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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION. —The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
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 1-10 and 14-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “applying a pulsed laser beam to a process zone of the at least one workpiece while the pulsed laser beam is displaced relative to the at least one workpiece at a feed speed” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear as to what “feed speed” is referring to. After a review of the instant specification, speed appears to relate to movement of the workpiece (“The two workpieces 20, 22 are moved in a feed direction X relative to the laser beam 110”, ¶0085) and not the pulsed laser beam, however there is no step relating to the movement of the workpiece.
Claims 2-10 and 14-19 depend upon claim 1.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nadaud et al. (US 20160168679 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Nadaud et al. discloses a method for processing at least one workpiece (substrate with coating, ¶0020, Fig. 1, Fig. 2), the method comprising: applying a pulsed laser beam to a process zone of the at least one workpiece while the pulsed laser beam is displaced relative to the at least one workpiece at a feed speed, wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated, (“The process according to the invention makes it possible to create, in the coating, any type of pattern with modulation of at least one property of the coating, by adjusting the temporal modulation of the power of the laser line as a function of the speed of relative displacement between the substrate and the laser line and of the spatial structure of the desired pattern., ¶0020. Fig.2 show at least one workpiece (substrate) and applying a pulsed laser beam to a process zone of the at least one workpiece, wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated (“FIG. 2, which shows the variation of P.sub.elec as a function of the time t. The period of the sinusoidal signal P.sub.elec(t) is 1.2 s, which makes it possible to temporally modulate the power of the pulses of the laser sources as shown schematically in FIG. 2 in which only a few pulses have been represented in the sinusoidal signal envelope.”, ¶0021)), the feed speed is selected so that laser pulses overlap in the process zone, thereby achieving a modulation of a degree of heat accumulation in the at least one workpiece so as to reduce thermal stresses compared to processing carried out without the modulation (the selection of the feed speed can be done by the hand of the operator and after the phrase “so that” is a resulted based on a feed speed selected by the operator.
PNG
media_image1.png
534
402
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated by a modulation of the temporal spacing between the laser pulses or between the pulse trains (spacings shown between the pulses in Fig. 2 above).
Regarding claim 3, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated by a modulation of pulse durations of the laser pulses (duration 1.2s shown above in Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 4, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated by a modulation of energies distribution, of energies of successive laser pulses, or of the pulse trains (see Fig. 2 above, successive pulses).
Regarding claim 5, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated by a pulse pause (Fig. 1 shows a pulse pause between pulses).
Regarding claim 6, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, wherein a pulse energy, a pulse duration, or a length of a pulse train is temporally modulated by a control unit of a laser beam source (optical control devices, ¶0082) that generates the pulsed laser beam.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura et al. “Suppression of Stress and Crack Generation in Local Glass Melting by Picosecond Laser Irradiation at a High Repetition Rates with Temporal Energy Modulation”, NPL cited on IDS dated 3 March 2022.
Regarding claim 1, Nakamura et al. discloses a method for processing at least one workpiece, the method comprising: applying a pulsed laser beam to a process zone of the at least one workpiece (glass plates, 2.1 laser irradiation setup, page 12), wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated (2,2 Temporal energy modulation of laser pulses, page 12), the feed speed is selected so that laser pulses overlap in the process zone, thereby achieving a modulation of a degree of heat accumulation in the at least one workpiece so as to reduce thermal stresses compared to processing carried out without the modulation (the selection of the feed speed can be done by the hand of the operator and after the phrase “so that” is a resulted based on a feed speed selected by the operator.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
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 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadaud et al. (US 20160168679 A1) in view of Brandl et al. (US 11534868 B2).
Regarding claim 7, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1 but is silent on wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the pulsed laser beam is modulated by a shutter, an acousto-optical modulator, or an acousto-optical deflector.
Brandl et al. discloses “In a particularly preferred embodiment, the wavelength of the laser can be adjusted and filtered by means of frequency converters, in particular acousto-optical modulators, in particular Bragg cells”, Col. 6, lines 40-43. It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser source to have a conventional acousto-optical modulator as taught by Brandl et al. for the purpose of allowing the intensity of light to be controlled and modulated at rates that far exceed mechanical shutters, yielding predictable results.
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadaud et al. (US 20160168679 A1) in view of Egner et al. (US 20220364994 A1).
Regarding claim 8, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the pulsed laser beam is generated by a temporal modulation of aberrations. Egner discloses a laser system “providing the light with a temporal light modulation of its intensity and focusing the light into a focal area in the sample by means of the optical system” for correcting aberrations (¶0012). It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser source for the purpose of dynamic or time-varying nature of optical aberrations, where the imperfections in image formation change over time.
Claim 9-10 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadaud et al. (US 20160168679 A1).
Regarding claim 9, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the pulsed laser beam has a Bessel beam shape. However pulsed laser beams having a Bessel beam shape were conventional and it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser beam of Nadaud et al. to have a Bessel shape since it is well known that Bessel beams experience little to no diffraction within their propagation distance and provide an excellent DOF, which makes them ideal for applications such as laser material processing.
Regarding claim 10, Nadaud et al. discloses the method according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the pulsed laser beam has, in the process zone, at least two beam profiles offset longitudinally with respect to one another or laterally with respect to one another. However, the two beam profiles can be controlled by the operator of the laser.
Regarding claim 16, Nakamura et al. discloses the method according to claim 3, but is silent on wherein the pulse durations are modulated between 0.1 ps and 20 ps. However, the pulse duration is chosen by the operator.
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadaud et al. (US 20160168679 A1) in view of Arai et al. (US 20100025387 A1).
Regarding claim 14, Nakamura et al. discloses the method according to claim 1 but is silent on wherein the processing comprises welding two workpieces, comprising the at least one workpiece, and wherein the pulsed laser beam comprises an ultrashort pulse laser beam.
Arai et al. discloses ultrashort pulse laser welding wherein two workpieces (7, Fig. 1a) are welded on X-Y axis stage assembly (9), wherein applying the pulsed laser beam comprises applying an ultrashort pulse laser beam (abstract). Since the welding of two workpieces is a common method step as shown by Arai et al., it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the method of Nakamura et al. to use two workpieces and ultrashort pulse laser beam for the purpose of welding optically transparent materials, yielding predictable results.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nadaud et al. (US 20160168679 A1) in view of Nakamura et al. “Suppression of Stress and Crack Generation in Local Glass Melting by Picosecond Laser Irradiation at a High Repetition Rates with Temporal Energy Modulation”, NPL cited on IDS dated 3 March 2022.
Regarding claim 15, Nakamura et al. discloses the method according to claim 2 but is silent on wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated by the modulation of the temporal spacing between the laser pulses or between the pulse trains with constant energy per laser pulse or pulse train, wherein the repetition rate is modulated between 10 kHz and 1 GHz.
Nakamura et al. disclosed energy modulation at 1kHz – 10 kHz, however the modulation frequency is chosen by the operator, and therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser source to have a frequency between 10 kHz and 1 GHz, a step that is routine skill in the art based on heat accumulation of the work piece (see 3. Result, page 127 of Nakamura et al.).
Regarding claim 17, Nakamura et al. discloses the method according to claim 4 but is silent on wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated at 0.01 Hz to 2.5 kHz of the energies distribution, of the energy of successive pulses, or of the pulse trains, with constant temporal spacing between the successive laser pulses or pulse trains.
Nakamura et al. disclosed wherein laser beam is temporally modulated at 1kHz – 10 kHz, 0.01 Hz to 2.5 kHz falls into the disclosed range, however the modulation frequency is chosen by the operator, and therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify the laser source to have a frequency between 0.01 Hz to 2.5 kHz, a step that is routine skill in the art based on heat accumulation of the work piece (see 3. Result, page 127 of Nakamura et al.).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 18 and 19 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Nadaud et al. (US 20160168679 A1) and Nakamura et al. “Suppression of Stress and Crack Generation in Local Glass Melting by Picosecond Laser Irradiation at a High Repetition Rates with Temporal Energy Modulation”, both disclose a pulse welding system that use temporal modulation. Nadaud et al. and Nakamura et al. alone or combined fails to teach or suggest “wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the pulsed laser beam is generated by the temporal modulation of aberrations by a deformable mirror or by a tunable acoustic gradient (TAG) lens” as required of claim 18 and “wherein the at least two profiles comprise at least two Gaussian profiles offset longitudinally with respect to one another or laterally with respect to one another” as required of claim 19.
The arrangement and structural limitations of different components and how they are assembled are novel, and the limitations of claims 18 and 19 cannot be met without impermissible hindsight reconstruction.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 27 June 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant arguments are directed to the amendment to claim 1 wherein “applying a pulsed laser beam to a process zone of the at least one workpiece while the pulsed laser beam is displaced relative to the at least one workpiece at a feed speed, wherein the energy coupled into the process zone by the laser beam is temporally modulated, and the feed speed is selected so that laser pulses overlap in the process zone, thereby achieving a modulation of a degree of heat accumulation in the at least one workpiece so as to reduce thermal stresses compared to processing carried out without the modulation”, stating the prior art Nadaud et al. (US 20160168679 A1) and NPL Nakamura et al. “Suppression of Stress and Crack Generation in Local Glass Melting by Picosecond Laser Irradiation at a High Repetition Rates with Temporal Energy Modulation” fails to teach or suggest the newly added amendments. Examiner respectfully disagree because a “feed speed” is not clearly device and the selection of the feed speed (interpreted as movement of the workpiece while the laser is treating the workpiece) can clearly be selected by the user / operator to achieve a desired treatment. The result of the feed speed selection and achieving a modulation of a degree of heat accumulation is a result based on the operator’s actions. Therefore, the previously rejections given under 35 U.S.C. 102 are maintained.
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 JAMES F SIMS III whose telephone number is (571)270-7496. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 - 5:30 EST M-F.
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, Landrum F Edward can be reached at 571-272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JAMES F SIMS III/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761