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 .
Response to Amendment
Applicant's amendment filed on 10/22/2025 has been entered.
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 2-22 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-22 are still pending in this application, with claim 1 being independent.
Applicant's arguments regarding the 4/25/2025 rejections of the claims under 35 U.S.C. 103 are not persuasive, as described in the 'Response to Arguments' section below. Therefore, these rejections are maintained.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 10/22/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
On p. 6 applicant argues: “Taylor uses a low pulse energy to form the described periodic nanostructures. Figure 1, for example, indicates a pulse energy in the range of 100 nJ - 1 μJ. Taylor also teaches that at high pulse energies, above 1 μJ, nanocracks are formed instead. See paragraphs 0017 and 0019. Nanocracks will lack any well-defined shape required to provide birefringence. Hence, Taylor teaches that a high pulse energy regime does not create a "birefringent nanostructure comprising nanopores", as required by amended claim 1. This is an explicit teaching away from the use of high pulse energies.” and on p. 7 “The skilled person does not learn and cannot deduce what will occur for elliptically polarised pulses having a low pulse energy. The result would not be in any way predictable, contrary to the assertion in the Action.”. Examiner respectfully disagrees. In this case, Taylor discloses, that for at least linear and circular polarizations, pulse energy correlates with “porosity”, i.e., pulse energy is a known result effective variable [para. 0017: “The degree of "porosity" of the nanovoid loaded modified structures increases with pulse energy.”]; wherein Fukuyo was presented as teaching an alternative polarization having elliptical shape, and thus a PHOSITA would find it obvious to, with a reasonable expectation of success (i.e., of modifying the substrate), combine the teachings of Taylor and Fukuyo to arrive at claim 1, further including selecting laser power according to the requirements of the given application (e.g., selecting laser power at least according to the teachings of Fukuyo with regards to use with elliptical polarization).
Furthermore, regarding applicant’s arguments that the prior art teaches away from the proposed modification [p. 6: “This is a classic case of a primary reference teaching away from a proposed modification.”], it is noted that the applicant is using “teaching away” in a much broader sense that it is legally accepted. For a reference to be considered to teach away from a proposed modification such reference must criticize, discredit, or otherwise discourage the proposed combination. In re Fulton, 73 USPQ2d 1141 (Fed. Cir. 2004). The applicant is further advised that disclosed examples and/or preferred embodiments do not constitute a teaching away from a broader disclosure or nonpreferred embodiments, even if such nonpreferred embodiments are described as somewhat inferior. See In re Susi, 169 USPQ 423 (CCPA 1971), and In re Gurley, 31 USPQ2d 1130 (Fed. Cir. 1994). In this case, while Examiner maintains that a PHOSITA would recognize that different polarizations might require different levels of laser power, and further that “nanocracks” do not necessarily teach away, since Taylor further discloses an example desirable use case: “Such a high aspect ratio (length can be mms) nanocrack might be useful as an ultranarrow nanofluidic channel for biosensing applications.” in para. 0019.
Specification
The preliminary amendment filed 5/26/2021 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: The incorporation by reference of International Patent Application No. PCT/GB2019/053327, and GP Patent Application No. 1819193.2 (filed 11/26/2018) is ineffective as it was added on the date of entry into the national phase, which is after the filing date of the instant application. The filing date of this national stage application is the filing date of associated PCT, in this case 11/26/2019, see MPEP 1893.03(b). Therefore the specification amendment of 5/26/2021 to include the incorporation by reference is new matter, per MPEP 608.01(p). For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret the disclosure as reciting “…
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a polarising apparatus configurable to set the ellipticity and the orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarization to selected values” in claim 17. The polarising apparatus is shown in Figs. 6 and 9 and discussed in at least ¶0049 and 0058-0059 of the US publication.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
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.
Claims 1-22 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:
The limitation “the birefringent nanostructure” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the “at least one birefringent nanostructure” in lines 4-5 . The claim will be interpreted as reciting “...wherein [[a]]the at least one birefringent nanostructure…”.
Claim 2:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 1”
The limitation “the nanostructure” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “the at least one birefringent nanostructure” so as to correspond to amended claim 1.
The limitation “nanopores” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the nanopores of amended claim 1. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “the nanopores” so as to correspond to amended claim 1.
Claim 3:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 2”
Claim 4:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 2”
Claim 5:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 2”
Claim 6:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 1”
The limitation “the pulses of laser light” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “the one or more focussed femtosecond pulses of laser light” so as to correspond to claim 1.
The limitation “the nanostructure” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “the at least one birefringent nanostructure” so as to correspond to amended claim 1.
Claim 7:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 6”
Claim 8:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 6”
Claim 9:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 6”
Claim 10:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 6”
Claim 11:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 1”
The limitation “a nanostructure” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the “at least one birefringent nanostructure” of amended claim 1. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[a]]the at least one birefringent nanostructure” so as to correspond to amended claim 1.
Claim 12:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 1”
The limitation “a nanostructure” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the “at least one birefringent nanostructure” of amended claim 1. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[a]]the at least one birefringent nanostructure” so as to correspond to amended claim 1.
Claim 13:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 2”
The limitation “nanopores” in line 3 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the nanopores of amended claim 1. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “the nanopores” so as to correspond to amended claim 1.
The limitation “the pulses” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “the one or more focussed femtosecond pulses” so as to correspond to claim 1.
The limitation “nanopores” in line 8 renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the nanopores of amended claim 1. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “further nanopores” so as to correspond to “each of one or more further volumes”.
The limitations “the further volume” lack sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “each of the one or more further volumes”.
Claim 14:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 13”
The limitations “the one or more further volumes” lack sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “each of the one or more further volumes”.
Claim 15:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 14”
Claim 16:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 1”
The limitation “the at least one nanostructure” lacks sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “the at least one birefringent nanostructure” so as to correspond to amended claim 1.
Claim 17:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 1”
The limitation “the femtosecond pulses of laser light” and “the femtosecond pulses” lack sufficient antecedent basis and will be interpreted as “the one or more focussed femtosecond pulses of laser light” so as to correspond to claim 1.
Claim 18:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 17”
Claim 19:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 18”
Claim 20:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 18”
Claim 21:
The limitation “A method” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to reference the method of a previous claim, and it is unclear what limitations from the previous claim may be required. The claim will be interpreted as reciting “[[A]]The method according to claim 1”
Claims 2-22 are also rejected due to dependence on a rejected claim.
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, 6, 11-12, 16, and 21-22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20060219676 A1) in view of Fukuyo (US 20180068897 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Taylor discloses:
A method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus for performing the method [fig. 1], the method comprising:
providing a substrate of a transparent material [transparent substrate 14 of fused silica; fig. 1, para. 0036]; and
applying one or more focussed femtosecond pulses of laser light with [achieved using quarter waveplate 16 and polarizer 18; fig. 1]
to a volume within the substrate to create at least one birefringent nanostructure in the volume [using a “Ti: sapphire near-infrared femtosecond laser 10 generating laser beam 12” on silica to form nanostructures, the fused silica nanostructures having birefringent optical properties; para. 0036; fig. 1]
wherein the birefringent nanostructure comprises nanopores [nanostructures shown as nano-slots/nanopores in the volume of transparent substrate 14; fig. 9].
However, Taylor is silent on the use of an elliptical polarisation.
Fukuyo discloses a laser processing method wherein a laser with an elliptical polarization of laser light is used, wherein “Laser light having elliptical polarization with an ellipticity of zero can be used. Linearly polarized light is obtained when the ellipticity is zero”, [paras. 0032-0036].
Since linearly polarized light is obtained when the ellipticity is zero, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method to have an elliptical polarisation as taught by Fukuyo for the purpose of laser processing the substrate, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 2, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 1.
Taylor further discloses:
in which the one or more focussed femtosecond pulses of laser light are applied such that the nanostructure comprises a random distribution of nanopores in the volume [see fig. 9, para. 0017].
Regarding claim 6, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 1.
Taylor further discloses:
in which the pulses of laser light are applied such that the nanostructure comprises a periodic nanograting [shown in fig. 9 above; para. 0017].
Regarding claim 11, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 1.
Taylor further discloses:
comprising selecting an ellipticity of the elliptical polarisation to create a nanostructure that provides a particular birefringence retardance value in the volume [mental step]. “By controlling the laser polarization it is possible to control the orientation of the slots”, para. 0047. This step of selecting is a mental step that can be mentally processed by the used to conceive a desired refraction of light along a light path passing through the transparent material.
Regarding claim 12, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 1.
Taylor further discloses:
comprising selecting an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation to create a nanostructure that provides a particular birefringence slow axis orientation in the volume [mental step]. “By controlling the laser polarization it is possible to control the orientation of the slots”, para. 0047. This step of selecting is a mental step that can be mentally processed by the used to conceive a desired an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation.
Regarding claim 16, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 1.
Taylor further discloses:
the optical element to be a fused silica wherein fused silica configured to manipulate incident light by a geometrical phase effect enabled by birefringence provided by the at least one nanostructure [optical properties of fused silica].
Regarding claim 21, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 1.
Taylor further discloses:
in which the substrate of transparent material comprises undoped or doped silica glass [fused silica; para. 0036].
Regarding claim 22, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 1.
Taylor further discloses:
the optical element [14, Figs. 1 and 9, shown above] fabricated according to the method of claim 1.
Claims 3-5, 7-10, 13-15, and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Taylor (US 20060219676 A1) in view of Fukuyo (US 20180068897 A1) and further in view of Richter (US 20180154572 A1).
Regarding claim 3, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 2.
However, Taylor is silent on wherein the elliptical polarisation has an ellipticity e in the range of 0 < e ≤ 1, and the nanopores have an oblate spheroidal shape or a spherical shape under operator control.
Taylor shows the nanopores in figure 9, the shape does not appear to be oblate spheroidal shape or a spherical, however the apparatus of Taylor is capable of creating the nano structures in the shape of oblate spheroidal or spherical shapes. These shapes are directed toward the result, wherein the step applying one or more focussed femtosecond pulses is directed to the beginning of creating the nano structure.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus for performing the method [fig. 2a] wherein “For this purpose, the beam forming device can for example be equipped with a rotating half-wave plate or similar birefringent elements to change the polarization of continuous laser beams. The polarization of the impinging laser beams can thus be changed as a function of the rotational speed of the receiving portion”, para. 0021. “It is also possible hereby for a mixed form or combination respectively, of circularly and linearly polarized laser radiation, so-called elliptically polarized laser radiation, to be used”, para. 0022.
Both Taylor and Richter disclose the use of polarisation with respect to the laser working on the transparent material and Richter clearly show that it was convention to change polarisation to affect the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the quarter wave plate (16) and polarizer (18) of Taylor as taught by Richter to have an ellipticity e in the range of 0 < e ≤ 1 for the purpose of affecting the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Regarding claim 4, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 2.
However, Taylor is silent on wherein the elliptical polarisation has an ellipticity e in the range of 0 < e < 1, and the nanopores have an oblate spheroidal shape under operator control.
Taylor shows the nanopores in figure 9 above, the shape does not appear to be oblate spheroidal shape, however the apparatus of Taylor is capable of creating the nano structures in an oblate spheroidal shape under operator control.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus for performing the method [fig. 2a], discussed above, see claim 3.
Both Taylor and Richter disclose the use of polarisation with respect to the laser working on the transparent material and Richter clearly show that it was convention to change polarisation to affect the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the quarter wave plate (16) and polarizer (18) of Taylor as taught by Richter to have an ellipticity e in the range of 0 < e < 1 for the purpose of affecting the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Regarding claim 5, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 2.
However, Taylor is silent on wherein the elliptical polarisation has an ellipticity e in the range of 0.5 ≤ e < 1, and the nanopores have an oblate spheroidal shape under operator control.
Taylor show the nanopores in figure 9 above, the shape does not appear to be oblate spheroidal shape, however the apparatus of Taylor is capable of creating the nano structures in an oblate spheroidal shape under operator control.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus for performing the method (Fig. 2a), discussed above, see claim 3.
Both Taylor and Richter disclose the use of polarisation with respect to the laser working on the transparent material and Richter et al. clearly show that it was convention to change polarisation to affect the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the quarter wave plate (16) and polarizer (18) of Taylor as taught by Richter to have an ellipticity e in the range of 0.5 ≤ e < 1 for the purpose of affecting the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Regarding claim 7, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 6.
However, Taylor is silent on wherein the elliptical polarisation has an ellipticity e in the range of 0 < e ≤ 1.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus for performing the method (Fig. 2a), discussed above, see claim 3.
Both Taylor and Richter disclose the use of polarisation with respect to the laser working on the transparent material and Richter et al. clearly show that it was convention to change polarisation to affect the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the quarter wave plate (16) and polarizer (18) of Taylor as taught by Richter to have an ellipticity e in the range of 0 < e ≤ 1 for the purpose of affecting the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Regarding claim 8, Taylor in view of Richter discloses the method according to claim 6.
However, Taylor is silent on wherein the elliptical polarisation has an ellipticity e in the range of 0 < e < 1.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus for performing the method (Fig. 2a), discussed above, see claim 3.
Both Taylor and Richter disclose the use of polarisation with respect to the laser working on the transparent material and Richter et al. clearly show that it was convention to change polarisation to affect the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the quarter wave plate (16) and polarizer (18) of Taylor as taught by Richter to have an ellipticity e in the range of 0 < e < 1 for the purpose of affecting the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Regarding claim 9, Taylor in view of Richter discloses the method according to claim 6.
However, Taylor is silent on wherein the elliptical polarisation has an ellipticity e in the range of 0.5 ≤ e ≤ 1.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus for performing the method (Fig. 2a), discussed above, see claim 3.
Both Taylor and Richter disclose the use of polarisation with respect to the laser working on the transparent material and Richter clearly show that it was convention to change polarisation to affect the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the quarter wave plate (16) and polarizer (18) of Taylor as taught by Richter to have an ellipticity e in the range of 0.5 ≤ e ≤ 1 for the purpose of affecting the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Regarding claim 10, Taylor in view of Richter discloses the method according to claim 6.
However, Taylor is silent on wherein the elliptical polarisation has an ellipticity e in the range of 0.2 ≤ e ≤ 1.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus for performing the method (Fig. 2a), discussed above, see claim 3.
Both Taylor and Richter disclose the use of polarisation with respect to the laser working on the transparent material and Richter clearly show that it was convention to change polarisation to affect the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the arrangement of the quarter wave plate (16) and polarizer (18) of Taylor as taught by Richter to have an ellipticity e in the range of 0.2 ≤ e ≤ 1 for the purpose of affecting the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) to the transparent material.
Regarding claim 13, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 2.
However, Taylor does not expressly show selecting an ellipticity and an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation to create nanopores that provide a particular birefringence retardance value and slow axis orientation in the volume, and further comprising, after applying the pulses to the volume, for each of one or more further volumes within the substrate, selecting an ellipticity and an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation to create nanopores for providing a particular birefringence retardance value and slow axis orientation in the further volume within the substrate, and applying one or more focussed femtosecond pulses of the laser light to the further volume to create nanopores in the further volume.
The step of selecting an ellipticity and an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation can be done by the operator by manipulating the quarter waveplate 16 and polarizer 18 of Taylor.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method of fabricating an optical element and an apparatus, showing the steps of selecting an ellipticity and an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation para. 0007, 0021, 0022.
Both Taylor and Richter show the laser moving from location to location to create nano structures (Fig. 1 of Taylor, Fig. 2a of Richter).
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify method of Taylor to select the ellipticity and an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation as taught by Richter for the purpose of affecting the properties of the laser beams to gain a desired modification (shape, length, size) of the transparent material.
Regarding claim 14, Taylor in view of Fukuyo and Richter discloses the method according to claim 13.
Taylor further discloses:
in which the volume and the one or more further volumes comprise a plurality of spaced-apart volumes within the substrate. The volume is interpreted to be a single nano structure as shown in Fig. 9 of Taylor, Fig. 9, shown a plurality of spaced-apart volumes within the substrate (14).
Regarding claim 15, Taylor in view of Fukuyo and Richter discloses the method according to claim 14.
Taylor further discloses:
in which the optical element is a multidimensional optical storage element [“rewritable 3-D data storage voxel elements”, para. 0053], wherein selecting the ellipticity and the orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation for each of the plurality of volumes comprises selecting the ellipticity and the orientation of the major axis of the polarisation [performed by the operator] in order to encode data via the birefringence retardance value and the slow axis orientation provided by the nanopores in that volume [intended function].
Taylor does not expressly show wherein each of the plurality of volumes comprises a voxel, However taylor further discloses the rewritable 3-D data storage voxel elements, being the workpiece being worked upon and would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to simply substitute the storage voxel elements of Taylor for another storage element for the purpose of encoding data, a feat that would only require routine skill in the art, yield predictable results.
Regarding claim 17, Taylor in view of Fukuyo discloses the method according to claim 1.
However, Taylor is silent on providing the femtosecond pulses of laser light with a circular polarisation before passing the femtosecond pulses through a polarising apparatus configurable to set the ellipticity and the orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation to selected values.
Richter, in the same field of endeavor, discloses a method wherein “the beam forming device can also be designed in such a way that the laser beams are polarized in a circular manner prior to the impinging of the solid body”, para. 0022. The limitation “before passing the femtosecond pulses through a polarising apparatus (not positively recited) configurable to set the ellipticity and the orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation to selected values” is a contingent limitation. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a method (or process) claim having contingent limitations requires only those steps that must be performed and does not include steps that are not required to be performed because the condition(s) precedent are not met. MPEP § 2111.04, II.
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Taylor to use circular polarisation as taught by Richter, using a known method of polarisation for the purpose of changing the laser properties to gain a desired modification for working the transparent material, yielding predictable results.
Regarding claim 18, Taylor in view of Fukuyo and Richter discloses the method according to claim 17.
The limitation “in which the polarising apparatus comprises a first optical modulator with a first variable modulator retardance along a first axis, and a second optical modulator with a second variable modulator retardance along a second axis arranged at 450 to the first axis” does not further limit the method, as stated above in claim 17 since the polarising apparatus is not positively recited.
Regarding claim 19, Taylor in view of Fukuyo and Richter discloses the method according to claim 18.
The limitation “comprising varying the first variable modulator retardance and the second variable modulator retardance between -A/4 and +A/4, where A is the wavelength of the laser light, in order to select an ellipticity of the elliptical polarisation between 0 and 1, and an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation between 00 and 1800” involves a step related to the polarising apparatus of claim 18 which is not positively recited.
Regarding claim 20, Taylor in view of Fukuyo and Richter discloses the method according to claim 18.
The limitation “comprising varying the first variable modulator retardance and the second variable modulator retardance between -A/10 and +A/10, where A is the wavelength of the laser light, in order to select an ellipticity of the elliptical polarisation between 0.5 and 1, and an orientation of the major axis of the elliptical polarisation between 00 and 1800” involves a step related to the polarising apparatus of claim 18 which is not positively recited.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Akarapu (US 20180093914 A1), in the same field of endeavor, teaches an optical assembly 100 configured to change the polarization of a laser [para. 0213; figs. 7A, 7B]
She (US 20190025463 A1, filed as 16040488 7/19/2018), in the same field of endeavor, teaches elliptical polarizations and birefringent elements [paras. 0039-40]
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 THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights