-1DETAILED 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 .
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, filed 7/22/2026, with respect to the rejection(s) of claim(s) 1-3 under 35 U.S.C 103 have been fully considered and are moot because of the amended claims of 7/22/2026. Therefore, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Japan Patent No. H0289418 U.
Claim Interpretation
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:
“a moving unit for moving the holding table and a focused spot of the pulsed laser beam relatively to each other” in claim 1. The word “unit” is a generic placeholder followed by the functional phrase “for moving the holding table and a focused spot of the pulsed laser beam relative to each other” that does not recite sufficient structure to perform the function. Furthermore the preceding word “moving” is not structural. The disclosed embodiment in the specification is “X-axis moving unit 41 (see paragraph 18) or Y-axis moving unit 42 (see paragraph 18) that each include a known ball screw, a known stepping motor and a pair of well-known rails (see paragraph 23). No other embodiment of the moving unit is disclosed.
Another such claim limitation is “a cooling unit for cooling an inside of the chamber” as recited in claim 1. The word “unit” is a generic placeholder followed by the functional phrase “for cooling an inside of the chamber” that does not recite sufficient structure to perform the function. Furthermore the preceding word “cooling” is non-structural. The disclosed embodiment is element 37 (see paragraph 40) that is supplied with cooling water from a cooling source (38).
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 § 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.
Claim(s) 1, 4, and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani et al. in WO 2021/100421 A1 in view of Nakamura 2013/0192310 A1 and further in view of Japan Patent No. H0289418 U hereinafter “Japan Patent No. H0289418 U”.
Regarding claim 1,
Ohtani et al. discloses a holding table (holding member 10) for holding a workpiece thereon;
a laser beam applying unit (laser beam source 21);
a moving unit (driving portion 30) , a condenser (lens 22b) for condensing the laser beam to focus the beam onto the workpiece. Between the laser beam applying unit and the condenser is a scanning unit (element 22) including a chamber (not labeled but shown in figure 1) with a window part where the laser beam enters the chamber, a second window part (where the laser beam exits the chamber) that communicates with the condenser (lens 22b) and a scanning motor for rotating the scanning mirrors (scanning mirror 22a is anticipated to have a motor to drive the scanning feature).
Ohtani et al. does not disclose that there is a first window for inlet to the chamber and a second window for outlet from the chamber nor rotatable scanning mirrors nor, and a cooling unit including a cooling structure disposed between the scanning motor and the scanning mirrors for cooling an inside of the chamber with cooling water.
Nakamura teaches a laser emitting a pulse (see paragraph 12) to first inlet window (element 21a, paragraph 21) to a chamber (element 20) holding mirrors (22B, 22C) and a second inlet window (element 21b, paragraph 20).
It would have been obvious to adapt Ohtani et al. in view of Nakamura to provide this to protect the mirrors and to isolate .
Japan Patent No. H0289418 U teaches cooling the motor of a high speed scanning mirror by flowing a cooling liquid (element 9) through a inner side housing (element 7) and outer housing (element 10).
It would have been obvious to adapt Ohtani in view of Nakamura and Japan Patent No. H0289418 U to provide this to remove heat from the motor moving the mirror.
Regarding claim 4,
Ohtani as modified teaches, The laser processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
And further teaches wherein: the laser beam applying unit emits the pulsed laser beam in an x-axis direction (see annotated fig. 1 below), the pulsed laser beam enters the chamber through the first window at approximately a 45 degree angle relative to the x-axis direction (see annotated fig. 1 below 90 degrees is approximately 45 degrees), and the pulsed laser beam exits the chamber approximately at approximately a 90 degree angle relative to the x-axis direction (see fig. 1).
PNG
media_image1.png
409
705
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 6,
Ohtani as modified teaches The laser processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
Ohtani et al. teaches, wherein the beam condenser is fixedly disposed on a wall of the chamber and forms the second window (fig. 1 and par. 15 teaches the fixed arrangement with respect to housing 21).
Claim(s) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani et al. in WO 2021/100421 A1 in view of Nakamura 2013/0192310 A1 in view of Japan Patent No. H0289418 U hereinafter “Japan Patent No. H0289418 U”, and further in view of Ling in CN-102944933-A.
Regarding claim 2,
Ling teaches enclosing rotating scanning mirror in a vacuum (see paragraph 5) to increase the scanning speed (see paragraph 9) for laser marking. It would have been obvious to adapt Ohtani et al. in view of Nakamura and Ling to provide this to increase the scanning speed of the laser beam by rotating the mirror faster.
Claim(s) 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ohtani et al. in WO 2021/100421 A1 in view of Nakamura 2013/0192310 A1 in view of Japan Patent No. H0289418 U hereinafter “Japan Patent No. H0289418 U” and further in view of US11984330B2 Paeng.
Regarding claim 5,
Ohtani as modified teaches, The laser processing apparatus according to claim 1 (as discussed above).
The difference between the prior art and the claimed invention is that Ohtani as modified does not teach: wherein the laser beam applying unit further includes an acousto-optic deflector that deflects the optical path of the pulsed laser beam in response to the acoustic frequency of the pulsed laser beam.
Paeng teaches a substrate processing system 2400 and further teaches wherein the laser beam applying unit (lens circuit 2206 including laser 2404) further includes an acousto-optic deflector (fig. 24 acousto-optic modulator 2423) that deflects the optical path of the pulsed laser beam in response to the acoustic frequency of the pulsed laser beam (column 21 lines 14 to 44).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to add the acousto-optic modulator 2423 of Paeng to the optical system 20 of Ohtani for the purpose of allows for pulsed laser beam generation having longer duration pulses for increased heating per pulse (Paeng column 21 lines 42 to 44).
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 ADAM M ECKARDT whose telephone number is (313)446-6609. The examiner can normally be reached 6 a.m to 2:00 p.m EST Monday to 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, Edward Landrum 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.
ADAM MICHAEL. ECKARDT
Assistant Examiner
Art Unit 3761
/ADAM M ECKARDT/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights