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 Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 6-7, filed July 28, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Muendel et al. US 2013/0148925 A1.
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 1-4, 8, 15-21, and 23 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muendel et al. US 2013/0148925 A1 in view of Kuehnle et al US 6355907 B1 and Hargis et al. US 2020/0096762 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Muendel discloses a laser material processing apparatus comprising: a laser source configured to generate a laser beam having a divergence angle (Para. 12 wherein the laser beam has a variable divergence), a focusing lens configured to focus the laser beam (Fig. 4, Ref. 416); a single core (Fig. 4, Ref. 204) fiber (Fig. 2A, Ref. 202) into which the laser beam is configured to be coupled (Para. 51), the single core fiber (Para. 3) comprising a central core (Fig. 4, Ref. 204) and a cladding layer (Fig. 4, Ref. 206); and a substrate (Fig. 4, Ref. 230) that is configured to move between a first position and a second position (Fig. 4, Ref. 418; Para. 63), a beam parameter product of the laser beam, when the laser beam is coupled with the single core fiber, at an exit of the single core fiber is greater than a beam parameter product of the laser beam incident to the single core fiber (Para. 68 wherein the beam spot size variation is greater at the exit lens), the central core of the single core fiber has an acceptance angle that is greater than the divergence angle of the laser beam generated by the laser source (Para. 12 wherein the acceptance and divergence angles are variable which would lead a person of ordinary skill to optimize for their use case), and the substrate is configured to offset the beam axis of the laser beam, to change the beam parameter product of the laser beam at the exit of the single core fiber, by an amount that is limited to within the confines of the core and the cladding layer (Para. 71 wherein the entry lens substrate is offset to offset the beam parameter product).
While Muendel discloses a moving substrate to alter the position in which the laser beam enters the fiber (Fig. 4, Ref. 418; Para. 63), Muendel does not specifically disclose the laser source comprising laser diodes, and a focusing lens configured to focus the laser beam; a substrate that is parallel transparent and that is configured to move between a first position and a second position, wherein: the substrate is configured, when in the first position, to direct the laser beam to enter the fiber with a beam axis of the laser beam centered at a first location, the substrate is configured, when in the second position, direct the laser beam to enter the fiber with the beam axis centered at a second location that is offset from the first location.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kuehnle teaches a focusing lens configured to focus the laser beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 6’); a substrate that is parallel transparent (Fig. 1, Ref. 2; Col. 2, Lines 29-33) and that is configured to move between a first position and a second position (Col. 4, Lines 4-10 wherein the plate is described as tilting to cause the beam to shift), wherein: the substrate is configured, when in the first position, to direct the laser beam to enter the fiber with a beam axis of the laser beam centered at a first location (Col. 4, Lines 4-10 wherein when the beam strikes Ref. 2 at a normal angle, no shift occurs), the substrate is configured, when in the second position, direct the laser beam to enter the fiber with the beam axis centered at a second location that is offset from the first location (Col. 4, Lines 4-10 wherein the when Ref. 2 is tilted, the beam is shifted).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Kuehnle to easily adjust the angle of incidence and focus the laser beam.
In the same field of endeavor, Hargis teaches a laser source comprising laser diodes (Para. 71).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Hargis to use highly polarized light for the application.
Regarding claim 2, Muendel discloses the substrate comprises at least one of multiple portions (Fig. 4, Refs. 414, 418, and 416) of different thicknesses arranged side by side or subunits of different refractive indices.
Regarding claim 3, Muendel discloses a deflection mirror (Para. 63 discloses a mirror that isn’t shown to deflect the beam between lenses for adjusting the beam path).
Regarding claim 4, Muendel discloses a zoom optic (Para. 59).
Regarding claim 8, Muendel discloses wherein: the substrate is configured to receive the laser beam one of before or after the focusing lens receives the laser beam (Para. 12 wherein the laser beam is focused onto the fiber tip), and the substrate is configured to receive the laser beam before the single core fiber receives the laser beam (Fig. 4, Ref. 230 is shown to receive the beam prior to Ref. 202).
Regarding claim 15, Muendel does not specifically disclose wherein, in the first position, the substrate is oriented perpendicular to the beam axis.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kuehnle teaches wherein, in the first position, the substrate is oriented perpendicular to the beam axis (Col. 4, Lines 4-10 wherein when the beam strikes Ref. 2 at a normal angle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Kuehnle to alter the angle of incidence of the beam on the substrate.
Regarding claim 16, Muendel discloses wherein the first location is at a center (Fig. 2B, ϒ_1) of the single core fiber.
Regarding claim 17, Muendel discloses wherein the second location is laterally offset from the first location (Fig. 2B,
ϒ
2
)
Regarding claim 18, Muendel does not specifically disclose wherein the substrate is configured to rotate from the first position to the second position.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kuehnle teaches wherein the substrate is configured to rotate from the first position to the second position (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
813
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Kuehnle to alter the angle of incidence of the beam on the substrate.
Regarding claim 19, Muendel does not specifically disclose wherein the substrate is configured to be displaced from the first position to the second position.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kuehnle teaches wherein the substrate is configured to be displaced from the first position to the second position (Fig. 1 as annotated below wherein the rotation causes displacement).
PNG
media_image1.png
813
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Kuehnle to alter the angle of incidence of the beam on the substrate.
Regarding claim 20, Muendel does not specifically disclose wherein the substrate is configured, when in the second position, to direct the laser beam to exit out of the substrate and to the second location with the beam axis parallel and offset relative to the beam axis entering the substrate.
However in the same field of endeavor, Keuhnle teaches wherein the substrate is configured, when in the second position (Fig. 1 shows a tilted substrate, Ref. 2), to direct the laser beam to exit out of the substrate and to the second location with the beam axis parallel and offset relative to the beam axis entering the substrate (Fig. 1, as annotated below).
PNG
media_image2.png
820
415
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Kuehnle to alter the angle of incidence of the beam on the substrate.
Regarding claim 21, Muendel discloses wherein the substrate is configured, when in the first position, to direct the laser beam to enter the central core of the single core fiber with the beam axis of the laser beam centered at a first location (Fig. 2B,
ϒ
1
), and the substrate is configured, when in the second position, to direct the laser beam to enter the central core of the single core fiber with the beam axis centered at a second location that is offset from the first location (Fig. 2B,
ϒ
2
).
Regarding claim 23, Muendel discloses wherein the cladding layer is the only cladding layer of the single core fiber (Fig. 4, Ref. 206 is the only cladding layer of the fiber).
Claims 11, 13, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Muendel et al. US 2013/0148925 A1 in view of Kuehnle et al US 6355907 B1, Hargis et al. US 2020/0096762 A1, and Zhou et al. US 10088632 B2.
Regarding claim 11, Muendel discloses a method of decreasing a beam parameter product of a laser beam (Para. 31 discloses varying the beam parameter product), the method comprising: generating the laser beam (Fig. 4, Ref. 221), the laser beam having a divergence angle (Para. 12 wherein the laser beam has a variable divergence); focusing the laser beam with a focusing lens (Fig. 4, Ref. 416); moving a substrate (Fig. 4, Ref. 230) from a first position to a second position (Fig. 4, Ref. 418; Para. 63) to change one of a divergence (Para. 13), a spot size, or the an angle of incidence of the laser beam; and coupling the laser beam with a single core (Fig. 4, Ref. 204) fiber (Fig. 4, Ref. 202), and only one cladding layer (Fig. 4, Ref. 206 is the only cladding layer of the fiber), wherein a beam parameter product of the laser beam at an exit of the single core fiber is greater than a beam parameter product of the laser beam incident to the single core fiber (Para. 68 wherein the beam spot size variation is greater at the exit lens).
Muendel does not specifically disclose the laser source comprising laser diodes, wherein the substrate is parallel transparent, or the fiber core having an acceptance angle that is greater than the divergence angle of the laser beam generated with the laser source.
However in the same field if endeavor, Hargis teaches a laser source comprising laser diodes (Para. 71).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Hargis to use highly polarized light for the application.
Also in the same field of endeavor, Kuehnle teaches a substrate that is parallel transparent (Fig. 1, Ref. 2; Col. 2, Lines 29-33).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Kuehnle to easily adjust the angle of incidence and focus the laser beam.
Also in the same field of endeavor, Zhou teaches a core having an acceptance angle (Col. 9, Lines 38-42 wherein the numerical aperture (NA) is referenced. The laser numerical aperture can be determined using the angle of acceptance with
N
A
=
s
i
n
(
θ
A
2
)
where
θ
a
is angle of acceptance, and Col. 9, Lines 57-60 reference the difference in NA between the outer-ring and core being 0.005-0.001) that is greater than the divergence angle of the laser beam generated with the laser source (Col. 9, Lines 38-42 wherein the NA for the acceptance angles are greater than the NA for the input laser, or the divergent angle).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Zhou in order to better focus the beam spot on the process location.
Regarding claim 13, Muendel does not specifically disclose wherein moving the substrate comprises rotating the substrate.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kuehnle teaches wherein moving the substrate comprises rotating the substrate (Fig. 1 as annotated below).
PNG
media_image1.png
813
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Kuehnle to alter the angle of incidence of the beam on the substrate.
Regarding claim 14, Muendel does not specifically disclose wherein moving the substrate comprises displacing the substrate.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kuehnle teaches wherein moving the substrate comprises displacing the substrate (Fig. 1 as annotated below wherein the rotation causes displacement).
PNG
media_image1.png
813
311
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Muendel with Kuehnle to alter the angle of incidence of the beam on the substrate.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Hu et al. US 20190204584 A1 discloses a light emitting method includes passing a laser beam through at least one offset assembly and a focusing assembly in sequence
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761