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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on July 22, 2026 has been entered.
Claims Status:
Claims 1-23 and 26-29 are pending.
Claims 19-23, 26-27 and 29 are withdrawn from consideration.
Claims 24-25 are cancelled.
Claims 1, 23 and 26 are amended.
Claims 1-18 and 28 are examined as follow:
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:
In claim 1, the newly amended “…wherein the measured tilt angle is determined from respective axial locations of a plurality of different points on the surface of the sample, each respective axial location being obtained by imaging the laser light from the laser light source after reflection from a respective one of said plurality of different points on the surface…”
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). 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 Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
Claim limitation “component” in claims 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “component" coupled with functional language “…configured to correct for spherical aberration caused by mismatch in refractive index…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “…configured to correct for spherical aberration…" has been described in Page 4 cited: “…The spherical aberration can also be corrected in several different ways. In one configuration, the one or more optical elements includes a lens with an adjustable correction collar to correct for spherical aberration within the sample at the target location. Alternatively, the one or more optical elements may include a lens with a fixed correction for spherical aberration within the sample at the target location. Alternatively still, the one or more optical elements can include a lens and a phase plate configured to correct for spherical aberration within the sample at the target location. Yet another alternative is that the one or more optical elements includes a combination of lenses configured to introduce a spherical aberration in the laser light which is partially or wholly cancelled by spherical aberration caused by mismatch in refractive index at the surface of the sample. Yet another alternative is that the one or more optical elements includes an adaptive optical element configured to correct for spherical aberration within the sample at the target location. The adaptive optical element (or active optical element) can include a spatial light modulator (SLM). Examples of spatial light modulators include liquid crystal SLMs such as liquid crystal on/over silicon SLMs (LCOS SLMs). Other examples include mirror-based adaptive optical element such as digital micro-mirror devices / deformable mirror devices. Sometimes these mirror based devices may also be referred to as mirror based SLMs…”.
Claim limitation “drive mechanism” in claims 1 has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mechanism" coupled with functional language “…configured to move…” without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is preceded by an insufficient structural modifier “drive”. A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: The limitation “…drive mechanism…" has been described in Page 7 cited: “…a mechanical drive mechanism is provided for moving the sample holder and/or one or more of the optical elements based on the measured tilt angle to correct for coma aberration caused by the tilt angle whereas spherical aberration can be corrected by other one or more of the other methods described herein…”, such that it is mechanical driver.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 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 1-18 and 28 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.
In claim 1, the newly amended limitation “…wherein the measured tilt angle is determined from respective axial locations of a plurality of different points on the surface of the sample, each respective axial location being obtained by imaging the laser light from the laser light source after reflection from a respective one of said plurality of different points on the surface…” is not described in the specification, there is no disclosure of different axial location to every measured tilt angle, or clear indication of it. The only disclosure in the specification about “axial location” is in Page 16/34, line 17 cited: “…Another method to measure the axial location of the sample surface relies on reflection from the surface…”. Applicants are welcome to amend or point out which paragraph/page and citation disclosure of support for such newly amended limitation.
Claims 2-18 and 28 are rejected based on the inherited deficiencies of the corresponding independent claim.
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 1-18 and 28 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.
In claim 1, the newly amended limitation “…wherein the measured tilt angle is determined from respective axial locations of a plurality of different points on the surface of the sample, each respective axial location being obtained by imaging the laser light from the laser light source after reflection from a respective one of said plurality of different points on the surface…” is indefinite, because it is unclear what is “respective axial location” is referring since there is no disclosure in the specification of such limitation. Clarification is required. For the examination purposes, through the best understanding of the specification and as a person skilled in the art, Examiner assumed that such limitation is implying locations of tilt angle readings can be read by same or different sensors.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1, 3-9, 11-13 and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nagura (US2007/0104045A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Nagura, in view of Togashi (US2001/0046195A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Togashi, and further in view of Gutin (US7545511B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Gutin.
Regarding claim 1, Nagura discloses a laser system (refer to fig.9) for modification of a sample (#11, fig.9) to form a modified region at a target location (refer to the title as “Recording” and “Reproducing”) as within the sample (#11, fig.9), the target location being disposed below a surface (refer as “layer” in the abstract) of the sample (#11, fig.9), the laser system (refer to fig.9) comprising:
a laser light source (#1, fig.9) configured to provide laser light (referring to the line coming out of #1 in fig.9);
a sample holder (examiner note: a sampler holder is inherently disclosed, as evidence refer to Paragraph 0041 cited: “…mechanisms such as a spindle motor for rotatably driving the optical disc 11 are also omitted…”) for supporting the sample (#11, fig.9);
one or more optical elements (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) configured to direct the laser light (referring to the line coming out of #1 in fig.9) from the laser light source (#1, fig.9) into the sample (#11, fig.9) when the sample (#11, fig.9) is supported by the sample holder (examiner note: a sampler holder is inherently disclosed, as evidence refer to Paragraph 0041 cited: “…mechanisms such as a spindle motor for rotatably driving the optical disc 11 are also omitted…”), wherein the one or more optical elements are configured to focus the laser light (referring to the line coming out of #1 in fig.9) into the sample (#11, fig.9), and wherein the one or more optical elements (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) includes a component (#6 and #6a-b, fig.9) configured to correct for spherical aberration (refer to Paragraph 0061 cited: “…the controller 21 adjusts the position of the convex lens 6b such that the amplitude of the RF reproduction signal becomes the largest. In this way, spherical aberration in the first layer 11a is corrected…”) caused by mismatch in refractive index at the surface (refer as “layer” in the abstract) of the sample (#11, fig.9) through which the laser light (referring to the line coming out of #1 in fig.9) enters the sample (#11, fig.9) such that the laser light (referring to the line coming out of #1 in fig.9) is focused at the target location (refer to the title as “Recording” and “Reproducing”) within the sample (#11, fig.9); and
a drive mechanism (#9, fig.9) configured to move #10, fig.9) based on a measured tilt angle (refer to paragraph 0079 cited: “…the optical tilt sensor 14 includes an LED 15 and two photodiodes 16a and 16b, and an output depending on the relative angle of a recording surface of the disc with respect to an optical pickup is obtained. Light emitted from the LED 15 enters the optical disc 11 substantially perpendicularly…”, noted that the underlined statement would indicate a measured tilt angle) of the surface (refer as “layer” in the abstract) of the sample (#11, fig.9) relative to an optical axis (refer to the underlined statement cited in Paragraph 0079 above) of the laser light (referring to the line coming out of #1 in fig.9) entering through the surface (refer as “layer” in the abstract), to correct for coma aberration (refer to Paragraph 0009 cited: “…the amount of coma aberration caused due to disc tilt and the amount of coma aberration caused due to objective lens tilt are almost equal to each other. Therefore, by driving the disc and the objective lens such that the disc and the objective lens are in parallel with each other, coma aberration can be substantially optimally corrected…”) caused by the tilt angle (refer to the paragraph 0079 cited above).
PNG
media_image1.png
515
589
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Nagura does not disclose wherein the measured tilt angle is determined from respective axial locations of a plurality of different points on the surface of the sample, each respective axial location being obtained by imaging the laser light from the laser light source after reflection from a respective one of said plurality of different points on the surface.
Togashi discloses wherein the measured tilt angle (refer to tilt signal C) is obtained by imaging the laser light (refer to the line generated in #4 and the annotated “laser light” in fig.1) from the laser light source (#4, fig.1) after reflection from the surface of the sample (#1, fig.1)(refer to Paragraph 0037 cited: “…The light emitting unit 4 is adapted to emit a beam of light to be incident on the optical disc 1. To this end, the light emitting unit 4 may include, for example, a laser diode. The collimating lens 5 acts to transform the beam of light emitted from the light emitting unit 4 into a collimated beam of light. The beam splitter 6 functions to refract an optical axis of the collimated beam of light from the collimating lens 5 by 90.degree.. The object lens 7 is adapted to condense the collimated beam of light with the optical axis refracted by 90.degree. by the beam splitter 6 to project a spot of light on the track 1a of the optical disc 1 …”, par. 0038).
PNG
media_image2.png
608
386
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagura’s tilt sensor to wherein the measured tilt angle is obtained by imaging the laser light from the laser light source after reflection from the surface of the sample, as taught by Togashi, in order to provide a more compact, simpler and accurate tilt detector (refer to Paragraph 0010 cited: “…the present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and it is an object of the present invention to provide a tilt detector which is capable of detecting a tilt at a high degree of precision without necessitating a complex construction …”).
Togashi does not explicitly disclose determined from respective axial locations of a plurality of different points on the surface of the sample, each respective axial location being obtained by imaging the laser light.
Gutin discloses determined from respective axial locations of a plurality of different points (refer to Col 9, line 20-27 cited: “…Regarding the Measurement Method, the same system and method according to this invention are equally applicable to a wide range of other "highly aberrated by design" optics. No change in the setup is required specific to a particular type of optics to be tested. The only parameter which may differ between different optics under test is the number of individual interferograms needed to be captured and the corresponding discrete axial locations of the reference spherical reflector…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagura’s method of measurement with determined from respective axial locations of a plurality of different points, as taught by Gutin, in order to provide an improved accuracy for the reading on the measurement by have the numbers corresponding discrete axial locations of the reflectors as reference and comparison, such that a better lasering process and a better end product is produced.
Regarding claim 3, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the drive mechanism (#9, fig.9) is configured to move one or more of the optical elements (#10, fig.9) in order to tilt the optical axis of the laser light entering through the surface of the sample (#11, fig.9) thus reducing the tilt angle and correcting for coma aberration (refer to Paragraph 0009 cited: “…the amount of coma aberration caused due to disc tilt and the amount of coma aberration caused due to objective lens tilt are almost equal to each other. Therefore, by driving the disc and the objective lens such that the disc and the objective lens are in parallel with each other, coma aberration can be substantially optimally corrected…”).
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the drive mechanism (#9, fig.9) is configured to move one or more of the optical elements (#10, fig.9) to create an amount of coma which cancels sample (#11, fig.9) induced coma aberration caused by the tilt angle (refer to Paragraph 0009 cited: “…the amount of coma aberration caused due to disc tilt and the amount of coma aberration caused due to objective lens tilt are almost equal to each other. Therefore, by driving the disc and the objective lens such that the disc and the objective lens are in parallel with each other, coma aberration can be substantially optimally corrected…”).
Regarding claim 5, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) includes a lens (#6b, fig.9) with an adjustable correction collar (#19, fig.9) to correct for spherical aberration (refer to Paragraph 0052 cited: “…by adjusting the position of the convex lens 6b such that the amplitude of the RF reproduction signal becomes the largest, spherical aberration is corrected with regard to each of the recording layers of the optical disc 11…”) within the sample (#11, fig.9) at the target location (refer to the title as “Recording” and “Reproducing”).
Regarding claim 6, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) includes a lens (#5, fig.9) with a fixed correction for spherical aberration (refer to Paragraph 0052 cited: “…by adjusting the position of the convex lens 6b such that the amplitude of the RF reproduction signal becomes the largest, spherical aberration is corrected with regard to each of the recording layers of the optical disc 11…”) within the sample (#11, fig.9) at the target location (refer to the title as “Recording” and “Reproducing”) within the sample (#11, fig.9) at the target location (refer to the title as “Recording” and “Reproducing”)(Examiner note: when the driver mechanism is not moving, then it is a fixed correction).
Regarding claim 7, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) includes a lens (#6, fig.9) and a phase plate (#7, fig.9) configured to correct for spherical aberration (refer to Paragraph 0044 cited: “…Light beams which have passed through the light beam expander 6 pass through the quarter wavelength plate 7, are reflected off the lift mirror 8, and then, are condensed onto an information recording surface of the optical disc 11 by the objective lens 10. Reflected light from the optical disc 11 enter the polarized light beam splitter 3 through the objective lens 10, the lift mirror 8, the quarter wavelength plate 7, and the light beam expander 6…”) within the sample (#11, fig.9) at the target location (refer to the title as “Recording” and “Reproducing”).
Regarding claim 8, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) includes a combination of lenses (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) configured to introduce a spherical aberration in the laser light (referring to the line coming out of #1 in fig.9) which is partially or wholly cancelled by spherical aberration (refer to Paragraph 0044 cited: “…Light beams which have passed through the light beam expander 6 pass through the quarter wavelength plate 7, are reflected off the lift mirror 8, and then, are condensed onto an information recording surface of the optical disc 11 by the objective lens 10. Reflected light from the optical disc 11 enter the polarized light beam splitter 3 through the objective lens 10, the lift mirror 8, the quarter wavelength plate 7, and the light beam expander 6…”) caused by mismatch in refractive index at the surface (refer as “layer” in the abstract) of the sample (#11, fig.9).
Regarding claim 9, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) includes an adaptive optical element (#6, fig.9) configured to correct for spherical aberration (refer to Paragraph 0061 cited: “…the controller 21 adjusts the position of the convex lens 6b such that the amplitude of the RF reproduction signal becomes the largest. In this way, spherical aberration in the first layer 11a is corrected…”) within the sample (#11, fig.9) at the target location (refer to the title as “Recording” and “Reproducing”).
Regarding claim 11, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (refer to #2-#10 in fig.9) are pre-configured to correct for spherical aberration (refer to Paragraph 0061 cited: “…the controller 21 adjusts the position of the convex lens 6b such that the amplitude of the RF reproduction signal becomes the largest. In this way, spherical aberration in the first layer 11a is corrected…”) within a specific type of material at a fixed target depth.
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura further discloses wherein the one or more optical elements (#6. Fig.9) are adjustable to correct for spherical aberration refer to Paragraph 0035 cited: “…The drive mechanism 19 includes a driving source such as a stepping motor and a gear mechanism for converting the driving force of the driving source to rectilinear motion of the convex lens 6b in the direction of the optical axis. A controller 21 controls an SA drive circuit 20, and corrects spherical aberration in the respective recording layers of the optical disc 11 by driving the drive mechanism 19 to adjust the position of the convex lens 6b in the direction of the optical axis…”).
Regarding claim 13, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 12, Nagura further discloses comprising a spherical aberration controller (#20, fig.9) configured to automatically adjust the one or more optical elements (#6, fig.9) to correct for spherical aberration (refer to Paragraph 0061 cited: “…the controller 21 adjusts the position of the convex lens 6b such that the amplitude of the RF reproduction signal becomes the largest. In this way, spherical aberration in the first layer 11a is corrected…”) based on refer to #14’s reading in fig.9) of the sample (refer to fig. 4A and B).
Regarding claim 28, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura does not explicitly disclose wherein said measured tilt angle comprises a tilt angle with respect to the two orthogonal dimensions transverse to the optical axis of the laser light entering through the surface.
Togashi further discloses wherein said measured tilt angle comprises a tilt angle with respect to the two orthogonal dimensions (refer to the two plane surface on #1 that is having a tilt angle with the laser axis in fig.1, since Togashi’s tilt angle is read on #1, therefore the two plane surfaces of #1 would be orthogonal respect to the tilt angle that read on #1) transverse to the optical axis (refer to the axis of #7 and the laser focusing in fig.1) of the laser light entering through the surface (refer to the surface of #1 in fig.1).
PNG
media_image3.png
755
459
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagura’s tilt sensor to wherein said measured tilt angle comprises a tilt angle with respect to the two orthogonal dimensions transverse to the optical axis of the laser light entering through the surface, as taught by Togashi, in order to provide a more compact, simpler and accurate tilt detector (refer to Paragraph 0010 cited: “…the present invention has been made in view of the above problems, and it is an object of the present invention to provide a tilt detector which is capable of detecting a tilt at a high degree of precision without necessitating a complex construction …”).
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nagura (US2007/0104045A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Nagura, in view of Togashi (US2001/0046195A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Togashi, further in view of Gutin (US7545511B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Gutin, and further in view of Cai et al (US2014/0071457A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Cai.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura, Togashi or Gutin does not specifically disclose wherein the drive mechanism is configured to move the sample holder to reduce the tilt angle of the surface of the sample.
Cai further discloses wherein the drive mechanism (#308a and #308b, fig.3) is configured to move the sample holder (#314, fig.3) to reduce the tilt angle of the surface of the sample (#312, fig.3) (Refer to Paragraph 0036 cited: “…the tilt-focus controller 302 may adjust the tilt and/or height of the surface of the substrate 312 in order to maintain the surface of the substrate 312 at an imaging plane of a detector (not shown in FIG. 3) of an associated inspection system or at the focus of illumination of the inspection system…”).
PNG
media_image4.png
460
631
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagura’s laser system with wherein the drive mechanism is configured to move the sample holder to reduce the tilt angle of the surface of the sample, as taught by Cai, in order to provide a more flexible, better, more accurate and faster tilt angle adjustment drive mechanism, such that would increase laser processing speed and reduce the possible defects of the product.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nagura (US2007/0104045A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Nagura, in view of Togashi (US2001/0046195A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Togashi, further in view of Gutin (US7545511B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Gutin, and further in view of Ghauri (US2011/0292157A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Ghauri.
Regarding claim 10, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 9, Nagura, Togashi or Gutin does not specifically disclose the adaptive optical element includes a spatial light modulator.
Ghauri discloses the adaptive optical element includes a spatial light modulator (#12, fig.1).
PNG
media_image5.png
235
477
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagura’s laser system with a spatial light modulator, as taught by Ghauri, in order to provide the capability of a more uniform irradiance distribution of beam cross-section (refer to abstract cited: “…an optical amplifier coupled to the spatial modulator to receive the laser beam output from the spatial light modulator and generate an amplified laser beam containing the same optical pattern as generated by the spatial light modulator, the amplified laser beam from the optical amplifier having a substantially uniform amplification across the cross-section of the beam, the amplified beam maintaining the substantially uniform irradiance distribution over its beam cross-section …”).
Claims 14-15 and 17-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nagura (US2007/0104045A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Nagura, in view of Togashi (US2001/0046195A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Togashi, further in view of Gutin (US7545511B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Gutin, and further in view of Barron et al (US2006/0196858A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Barron.
Regarding claim 14, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura does not specifically disclose wherein the laser light source is configured to provide pulsed laser light having a pulse length of less than 10 picoseconds.
Barron discloses wherein the laser light source is configured to provide pulsed laser light range of fs to ps(refer to Paragraph 0014 cited: “…This regime relies on the use of a tightly focused pulsed laser beam with extremely short pulse duration, i.e., in the range of a few fs (fs: femtosecond, 1 fs=10.sup.-15 s) to about 200 ps (ps: picosecond, 1 ps=10.sup.-12 s).…”).
Barron does not specifically discloses wherein the laser light source is configured to provide pulsed laser light having a pulse length of less than 10 picoseconds.
However, since Barron disclosed value is lie inside/ overlap the range disclosed by the present application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified wherein the laser light source is configured to provide pulsed laser light having a pulse length of less than 10 picoseconds, in this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Refer 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), such that it would provide a more efficient laser and consume lesser energy (refer to Paragraph 0014 cited: “…be comparable or a few times higher than the threshold energy required to induce permanent structural changes (damages) in the host transparent material, for the selected laser wavelength and focusing characteristics …”).
Regarding claim 15, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura does not specifically disclose wherein the laser light source is configured to provide pulsed laser light with pulse energies of between 10nJ and 300nJ.
Barron discloses wherein the laser light source is configured to provide pulsed laser light with pulse energies of between 20nJ and 90nJ (refer to Paragraph 0017 cited: “…using laser pulses carrying an energy that was varied in the range from about 20 nJ (nanoJoules) to 90 nJ …”).
Barron does not specifically discloses the range of 10nJ and 300nJ.
However, since Barron disclosed value is lie inside/ overlap the range disclosed by the present application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the range of 10nJ to 300nJ, in this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Refer 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), such that it would provide a more efficient laser and consume lesser energy (refer to Paragraph 0014 cited: “…be comparable or a few times higher than the threshold energy required to induce permanent structural changes (damages) in the host transparent material, for the selected laser wavelength and focusing characteristics …”).
Regarding claim 17 and 18, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura does not specifically disclose such sample is diamond or gemstone.
Barron discloses that the sample can be gemstone and diamond (refer to abstract cited: “…A method and an apparatus for laser marking indicia in the volume of gemstones such as diamonds …”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Nagura’s laser system’s sample to be gemstone and diamond, as taught by Barron, such that it would increase the marketability of Okamoto’s laser system, such that would increase in value, utilities and demand of the laser system, and provide different option of marking.
Claim 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Nagura (US2007/0104045A1 previously cited) herein set forth as Nagura, in view of Togashi (US2001/0046195A1 newly cited) herein set forth as Togashi, further in view of Gutin (US7545511B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Gutin, and further in view of Sakamoto et al (US8187689B2 previously cited) herein set forth as Sakamoto.
Regarding claim 16, the modification of Nagura, Togashi and Gutin discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Nagura, Togashi or Gutin does not specifically disclose wherein the one or more optical elements are configured to focus the laser light within the sample with an optical numerical aperture of at least 0.8, 1, or 1.2.
Sakamoto discloses wherein the one or more optical elements are configured to focus the laser light within the sample with an optical numerical aperture is 0.85 (refer to Col 10 line 63-64 cited: “…Numerical aperture N.A.=0.85, laser wavelength .lamda.=405 nm, recording linear velocity=4.9 m/s, mark write pulse=30 ns…”).
Sakamoto does not specifically disclose numerical aperture of at least 0.8, 1, or 1.2.
However, since Sakamoto disclosed value is lie inside the range disclosed by the present application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified a numerical aperture is 0.85, in this case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Refer 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), such that it would complete the marking in a short time (refer to Col 1 line 16-17 cited: “…a large number of replica substrates may be manufactured in a short time at low cost…”).
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Drawing Objection: the applicant’s amendment filed on July 22th 2026 that overcame the Drawing objection in the previous office action. However, the newly amended claim has raised another issue of Drawing Objection.
The applicant’s amendment filed on 09/29/2020 has raised new issue of 112a and 112b.
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed March 13, 2026 have been fully considered but moot in view of the new ground(s) of rejection with the newly cited secondary Prior art Gutin (US7545511B1 newly cited).
Regarding the drawing objection and new matter issue, applicant attempt to clarify “…This amendment does not introduce new matter and is supported by the same disclosure discussed above, including Fig. 10 and paragraph [0170] of the published application…”, Page 2 first paragraph from the remark.
It is expressed that the disclosure in the figure 10 or the paragraph does not describe the different axial location of each different point, because such limitation would implied each point having a different axial, there is no disclosure of such explanation or clarification in the specification, the specification merely disclosing an axial location throughout the specification there is no mention of multiple different axial location.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday.
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 W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 September 8th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights