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 8 September 2025 has been entered.
New Drawing objections have been added in the present Office action.
The Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have overcome the previous Claim objections. However, new Claim objection have been added in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments have overcome the previous 35 USC 112 rejections. However, additional 35 USC 112 rejections have been provided in the present Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 8 September 2025, with respect to the rejection of the claims under 35 USC §103 have been fully considered but are not persuasive. Therefore, the claims remain rejected as being anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 8 September 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1, 6-7, 9, and 11 have been amended. Claims 13-17 are new.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the following must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s):
the “laser light distribution” of claims 1, 6-7, and 13-14
the limitation from claim 15: “adjusting relative positions of the origins and relative in-plane angles of rotation.”
No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6-7, and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
In claims 1 and 6, recommend reciting “…measuring a laser light distribution…” (line 5 of claim 1 and line 3 of claim 6).
In claim 7, recommend reciting: “…as the actual measurement…” because claim 7 is dependent on claim 6, and claim 6 already recites this limitation.
In claim 13, recommend reciting: “…the laser-machined workpiece…”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 6-7, and 13-14 recite a “laser light distribution.” Additionally, claim 14 recites “wherein the laser light distribution is actually measured two-dimensional data showing a distribution of laser intensity at points in a space.” However, a “laser light distribution” is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Although the arguments filed 8 September 2025 suggest this limitation is located in paragraph 0027 of the Specification, there is no mention of this limitation in this paragraph. Instead, this paragraph describes the “intensity distribution,” which is already an element that is present in the claims. As a result, by using the claim limitation “laser light distribution,” the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the corresponding points of the two-dimensional coordinates of the machining state information are determined on the basis of specifying, beforehand, points of the same power of the intensity distribution applied in reality.” However, this limitation is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the step of assessing uses actual measurement data of the laser light intensity acquired by the step of measuring, wherein any model, including a Gaussian model, of the intensity distribution information is not used.” However, this limitation is not mentioned in the original Specification or in the original set of claims. Additionally, this limitation is a negative limitation, and negative limitations must have basis in the original disclosure (MPEP 2173.05.i). As a result, by using this claim limitation, the Applicant introduces new matter into the patent application.
Claims 2-5, 8-12, and 15 rejected based on their dependence to the independent claims.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 9 and 16-17 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 9 recites “…wherein a position of the beam profiler is identical to that of the workpiece arranged for machining…” Page 14 of the arguments filed 8 September 2025 states that “identical” in claim 9 means that the beam profiler and the workpiece have the same “vertical positions.” However, fig. 2 of the Drawings shows the beam profiler (4) as having a different vertical position than the workpiece (10). If instead the beam profiler and the workpiece occupied the same vertical and horizontal positions, then it is not clear how the workpiece and the beam profiler would be able to occupy the same position. For the purpose of the examination, “identical” will be interpreted in view of fig. 2 from the drawings such that the horizontal position of the beam profiler and the workpiece must be the same but the vertical positions do not need to be the same.
Claim 16 recites “wherein the corresponding points of the two-dimensional coordinates of the machining state information are determined on the basis of specifying, beforehand, points of the same power of the intensity distribution applied in reality.” The scope of this limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what “beforehand” means. Does this determination step need to happen before one of the other method steps in the claims? Additionally, it is unclear what effect “applied in reality” has on the claim. Does this limitation imply that the other claimed method steps do not need to be applied in reality? Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure, it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim 17 recites “wherein the step of assessing uses actual measurement data of the laser light intensity acquired by the step of measuring, wherein any model, including a Gaussian model, of the intensity distribution information is not used.” The metes and bounds of this limitation is unclear. Specifically, it is unclear what is considered to be a “model” and what is considered to not be a “model.” For example, would a linear equation be considered a “model?” The Specification makes no mention of models. Since there is no way of determining the requisite degree of this limitation, as best understood, if the prior art comprises the claimed structure without using the term “model,” then it will be presumed that the system can operate as intended.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-3, 5-8, 10-12, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Bruneel et al. (US-20210034798-A1, effective filing date of 26 January 2018).
Regarding claim 1, Bruneel teaches a method for assessing dependence of laser machining (“Laser machining simulation method, laser machining system having means for implementing the method, and computer program for implementing this method,” title) on laser light intensity (“threshold fluence,” abstract) of a laser light (light beam, fig. 18) from a light source (“a Satsuma HP2 (Amplitude Systems) femtosecond laser,” para 0277), the method comprising the steps of:
acquiring (“To determine the value of δ, several line scans with increasing pulse energy were produced and their depths measured,” para 0279; completing line scans is construed as the “acquiring” step) machining state information (“delta δ,” abstract; the delta parameter is construed as the “machining state information;” “Each material is then represented by a set of parameters (δ, Fth) in a given fluence zone,” para 0179) showing a machining state (“δ is the depth of penetration of the radiation into the material,” para 00249; the depth of penetration is construed as the “machining state”) by the laser machining at a machining position (“line scans with increasing pulse energy were produced and their depths measured,” para 0279) on a workpiece (“FIGS. 7a and 7b show a schematic representation of the experiments to be performed to estimate the value of δ using the skin depth method,” para 0259; figs 7A and 7b are construed as line scans on a “workpiece”);
measuring the laser light distribution (“FIG. 1 shows an intensity profile of a Gaussian laser beam,” para 0281; fig. 1 is construed as the claimed “laser light distribution”) as an actual measurement (“The D2 method was used to calculate the threshold fluence (Fth) values,” para 0279; “a spot radius of about 10 μm determined using the D2 method,” para 0277; a spot radius of the Gaussian laser beam, which is about 10 μm, is construed as the “actual measurement”), by a beam profiler (“confocal optical microscope (Olympus LEXT OLS4100),” para 0278), intensity distribution information (“threshold fluence,” abstract; the threshold fluence is construed as the claimed “intensity distribution information;” “Each material is then represented by a set of parameters (δ, Fth) in a given fluence zone,” para 0179) to acquire intensity distribution of laser light at the machining position (“FIG. 2 shows a crater matrix to be machined in order to implement the ablation threshold determination by the D2 method,” para 0282; fig. 3b shows the obtained fluence profile, which is construed as the claimed “intensity distribution” that is based on the calculation of the fluence or ablation threshold from the D2 method, paras 0147-0149; a surface of the objected that is machined by the laser is construed as the claimed “machining position”);
assessing (“depth of ablation produced by each pulse n,” para 0248; determining or simulating the depth zn based on an equation or model for the fluence threshold and the delta parameter, which is taught in para 0248, is construed as the claimed “assessing” step), as an assessment result (fig. 16b; “simulated,” para 0302), dependence of the laser machining of the workpiece (“zn” para 0248) on the laser light intensity based on the machining state information (“δ,” para 0248) and the intensity distribution information (“Fth,” para 0248);
adjusting a laser light output condition of the light source based on the assessment result (“maximum fluence of 2.9 J/cm2, scanning speed of 500 mm/s, frequency of 100 kHz and 500 passes with the beam tilted of 15° in relation to the normal to the surface,” para 0302; construed as parameters determined using the modeling for the “simulated scan” of fig 16b);
and obtaining a laser-machined workpiece based on the adjusting (fig. 16a).
Bruneel, fig. 16a
PNG
media_image1.png
304
436
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Bruneel teaches wherein either or both of the machining state information and the intensity distribution information (“Each material is then represented by a set of parameters (δ, Fth) in a given fluence zone,” para 0179) are information in n-dimensional directions (“zn,” “x”, “y”, the equation in para 0053; construed as a 3D dimensional space) for showing the machining position on the workpiece, where n is an integer equal to 2 or 3 (“the central unit is configured to execute a computer program for the determination of said machining profile in two and/or three dimensions,” para 0058; construed such that n equals 3).
Regarding claim 3, Bruneel teaches wherein the machining state of the workpiece is a state in which a shape of the workpiece has been changed by machining (“a target machining of a workpiece is a hole, a groove, a channel, a cutout or other machining obtained by ablation,” para 0134).
Regarding claim 5, Bruneel teaches further comprising a step of causing a machining position in the machining state information (“FIGS. 12 and 13 represent experimental and simulation results for two values of δ,” para 0265; construed as the maximum depth shown along the y-axis in fig. 12) and a machining position in the intensity distribution information (peak fluence shown along the x-axis in fig. 12) to match (“the δ value applied in the model was varied until the best match with the experimental results was obtained,” para 0279), wherein the assessment is performed based on overlapping of the machining state information (“δ,” para 0248) and the intensity distribution information (“Fth,” para 0248) in a state of the machining positions being matched (correlating the δ values with the beam fluence shown in fig. 12; “a good correlation between a machining result and the predictions of a simulation for a constant delta,” para 0298; overlapping the simulation results with experimental results as shown in fig. 12 to produce a “good correlation;” the equation in para 0248 provides the relationships between the x,y,z coordinates and the parameters, where the equation is used to produced the simulated cross section shown in fig. 16b).
Regarding claim 6, Bruneel teaches a laser machining device (“laser machining system,” title) comprising:
a light source for radiating a laser light to a workpiece to perform laser machining (“a laser source for emitting a laser machining beam onto said material to be machined,” para 0074);
a beam profiler (“confocal optical microscope (Olympus LEXT OLS4100),” para 0278) to measure the laser light distribution (“FIG. 1 shows an intensity profile of a Gaussian laser beam,” para 0281; fig. 1 is construed as the claimed “laser light distribution”) as an actual measurement (“The D2 method was used to calculate the threshold fluence (Fth) values,” para 0279; “a spot radius of about 10 μm determined using the D2 method,” para 0277; a spot radius of the Gaussian laser beam, which is about 10 μm, is construed as the “actual measurement”); and
a computer (“computer,” para 0099; paras 0058 and 0067-0070), wherein the computer is configured to:
acquire (“To determine the value of δ, several line scans with increasing pulse energy were produced and their depths measured,” para 0279) machining state information (“delta δ,” abstract; the delta parameter is construed as the “machining state information;” “Each material is then represented by a set of parameters (δ, Fth) in a given fluence zone,” para 0179) showing a machining state (“δ is the depth of penetration of the radiation into the material,” para 00249; the depth of penetration is construed as the “machining state”) by the laser machining at a machining position (“line scans with increasing pulse energy were produced and their depths measured,” para 0279) on the workpiece (“FIGS. 7a and 7b show a schematic representation of the experiments to be performed to estimate the value of δ using the skin depth method,” para 0259; figs 7A and 7b are construed as line scans on a “workpiece”);
acquire (“The D2 method was used to calculate the threshold fluence (Fth) values,” para 0279) intensity distribution information (the crater diameters in fig. 2 are construed as the claimed “intensity distribution information”) measured by the beam profiler (“the diameter of each crater can be measured from images obtained with an optical or electron microscope or a profilometer,” para 0828), the intensity distribution information showing intensity distribution of the laser light at the machining position (“FIG. 2 shows a crater matrix to be machined in order to implement the ablation threshold determination by the D2 method,” para 0282; fig. 3b shows the obtained fluence profile, which is construed as the claimed “intensity distribution” that is based on the calculation of the fluence or ablation threshold from the diameters measured in the D2 method, paras 0147-0149);
assess (“depth of ablation produced by each pulse n,” para 0248; determining or simulating the depth zn based on an equation or model for the fluence threshold and the delta parameter, which is taught in para 0248, is construed as the claimed “assessing” step), as an assessment result (fig. 16b; “simulated,” para 0302), dependence of the laser machining of the workpiece (“zn” para 0248) on the laser light intensity based on the machining state information (“δ,” para 0248) and the intensity distribution information (“Fth,” para 0248; the ablation or fluence threshold is determined from the crater diameters, para 0153)
adjust a laser light output condition of the light source based on the assessment result (“maximum fluence of 2.9 J/cm2, scanning speed of 500 mm/s, frequency of 100 kHz and 500 passes with the beam tilted of 15° in relation to the normal to the surface,” para 0302; construed as parameters determined using the modeling for the “simulated scan” of fig 16b); and
obtain a laser-machined workpiece based on the adjusting (fig. 16a).
Regarding claim 7, Bruneel teaches a laser machining method (“Laser machining simulation method, laser machining system having means for implementing the method, and computer program for implementing this method,” title) using the laser machining device according to claim 6 (please see previous rejection), the laser machining method comprising:
radiating the laser light to the workpiece from the light source (“The tests were performed in air using a Satsuma HP2 (Amplitude Systems) femtosecond laser with a pulse duration of about 330 fs, a radiation wavelength of 1030 and a maximum power of 20 W at 500 kHz,” para 0277);
acquiring (“To determine the value of δ, several line scans with increasing pulse energy were produced and their depths measured,” para 0279; completing line scans is construed as the “acquiring” step) the machining state information (“delta δ,” abstract; the delta parameter is construed as the “machining state information;” “Each material is then represented by a set of parameters (δ, Fth) in a given fluence zone,” para 0179) showing the machining state (“δ is the depth of penetration of the radiation into the material,” para 00249; the depth of penetration is construed as the “machining state”) at the machining position (“line scans with increasing pulse energy were produced and their depths measured,” para 0279) on the workpiece (“FIGS. 7a and 7b show a schematic representation of the experiments to be performed to estimate the value of δ using the skin depth method,” para 0259; figs 7A and 7b are construed as line scans on a “workpiece”);
measuring the laser light distribution (“FIG. 1 shows an intensity profile of a Gaussian laser beam,” para 0281; fig. 1 is construed as the claimed “laser light distribution”) as an actual measurement (“The D2 method was used to calculate the threshold fluence (Fth) values,” para 0279; “a spot radius of about 10 μm determined using the D2 method,” para 0277; a spot radius of the Gaussian laser beam, which is about 10 μm, is construed as the “actual measurement”) by the beam profiler (“the diameter of each crater can be measured from images obtained with an optical or electron microscope or a profilometer,” para 0828) to acquire (“The D2 method was used to calculate the threshold fluence (Fth) values,” para 0279) , by a beam profiler (“confocal optical microscope (Olympus LEXT OLS4100),” para 0278) of the laser machining device (the microscope is construed as being part of the laser machining system taught by Bruneel), the intensity distribution information (the craters in fig. 2 are used to determine the “threshold fluence,” abstract; the crater diameters are construed as the claimed “intensity distribution information”) showing the intensity distribution of the laser light at the machining position (“FIG. 2 shows a crater matrix to be machined in order to implement the ablation threshold determination by the D2 method,” para 0282; fig. 3b shows the obtained fluence profile, which is construed as the claimed “intensity distribution” that is based on the calculation of the fluence or ablation threshold from the craters in the D2 method, paras 0147-0149); and
assessing (“depth of ablation produced by each pulse n,” para 0248; determining or simulating the depth zn based on an equation or model for the fluence threshold and the delta parameter, which is taught in para 0248, is construed as the claimed “assessing” step) the dependence of the laser machining of the workpiece (“zn” para 0248) on the laser light intensity based on the machining state information (“δ,” para 0248) and the intensity distribution information (“Fth,” para 0248; the ablation or fluence threshold is determined from the crater diameters, para 0153), and obtaining the workpiece that is laser-machined (fig. 16a) by adjusting the machining state according to a result of the assessment (“maximum fluence of 2.9 J/cm2, scanning speed of 500 mm/s, frequency of 100 kHz and 500 passes with the beam tilted of 15° in relation to the normal to the surface,” para 0302; construed as parameters determined using the modeling for the “simulated scan” of fig 16b).
Regarding claim 8, Bruneel teaches a workpiece (fig. 16a) laser-machined by the laser machining method according to claim 7 (not given any patentable weight; determination of patentability is based on the product itself and not its method of production, MPEP 2113).
Regarding claim 10, Bruneel teaches wherein the intensity distribution information (fig. 3b; generated based on the diameters from the D2 method in fig. 2, paras 0282-0284) shows intensity distribution of radiated laser light at the machining position (fig. 3b shows the intensity distribution in fluence vs.the machining position r, which is the distance to the beam axis).
Regarding claim 11, Bruneel teaches wherein measuring the intensity distribution information (the threshold fluence is acquired from the “D2 method,” para 0279) comprises radiating light (“increasing pulse numbers and pulse energies,” para 0157) from the light source to the machining position on the workpiece (“diameter of each crater must be measured,” para 0157).
Regarding claim 12, Bruneel teaches wherein the computer (“computer program,” para 0128; para 0006) acquires the machining state information from a microscope (“optical or electron microscope,” para 0157; para 0278).
Regarding claim 14, Bruneel teaches wherein the laser light distribution (fig. 1) is actually measured two-dimensional data (“fluence profile,” para 0284) showing a distribution (fig. 3b) of laser intensity (y-axis, fig. 3b) at points in a space (x-axis, fig. 3b; the x-axis is the radius, which is construed as having a two-dimensional shape, i.e., a circle).
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 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneel et al. (US-20210034798-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Vanagas et al. (US-20170250113-A1).
Bruneel teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the machining state of the workpiece is a state in which physical properties of the workpiece have been changed by machining (Bruneel teaches ablating or deforming the workpiece but does not explicitly disclose “laser machining may be machining that causes denaturation in which only physical properties of a workpiece change without deformation of the workpiece,” as described in paragraph 0050 of the Specification).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser ablation or machining, Vanagas teaches wherein the machining state of the workpiece is a state in which physical properties of the workpiece have been changed by machining (“spike-shaped beam convergence zone, more particularly an above workpiece material optical damage threshold fluence (power distribution) in the bulk of the workpiece is produced,” para 0014; ”a modified area (having a “spike”-type shape) is created,” abstract; Vanagas teaches modifying the area using a series of spike-shapes to form a cleaving line as shown in fig. 5, and then separating along the line using mechanical separation, para 0015).
Vanagas, fig. 5
PNG
media_image2.png
719
628
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Bruneel to include, wherein the machining state of the workpiece is a state in which physical properties of the workpiece have been changed by machining, in view of the teachings of Vanagas, by forming a modified area of spike-shapes in a semiconductor material, as taught by Vanagas, using the simulated laser machining method, as taught by Bruneel, in order to produce localized melting or Coulomb explosions in a modified area for semiconductor materials during substrate cleaving/braking/dicing, which need to be cut precisely in order to reduce the likelihood of leakage current for light emitting diodes manufactured from semiconductor materials (Vanagas, paras 0010-0011 and 0014).
Claims 9 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneel et al. (US-20210034798-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kramer et al. (US-20180029164-A1).
Regarding claim 9, Bruneel teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a position of the beam profiler is identical to that of the workpiece arranged for machining such that the beam profiler acquires the intensity distribution information about the laser light at the machining position on the workpiece.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting, Kramer teaches wherein a position (horizontal position, fig. 2) of the beam profiler (sensor 34, fig. 2) is identical (same horizontal position, i.e., the sensor 34 is positioned over the processing region 17 in fig. 2, similar to what is disclosed in fig. 2 of the Instant Application) to that of the workpiece arranged for machining (processing region 17, fig. 2) such that the beam profiler acquires the intensity distribution information (“diameter,” para 0088; “intensity distribution,” para 0088) about the laser light at the machining position on the workpiece (“of the laser beam focus 12 in the processing region 17,” para 0088).
Kramer, fig. 2
PNG
media_image3.png
1134
787
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Bruneel to include, wherein a position of the beam profiler is the same as that of the workpiece arranged for machining such that the beam profiler acquires the intensity distribution information about the laser light at the machining position on the workpiece, in view of the teachings of Kramer, by using a sensor 34 positioned directly over the processing region 17, as taught by Kramer, to measure the diameter of the target during the D2 method instead of using the confocal optical microscope, as taught by Bruneel, in order to use a sensor appropriate for measuring very high power and accurate determination of geometric beam parameters, e.g., the intensity of the focus diameter, which can be used to determine the threshold fluence taught by Bruneel (Kramer, para 0016; the threshold fluence variable is Fth in the equation for the D2 method taught in para 0150 by Bruneel).
Regarding claim 13, Bruneel teaches wherein the step of obtaining a laser-machined workpiece (fig. 16a) based on the adjusting is conducted by the laser machining at the machining position (top workpiece surface, fig. 16a).
Bruneel does not explicitly disclose where the laser light distribution itself was measured by using the beam profiler.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting, Kramer teaches where the laser light distribution itself was measured (“diameter,” para 0088, of the beam 11, fig. 2) by using the beam profiler (sensor 34, fig. 2).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Bruneel, in view of the teachings of Kramer, by using a sensor 34 positioned directly over the processing region 17, as taught by Kramer, to measure the diameter of the target during the D2 method instead of using the confocal optical microscope, as taught by Bruneel, in order to use a sensor appropriate for measuring very high power and accurate determination of geometric beam parameters, e.g., the intensity of the focus diameter, which can be used to determine the threshold fluence taught by Bruneel (Kramer, para 0016; the threshold fluence variable is Fth in the equation for the D2 method taught in para 0150 by Bruneel).
Claims 15-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bruneel et al. (US-20210034798-A1) as applied to claim 1 above.
Regarding claim 15, Bruneel teaches wherein the step of assessing (para 0248) includes a step of matching two-dimensional coordinates (“a function of the distance to the center,” para 0248; equation 60 shows x and y coordinates, para 0248) of the intensity distribution information (“Fth,” para 0248) and two- dimensional coordinates (equation 60 shows x and y coordinates, para 0248; construed such that the fluence values and the δ value are correlated or matched across x and y coordinates) of the machining state information (“δ,” para 0248) by adjusting relative positions of the origins (“center of the beam,” para 0180; the center of the beams are adjusted to relative depths to generate the diameters in fig. 2, paras 0180-0181).
In this embodiment, Bruneel does not explicitly disclose adjusting relative in-plane angles of rotation.
However, in a different embodiment, Bruneel teaches adjusting relative in-plane angles (angle β relative to plane BFI, fig. 20a) of rotation (“an angle β for all precession positions of the beam with respect to the axis of rotation of the beam,” para 0306; rotation is shown in fig. 20a).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the D2 method, as taught by Bruneel, to include parameters for the precision movement that is based on the rotation of the beam, as taught in fig. 20a, in order to determine the ablation profile of a drilled hole, because simulation of these parameters enables drilling at a high-speed that is more advantageous than using a nozzle and gas or scanning the beam at a high speed with a scanner head (paras 0242-0243).
Regarding claim 16, Bruneel teaches wherein the step of matching (para 0248) includes a step (generating values for the “depth of ablation,” para 0248; fig. 16a) of specifying corresponding points of data between the two-dimensional coordinates (“x” and “y,” equation 60, para 0248) of the intensity distribution information (“Fth,” equation 60, para 0248) and the two-dimensional coordinates (“x” and “y,” equation 60, para 0248) of the machining state information (“δ,” equation 60, para 0248), and wherein the corresponding points of the two-dimensional coordinates of the machining state information (“To determine the value of δ, several line scans with increasing pulse energy were produced and their depths measured,” para 0279; figs. 7a and 7b show line scans that correspond to two dimensional coordinates having lengths and widths) are determined on the basis of specifying, beforehand (calculating δ is construed as happening before calculating the ablation depth), points of the same power of the intensity distribution (“increasing power values,” para 0144; x-axis, fig. 7c) applied in reality (“The value δ used in the model must be adjusted until a good coincidence between the experimental points and the modeled points is obtained,” para 0144).
Regarding claim 17, Bruneel teaches the invention as described above and in this embodiment, Bruneel does not explicitly disclose wherein the step of assessing uses actual measurement data of the laser light intensity acquired by the step of measuring, wherein any model, including a Gaussian model, of the intensity distribution information is not used.
However, in a different embodiment, Bruneel teaches wherein the step of assessing (“machine learning,” para 0323) uses actual measurement data (“information is preferably stored in a database or in several databases,” para 0323) of the laser light intensity acquired by the step of measuring (“a predefined machining test is defined in FIGS. 2, 3,” para 0325), wherein any model, including a Gaussian model, of the intensity distribution information is not used (“the machine learning and the determination of a learned function,” para 0325; construed such that a model is not used but instead a learned function is trained).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the D2 method, as taught by Bruneel, to use a machine learning algorithm to determine a learned function, as taught in figs 29-30 of Bruneel, instead of using a Gaussian fluence profile, as taught in fig. 3b of Bruneel, in order to use a learning algorithm that obtains optimum parameters that are close to the desired target machining very quickly (para 0326).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 7 February 2025 have been fully considered, but they are not persuasive.
The Applicant’s arguments are not commensurate with the actual scope of claim 1.
Page 9 appears to suggest that claim 1 requires measuring intensity distribution information. However, respectfully submit that claim 1 requires “measuring the laser light distribution by an actual measurement, by a beam profiler, to acquire intensity distribution information.” Thus, the claim does not require measuring the intensity distribution. Instead, the claim requires measuring the laser light distribution.
The bottom of page 9 appears to suggest that because Bruneel teaches using models, then this teaching would disqualify Bruneel from teaching claim 1. Although a new claim was added that includes a negative limitation, which excludes models, respectfully submit that this limitation is not present in claim 1 but is instead present in claim 17.
Page 10 states that the delta value taught by Bruneel is an estimated or computed value. The examiner agrees with the Applicant. The delta variable is used to teach the “machining state information.” Values that are estimated or computed can be considered “machining state information.” Claim 1 does not have any limitations attributed to the “machining state information” such that this information must be actual measurement values.
Pages 10-11 state that because Bruneel teaches a smooth curve in fig. 4b, then fig. 4b cannot be an actual depth of a groove. However, fig. 4b is not used in any of the above mappings in the rejection for claim 1.
Moreover, one of ordinary skill in the art would not presume that smooth curves would result in an invention that is outside the claim scope. For example, page 14 of the Specification describes how “smoothing” is performed on the intensity distribution information.
Page 11 states that “fig. 3a depicts simulation results, and this is evident as well.” However, respectfully submit that “fig. 3a shows a plurality of pulses along a line” (paragraph 0283).
Page 11 repeats an argument that using models has been excluded from the claim scope. However, as stated earlier, this limitation is present in claim 17 and not mentioned in claim 1.
Page 12 states that “fig. 3a does not represent actual measured data.” The examiner agrees with this statement. However, it is not clear how this observation affects the above rejection because fig. 3a is not used in any of the mappings in the rejection for claim 1.
The examiner’s comments on page 20 of the previous Office action filed 8 April 2025 were in reference to Bruneel’s D2 method. In paragraph 0277, Bruneel teaches that a “beam was focused on the surface of the samples using a telecentric lens with a focal length of 100 mm, producing a spot radius of about 10 μm determined using the D2 method.” The examiner understands this disclosure such that a beam created actual craters, which were used to determine the ablation threshold for stainless steel. Bruneel teaches the steps involved in using the D2 method in paragraphs 0147-0157.
Page 12 states that using “models to obtain intensity distribution information” is excluded from a claim limitation that requires “measuring the laser light distribution as an actual measurement by a beam profiler, to acquire intensity distribution information showing intensity distribution of laser light at the machining position.” However, it is not clear from this statement why this exclusion is necessary.
In reference to the rejection for claim 1, Bruneel teaches a method for calculating threshold fluence values (these threshold fluence values are construed as the claimed “intensity distribution information”), which are based on the diameters of craters (these diameters are construed as the claimed “actual measurements”). The Applicant appears to show a similar method in figs. 4-6 of the Instant Application of measuring the diameters based on the height (or depth) of a crater. It is unclear then how Bruneel’s D2 method fails to teach this limitation.
Page 13 references paragraph 0259 and appears to suggest that this paragraph teaches hypothetical “to be” matters. The examiner disagrees. Instead, in this paragraph, Bruneel teaches actual “experiments to be performed.” Although Bruneel teaches simulations and estimations, these estimations are based on actual experimental data (para 0094). Bruneel explains that the fluence thresholds will vary depending on the type of material that is to be machined. As a result, experiments on the material are necessary in order to determine each material’s fluence thresholds.
Page 13 appears to suggest that the statement that “Bruneel’s invention has been patented” is not a “fact.” However, the examiner has confirmed that this statement is accurate and factual.
An appendix is provided in the provided in the arguments, and the examiner agrees with the information provided in this appendix. However, none of the differences identified in the appendix are captured in the claim language. Specifically, these differences are the following:
Difference 1: Bruneel teaches using a Gaussian distribution. In the Applicant’s invention, they do not require a Gaussian distribution.
The examiner agrees. However, claim 1 currently does not require using a non-Gaussian distribution. In the previous Office action, evidence was provided that using a truncated Gaussian distribution is known in the art based on the Langeweyde reference (US20160346118). The examiner construed a truncated Gaussian distribution as being a non-Gaussian distribution because the tails or outer edges of the distribution are truncated. No response to this reference was provided in the arguments.
Difference 2: Bruneel teaches forming multiple craters in the D2 method. In the Applicant’s invention, they require only one crater.
The examiner agrees. However, claim 1 does not require forming at most only one crater. In fact, there is no mention of forming any craters in claim 1. The examiner is using Bruneel’s D2 method based on what is disclosed in the Specification. But the scope of claim 1 is broad enough such that any of Bruneel’s four methods for determining the ablation threshold would fit within the scope of claim 1 because the actual method steps of forming a crater and imaging the crater are not claimed. If these steps were claimed, then respectfully submit that these steps are the main steps in Bruneel’s D2 method, which Bruneel teaches “is the most accepted and widely used method for determining the ablation threshold of all types of materials” (para 0148).
For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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 Landrum can be reached on 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 11/12/2025/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761