10730783) as applied to claim 16 above, further in view of Comstock (US10522963).
PNG
media_image3.png
464
870
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 of Comstock
Regarding claim 19, Gollier and Akarapu teach the cutting system of claim 16, but are silent on wherein a length of a depth of field of the second Bessel beam is to 10 millimeters in air
Comstock teaches a length of a depth of field of the second Bessel beam is to 10 millimeters in air (Col. 10 lines 25-40 Fig. 2 focal line 4’, taken to be the depth of field, having a length between 0.1mm to 100mm)
It would have been obvious to have modified Gollier and Akarapu to incorporate the teachings of Comstock to have a length of a depth of field of the second Bessel beam to be 10 mm in order to be able to create a fault line that extends from the top and bottom surfaces of a material to be cut (Comstock Col. 10 lines 15-25).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 08/06/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding applicant’s arguments that Gollier teaches the first lens, being collimating lens 12, which Is known to “convert[s] a diverting or converting light beam into a parallel beam” and is “fundamentally different from the lens set up of the claimed invention.” Secondary reference Akarapu (US10730783) is found to teach the limitation, where the first lens 130 is a plano-convex lens, where the plano-convex lens of Akarapu is oriented in such a way to collimate the laser beam, as with the lens taught in Gollier, which is understood to be able to focus the laser beams. Akarapu teaches a convex lens being the first lens, so it is understood that the combination of Gollier and Akarapu teaches a convex lens and does not teach a fundamentally different set up as the claimed invention. Akarapu additionally teaches the formation of the convex lens being advantageous in the laser beam path for changing the shape and size of the focused area that is formed by the first lens, given that it is a convex lens, to produce a beam with the desired output intensity about a specific optical axis, even if the desired shape and size of the focused area is non-symmetric (Akarapu Col. 29 lines 1-20). Additionally, an orientation of the first lens is not claimed, rather just the convex shape of the lens, but in Fig. 3 of Akarapu, lens 130 has the convex portion facing the workpiece.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) 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 mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/24/2025
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761