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
The amendment filed on 12/30/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-4, 6, 8-10, 12-16, 18, 20-21 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 10/17/2025.
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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claim(s) 1-4, 6, 8, 9, 21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akarapu et al., US 20180093914 (hereafter Akarapu), and further in view of Marjanovic et al., US 20150165548 (hereafter Marjanovic), Hosseini, US 20150118522 (hereafter Hosseini).
Regarding claim 1,
“A method for processing a transparent workpiece, the method comprising:
directing a laser beam oriented along a beam pathway and output by a beam source through an aspheric optical element and directing the said laser beam into an impingement surface of the transparent workpiece, wherein: the laser beam impinges the aspheric optical element radially offset from a centerline axis of the aspheric optical element…;”
(Akarapu teaches in abstract “A method for laser processing a transparent workpiece includes forming a contour line that includes defects, by directing a pulsed laser beam output by a beam source through an aspheric optical element positioned offset in a radial direction from the beam pathway and into the transparent workpiece such that the portion of the pulsed laser beam directed into the transparent workpiece generates an induced absorption within the transparent workpiece that produces a defect within the transparent workpiece.”)
“a portion of the laser beam directed into the transparent workpiece comprises a laser beam focal line and generates an induced absorption to produce a defect within the transparent workpiece, the laser beam focal line comprising: a wavelength λ; a spot size ω0; a Rayleigh range ZR that is greater than
PNG
media_image1.png
64
97
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where FD is a dimensionless divergence factor comprising a value of 10 or greater;” (Akarapu teaches in abstract
PNG
media_image2.png
351
552
media_image2.png
Greyscale
)
PNG
media_image3.png
407
731
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 4 of Akarapu teaches directing a laser beam by an offset distance
“by an offset distance of 30% the 1/e2 diameter of the laser beam or greater….” (Paragraph [130] of the original disclosure describes “The magnitude of the offset required to sufficiently break the symmetry of the laser beam 112 is a function of the diameter of the laser beam 112, with smaller input laser beam diameters requiring less offset to sufficiently break the symmetry. The magnitude of the offset (i.e., the offset distance)should be a significant percentage of the input Gaussian beam diameter. A Gaussian beam is often characterized by its 1/e2 diameter, which represents the radial distance from the beam center at which the beam intensity decays to 13.5% (=1/e2) of its maximum intensity value.”
Paragraph [26] in Akarapu teaches “the offset distance is a distance from about 10% to about 75% of a cross sectional diameter of the pulsed laser beam at a contact location between the pulsed laser beam and the aspheric optical element.” Paragraph [146] teaches “The diameter of a Gaussian beam is typically defined by a 1/e.sup.2 drop in intensity.” Thus, Akarapu teaches an offset distance of 10% to 75% the 1/e2 diameter of the laser beam, wherein the claimed range of 30% or greater overlaps the range disclosed by Akarapu. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.)
“breaking the azimuthal symmetry of the laser beam” (Paragraph [128] of the original disclosure describes “offsetting the input beam or aspheric optical element 120 breaks the azimuthal symmetry of the light rays of the laser beam 112.” Based on this, the limitation “breaking the azimuthal symmetry of the laser beam” is a result of impinging “the aspheric optical element radially offset from a centerline axis of the aspheric optical element by an offset distance of 30% the 1/e2 diameter of the laser beam or greater”.
Paragraph [199] of Akarapu teaches “The magnitude of the offset required to sufficiently break the symmetry of the resulting beam spot is a function of the diameter of the pulsed laser beam 112”. Fig. 11D in Akarapu teaches that offsetting the laser beam at the aspheric optical element 120 breaks the symmetry of the beam, as a result the azimuthal symmetry of the beam is also broken.)
“the laser beam downstream the aspheric optical element comprises non-uniform radial intensity;”(Paragraph [227] of Akarapu teaches “FIG. 11D depicts a modeled logarithmic intensity plot of the Fourier transform plane of the pulsed laser beam (e.g., quasi-non diffracting pulsed laser beam) formed with a 100 micron offset. As shown in FIG. 11D, the logarithmic intensity plot is not uniform.”)
PNG
media_image4.png
294
422
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 11D of Akarapu teaches non-uniform radial intensity of an offset laser beam
…“such that astigmatic aberrations of a laser beam focal line, which is formed in the transparent workpiece by directing said laser beam, are minimized”( According to paragraph [115] and Fig. 2a, 3a of the original disclosure, the astigmatic aberrations are minimized as claimed in claim 1 because laser beam output by a beam source is radially offset from an aspheric optical element.
PNG
media_image5.png
317
833
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of paragraph [115] of original disclosure
Akarapu teaches laser beam output by a beam source is radially offset from an aspheric optical element in Fig. 4. MPEP 2112.02-I teaches “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (The claims were directed to a method of enhancing color effects produced by ambient light through a process of absorption and reflection of the light off a coated substrate. A prior art reference to Donley disclosed a glass substrate coated with silver and metal oxide 200-800 angstroms thick. While Donley disclosed using the coated substrate to produce architectural colors, the absorption and reflection mechanisms of the claimed process were not disclosed. However, King’s specification disclosed using a coated substrate of Donley’s structure for use in his process. The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out. Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley’s structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
“further comprising translating at least one of the transparent workpiece and the laser beam relative to each other along a contour line to form a contour comprising a plurality of defects;” (Paragraph [20] in Akarapu teaches “translating the transparent workpiece and the pulsed laser beam relative to each other along the contour line, thereby laser forming a plurality of defects along the contour line within the transparent workpiece.”)
“ wherein the contour line comprises a curved contour line, the contour comprises a curved contour,” (Paragraph [141] in Akarapu teaches “While the contour line 170 is depicted in FIG. 1A and FIG. 2 as being substantially linear, it should be understood that other configurations are contemplated and possible including, without limitation, curves, patterns, regular geometric shapes, irregular shapes, and the like.”)
Akarapu is silent about “the beam pathway and the transparent workpiece are tilted relative to one another such that the beam pathway comprises a beam pathway angle of less than 90⁰ relative to the impingement surface at the impingement surface ….an internal focal line angle of less than 80⁰ relative to the impingement surface, such that the defect comprises a defect angle within the transparent workpiece of less than 80⁰ relative to the impingement surface”, and the method further comprises rotating the laser beam while translating at least one of the transparent workpiece and the laser beam relative to each other along the curved contour line such that each defect of the plurality of defects is directed radially inward or radially outward relative the curved contour line.”
Marjanovic teaches “the beam pathway and the transparent workpiece are tilted relative to one another such that the beam pathway comprises a beam pathway angle of less than 90⁰ relative to the impingement surface at the impingement surface ….an internal focal line angle of less than 80⁰ relative to the impingement surface, such that the defect comprises a defect angle within the transparent workpiece of less than 80⁰ relative to the impingement surface” (Marjanovic teaches in paragraph [20-24] “A method of laser processing a material comprising: [0021] focusing a pulsed laser beam into a laser beam focal line; [0022] forming a plurality of defect lines along each of N planes within the material, the forming plurality of defect lines including: [0023] (a) directing the laser beam focal line into the material at an angle of incidence to the material corresponding to one of the N planes, the laser beam focal line generating an induced absorption within the material, the induced absorption producing a defect line along the laser beam focal line within the material; [0024] (b) translating the material and the laser beam relative to each other, thereby forming the plurality of defect lines along the one of the N planes; and (c) repeating (a) and (b) for each of the N planes.” Figure 7B teaches a laser beam focal line incident at an angle less than 80⁰ relative to the side A of workpiece and respective angled defect line inside the workpiece.)
PNG
media_image6.png
155
731
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7b of Marjanovic teaches angled laser lines and defect lines
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to tilt the beam pathway and workpiece relative to one another to obtain a beam pathway angle of less than 90⁰ relative to the impingement surface as taught in Marjanovic in the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the laser beam focal line generating an induced absorption within the material, the induced absorption producing a defect line along the laser beam focal line within the material” as taught in paragraph [23] in Marjanovic. )
Primary combination of references is silent about “ and the method further comprises rotating the laser beam while translating at least one of the transparent workpiece and the laser beam relative to each other along the curved contour line such that each defect of the plurality of defects is directed radially inward or radially outward relative the curved contour line.”
Hosseini teaches “ and the method further comprises rotating the laser beam while translating at least one of the transparent workpiece and the laser beam relative to each other along the curved contour line (Hosseini teaches a method for forming continuous laser filaments in transparent materials. Paragraph [154] teaches “enabling relative movement between the focused laser beam and the planar glass substrate so as to move the laser filament created in the planar glass substrate, with the laser beam delivery system in circular geometric patterns relative to the planar top surface of the glass substrate so as to cut circular platters from said planar glass substrate.”)
such that each defect of the plurality of defects is directed radially inward or radially outward relative the curved contour line.” (Paragraph [156] teaches “ the circular pattern need not be cut at 90 degrees to the planar top or bottom surface of the glass substrate as it may be cut angularly by manipulation of the relationship between the laser beam and the glass substrate.”
Fig. 24 of Hosseini teaches rotating laser beam in one axis while translating the workpiece relative to the beam. Paragraph [131] teaches “to produce filaments that are angled relative to the workpiece material's surface.” Here the angled filaments correspond to radially inward or outward defects. )
PNG
media_image7.png
575
574
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 24 in Hosseini teaches rotating while translating
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the method of rotating the laser beam while translating as taught in Hosseini to the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so for “providing a laser beam delivery system capable of focusing the laser beam onto the planar glass substrate and to enable relative movement between the laser beam and the planar glass substrate” as taught in paragraph [151] in Hosseini. )
Regarding claim 2,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the laser beam impinges the aspheric optical element radially offset from the centerline axis of the aspheric optical element by an offset distance of 75% the 1/e2 diameter of the laser beam or greater.” (Paragraph [26] in Akarapu teaches “the offset distance is a distance from about 10% to about 75% of a cross sectional diameter of the pulsed laser beam at a contact location between the pulsed laser beam and the aspheric optical element.” Paragraph [146] teaches “The diameter of a Gaussian beam is typically defined by a 1/e.sup.2 drop in intensity.” Thus, Akarapu teaches an offset distance of 10% to 75% the 1/e2 diameter of the laser beam, wherein the claimed range of 75% overlaps the range disclosed by Akarapu. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.)
Regarding claim 3,
“The method of claim 1, wherein a portion of the laser beam comprising a majority of intensity of the laser beam impinges the impingement surface at one or more ray propagation angles each more than the beam pathway angle.”(The claim is interpreted as the laser beam impinges the aspheric optical element radially offset from a centerline axis of the aspheric optical element by an offset distance as described in Fig. 3A-3D of the original disclosure. The scope is similar to the limitation “the laser beam impinges the aspheric optical element radially offset from a centerline axis of the aspheric optical element by an offset distance” in claim 1 and thus rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 4,
“The method of claim 1, wherein the internal focal line angle is from less than 80⁰ to 50⁰.” (Figure 7(B)(1) of Marjanovic teaches a defect line angle about 60⁰, hence a focal line angle 60⁰. Paragraph [9] of Marjanovic teaches “a method of laser processing a material includes focusing a pulsed laser beam into a laser beam focal line and directing the laser beam focal line into the material at a first angle of incidence to the material, the laser beam focal line generating an induced absorption within the material, the induced absorption producing a defect line along the laser beam focal line within the material.”
The claimed range of 80 to 50 degrees overlap the 60 degree angle taught in Marjanovic. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.
PNG
media_image8.png
199
234
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7(B) of Marjanovic
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to tilt the beam pathway and workpiece relative to one another for a focal line angle of 80 to 50 degrees as taught in Marjanovic in the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the laser beam focal line generating an induced absorption within the material, the induced absorption producing a defect line along the laser beam focal line within the material” as taught in paragraph [23] in Marjanovic.)
Regarding claim 6,
“The method of claim 5, wherein the laser beam focal line extends from the impingement surface of the transparent workpiece to an edge surface of the transparent workpiece such that the plurality of defects each extend from the impingement surface of the transparent workpiece to the edge surface of the transparent workpiece.” (Fig. 1A of Akarapu.)
PNG
media_image9.png
388
608
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1A of Akarapu teaches focal line and defect line
Regarding claim 8,
“The method of claim 5, further comprising applying a stress to the contour to separate the transparent workpiece along the contour.” (Paragraph [134] in Akarapu teaches “the process may further include separating the transparent workpiece along the contour line, for example, using an infrared laser or other laser configured to heat the area of the transparent workpiece adjacent to the contour line or to bend, scribe, or otherwise mechanically stress the transparent workpiece.”)
Regarding claim 9,
“The method of claim 1, wherein: the laser beam comprises a pulsed laser beam output by the beam source that produces pulse bursts comprising 2 sub-pulses per pulse burst or more; ” (Fig. 7c and 7d in Akarapu.)
PNG
media_image10.png
426
701
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7C and 7D of Akarapu teaches pulse bursts
“the dimensionless divergence factor FD comprises a value of from 10 to 2000;” (Paragraph [27] of Akarapu teaches “the dimensionless divergence factor F.sub.D comprises a value of from about 10 to about 2000”.)
“a spacing between adjacent defects is 50 µm or less.” (Paragraph [220] of Akarapu teaches “the defects 172 may generally be spaced apart from one another by a distance of from about 5 microns to about 20 microns.” The claimed range of 50 microns or less overlaps the range 5 microns to 20 microns in Akarapu. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.) MPEP § 2144.05-I.)
Regarding claim 21,
“The method of claim 1, wherein: the laser beam has an average laser power per burst measured at the transparent workpiece at least about 40 µJ per mm of thickness of the transparent workpiece.” (Akarapu is silent about this limitation.
Marjanovic teaches a laser processing of glass in abstract. Paragraph [121] teaches “each pulse burst of the pulsed laser beam has an average laser energy measured at the workpiece greater than 40 .mu.J per burst per mm thickness of workpiece.” Here claimed range of at least 40 µJ overlaps the range greater than 40 µJ in Marjanovic.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to set the laser energy in Akarapu to at least 40 µJ as taught in Marjanovic. apply the method of rotating the laser beam while translating as taught in Hosseini to the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “For example, a 0.4 m/sec cut speed at 3 .mu.m pitch and 40 .mu.J/burst would require at least a 5 W laser, a 0.5 m/sec cut speed at 3 .mu.m pitch and 40 .mu.J/burst would require at least a 6 W laser” as taught in paragraph [119] in Marjanovic.
Additionally, the claimed range of at least 40 µJ overlaps the range greater than 40 µJ in Marjanovic, and hence obvious. MPEP 2144.05-I teaches “In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (The prior art taught carbon monoxide concentrations of “about 1-5%” while the claim was limited to “more than 5%.” The court held that “about 1-5%” allowed for concentrations slightly above 5% thus the ranges overlapped.)
Claim(s) 10, 14-16, 18, 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akarapu and further in view of Marjanovic, Hosseini, Komiya et al., US 20100288740 (hereafter Komiya), Lambkin, WO 2018007246 (hereafter Lambkin).
Regarding claim 10,
“A method for processing a transparent workpiece, the method comprising: directing a laser beam oriented along a beam pathway and output by a beam source ….directing said laser beam into an impingement surface of the transparent workpiece, wherein:…
the beam pathway and the transparent workpiece are tilted relative to one another such that the beam pathway comprises a beam pathway angle of less than 90⁰ relative to the impingement surface at the impingement surface….. and
a portion of the laser beam directed into the transparent workpiece comprises the laser beam focal line and generates an induced absorption to produce a defect within the transparent workpiece, the laser beam focal line comprising:
a wavelength λ;
a spot size ω0;
a Rayleigh range ZR that is greater than
PNG
media_image1.png
64
97
media_image1.png
Greyscale
, where FD is a dimensionless divergence factor comprising a value of 10 or greater; and
an internal focal line angle of less than 80⁰ relative to the impingement surface, such that the defect comprises a defect angle within the transparent workpiece of less than 80⁰ relative to the impingement surface; further comprising translating at least one of the transparent workpiece and the laser beam relative to each other along a contour line to form a contour comprising a plurality of defects; wherein the contour line comprises a curved contour line, the contour comprises a curved contour, and the method further comprises rotating the laser beam while translating at least one of the transparent workpiece and the laser beam relative to each other along the curved contour line such that each defect of the plurality of defects is directed radially inward or radially outward relative the curved contour line.” (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
“through a multi-optic axicon assembly comprising. .a lens axicon comprising a negative spherical aberrated phase.”(Fig. 4 of Akarapu teaches an axicon lens 120.
Fig. 1B of Akarapu teaches peripheral rays are bent less than paracentral rays which follows the definition of negative spherical aberration. Thus, Fig. 1B teaches that axicon lens in Akarapu comprises a negative spherical aberrated phase.)
PNG
media_image11.png
489
485
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1B of Akarapu teaches negative spherical aberration
However, primary combination of references is silent about a frustrum optical element, “the lens axicon is positioned downstream the frustum optical element”, “such that astigmatic aberrations of a laser beam focal line, which is formed in the transparent workpiece by directing said laser beam, are minimized”.
“a frustum optical element” (Lambkin teaches a beam expander in Fig. 4 and 5 wherein the expander is shaped like a frustum.
PNG
media_image12.png
472
656
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figs. 4 and 5 of Lambkin teaches a frustum optical element as a beam expander
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the beam expander in Lambkin in the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A collimated input beam is normal to the input incident surface 101 and passes directly through it until it reflects off the inner reflection surface 104. As illustrated, the light is directed radially outwards towards the outer reflection surface 102, where it is again reflected back to axial, but with a much larger beam diameter. The beam magnification factor = h2/h1” as taught in page 6, line 30 to page 7, line 5.)
However, primary combination of references is silent about “the lens axicon is positioned downstream the frustum optical element”, “such that astigmatic aberrations of a laser beam focal line, which is formed in the transparent workpiece by directing said laser beam, are minimized”.
Komiya teaches “the lens axicon is positioned downstream the frustum optical element;” (Here frustum optical element is interpreted as beam expander as described in Fig. 4c of the original disclosure.
Komiya teaches “a laser processing method in which the taper angle of a hole formed by laser processing can be controlled” in paragraph [4]. Fig. 1A teaches a laser source 13 followed by a beam expander 15, and axicon lens 18 respectively.)
…“such that astigmatic aberrations of a laser beam focal line, which is formed in the transparent workpiece by directing said laser beam, are minimized”( According to paragraph [115] and Fig. 2a, 4a of the original disclosure, the astigmatic aberrations are minimized as claimed in claim 10 because the laser beam passes through multi-optic axicon assembly wherein the lens axicon is positioned downstream the frustum optical element.
PNG
media_image13.png
317
833
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Screenshot of paragraph [115] of original disclosure
Komiya teaches a laser source 13 followed by a beam expander 15, and axicon lens 18 respectively in Fig. 1A. Thus, Komiya teaches a multi-optic axicon assembly wherein the lens axicon is positioned downstream the frustum optical element. MPEP 2112.02-I teaches “Under the principles of inherency, if a prior art device, in its normal and usual operation, would necessarily perform the method claimed, then the method claimed will be considered to be anticipated by the prior art device. When the prior art device is the same as a device described in the specification for carrying out the claimed method, it can be assumed the device will inherently perform the claimed process. In re King, 801 F.2d 1324, 231 USPQ 136 (Fed. Cir. 1986) (The claims were directed to a method of enhancing color effects produced by ambient light through a process of absorption and reflection of the light off a coated substrate. A prior art reference to Donley disclosed a glass substrate coated with silver and metal oxide 200-800 angstroms thick. While Donley disclosed using the coated substrate to produce architectural colors, the absorption and reflection mechanisms of the claimed process were not disclosed. However, King’s specification disclosed using a coated substrate of Donley’s structure for use in his process. The Federal Circuit upheld the Board’s finding that "Donley inherently performs the function disclosed in the method claims on appeal when that device is used in ‘normal and usual operation’" and found that a prima facie case of anticipation was made out. Id. at 138, 801 F.2d at 1326. It was up to applicant to prove that Donley’s structure would not perform the claimed method when placed in ambient light.).”
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the beam expander before the axicon lens as taught in Komiya to the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The beam expander 15 serves as a beam diameter changing device that changes a beam diameter of the laser beam L” as taught in paragraph [32] in Komiya.)
Regarding claim 14,
“The method of claim 10, wherein the frustum optical element comprises: an input surface comprising an input surface diameter; an output surface comprising an output surface diameter that is greater than the input surface diameter; an outer surface extending from the input surface to the output surface; and a reflective cone extending into the output surface; wherein:. the reflective cone comprises a reflective cone surface parallel with the outer surface of the frustum optical element; the reflective cone comprises a base diameter; and a diameter of the laser beam upstream the frustum optical element is less than or equal to the base diameter of the reflective cone of the frustum optical element.”(Fig. 6 of Lambkin.
PNG
media_image14.png
583
711
media_image14.png
Greyscale
Fig. 6 of Lambkin teaches frustum optical element
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the beam expander in Lambkin before the axicon lens in the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “A collimated input beam is normal to the input incident surface 101 and passes directly through it until it reflects off the inner reflection surface 104. As illustrated, the light is directed radially outwards towards the outer reflection surface 102, where it is again reflected back to axial, but with a much larger beam diameter. The beam magnification factor = h.sub.2/h1” as taught in page 6, line 30 to page 7, line 5.)
Regarding claim 15,
“The method of claim 10, wherein the multi-optic axicon assembly further comprises a split quarter waveplate positioned between the frustum optical element and the lens axicon.”(Akarapu teaches a split quarter waveplate 150 in Fig. 7. Paragraph [215] teaches “The split quarter waveplate 150 may be positioned upstream or downstream the aspheric optical element 120. For example, in some embodiments, the split quarter waveplate 150 is positioned between the aspheric optical element 120 and the transparent workpiece 160, and in other embodiments, the split quarter waveplate 150 is positioned between the beam source 110 and the aspheric optical element 120.”
Even though Akarapu is silent about placing the split quarter waveplate between the frustum and axicon, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to position the waveplate before axicon and after the frustum. Akarapu teaches positioning the waveplate before axicon. Thus, there are only two arrangement options for the waveplate relative to the frustum- either between source and frustum or between the frustum and the axicon. MPEP 2134.E teaches that choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success is obvious. Additionally, the original disclosure does not describe any criticality of placing the waveplate specifically between the frustum and the axicon. The operation of the waveplate does not change whether it is placed before or after the frustum. MPEP 2144.04-VI-C teaches the courts have held that rearrangement of parts requires only ordinary skill in the art and hence is considered a routine expedient. “In re Japikse, 181 F.2d 1019, 86 USPQ 70 (CCPA 1950): Claims to a hydraulic power press which read on the prior art except with regard to the position of the starting switch were held unpatentable because shifting the position of the starting switch would not have modified the operation of the device.”)
Regarding claim 16,
“The method of claim 10, wherein the internal focal line angle is from less than 80⁰ to 50⁰.” (The scope of the claim is similar to that of claim 4 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 18,
“The method of claim 17, wherein the laser beam focal line extends from the impingement surface of the transparent workpiece to an edge surface of the transparent workpiece such that the plurality of defects each extend from the impingement surface of the transparent workpiece to the edge surface of the transparent workpiece.” (The scope of the claim is similar to that of claim 6 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Regarding claim 20,
“The method of claim 10, wherein: the laser beam comprises a pulsed laser beam output by the beam source that produces pulse bursts comprising 2 sub-pulses per pulse burst or more; the dimensionless divergence factor FD comprises a value of from 10 to 2000; and a spacing between adjacent defects is 50 m or less.” (The scope of the claim is similar to that of claim 9 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Claim(s) 12-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Akarapu, Marjanovic, Hosseini, Komiya, Lambkin as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maksutov_telescope, Mar 2020 (hereafter Maksutov).
Regarding claim 12,
“The method of claim 10, wherein the lens axicon comprises an input surface having a central convex reflector and an output surface having a reflective convex aperture.” (Primary combination of references is silent about an axicon comprising an input surface having a central convex reflector and an output surface having a reflective convex aperture.
Maksutov teaches an optical element comprising an input surface having a central convex reflector and an output surface having a reflective convex aperture.
PNG
media_image15.png
511
1895
media_image15.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the optical element as taught in Maksutov in the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The spot Maksutov–Cassegrain design has been used extensively in military, industrial, and aerospace applications. Since all of the optical elements can be permanently fixed in alignment and the tube assembly can be environmentally sealed, the design is extremely rugged. That makes them ideal for tracking, remote viewing, and radar calibration / bore sighting where instruments are subjected to severe environments and high g-forces” as taught in page 4 of Maksutov.)
Regarding claim 13,
“The method of claim 12, wherein: the central convex reflector comprises an obscuration diameter; and the reflective convex aperture comprises a reflective ring surrounding a central aperture having an aperture diameter.” (Figure Spot Maksutov-Cassegrain in Maksutov.
PNG
media_image16.png
428
541
media_image16.png
Greyscale
Spot Maksutov-Cassegrain optical element
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the optical element as taught in Maksutov in the laser processing method in Akarapu. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The spot Maksutov–Cassegrain design has been used extensively in military, industrial, and aerospace applications. Since all of the optical elements can be permanently fixed in alignment and the tube assembly can be environmentally sealed, the design is extremely rugged. That makes them ideal for tracking, remote viewing, and radar calibration / bore sighting where instruments are subjected to severe environments and high g-forces” as taught in page 4 of Maksutov.)
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 12/30/2025 with respect to claim(s) 1-6, 8, 9-10, 12-16, 18, 20-21 have been considered but are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument on page 8 that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., ) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
Additionally, the applicant cited on page 9 of the remarks submitted on 09/03/2025 that
PNG
media_image17.png
552
881
media_image17.png
Greyscale
Thus, the remarks on pages 8-9 submitted on 12/30/2025 seem to be contradictory of the applicant’s remarks submitted on 09/03/2025.
In response to applicant's argument on page 10 that Hosseini's method produces hard disk drive, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Additionally, Fig. 24 of Hosseini explicitly teaches rotating laser beam in one axis while translating the workpiece relative to the beam.
PNG
media_image18.png
575
471
media_image18.png
Greyscale
Fig. 24 in Hosseini teaches rotating while translating
In response to applicant's arguments on pages 8-11 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986).
Applicant's arguments on pages 11-12 against combining Lambkin and Akarapu do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
The applicant argued on page 12 that Komiya does not teach negative phase or axicon position. However, Komiya was not relied upon to teach these features.
In response to applicant's arguments on page 12 against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). The applicant did a piecemeal analysis of references and argued that there is no teaching, suggestion, or motivation to combine the references. However, the examiner recognizes that obviousness may be established by combining or modifying the teachings of the prior art to produce the claimed invention where there is some teaching, suggestion, or motivation to do so found either in the references themselves or in the knowledge generally available to one of ordinary skill in the art. See In re Fine, 837 F.2d 1071, 5 USPQ2d 1596 (Fed. Cir. 1988), In re Jones, 958 F.2d 347, 21 USPQ2d 1941 (Fed. Cir. 1992), and KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007). In this case, Akarapu teaches a method of laser processing a transparent workpiece comprising directing a pulsed laser beam output by a beam source through an axicon lens positioned offset in a radial direction from the beam pathway and into the transparent workpiece such that the portion of the pulsed laser beam directed into the transparent workpiece generates an induced absorption within the transparent workpiece that produces a defect within the transparent workpiece. However, Akarapu is silent about positioning axicon lens downstream a frustum optical element. Lambkin teaches a frustum optical element as a beam expander. Komiya teaches a laser beam path wherein a beam expander (here frustum element) is positioned before axicon lens.
Applicant's arguments on pages 13-14 do not comply with 37 CFR 1.111(c) because they do not clearly point out the patentable novelty which he or she thinks the claims present in view of the state of the art disclosed by the references cited or the objections made. Further, they do not show how the amendments avoid such references or objections.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Flamm et al., “Beam shaping for ultrafast materials processing”, Proc. SPIE 10904, Laser Resonators, Micro resonators, and Beam Control XXI, 109041G (4 March 2019); Fig. 6
PNG
media_image19.png
271
1030
media_image19.png
Greyscale
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached on (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761