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 .
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 “displacement and/or positioning module” and “device for exciting” in claim 1, “upper surface” in claim 4, “bonding head” and “the second part of the optical waveguide, at least in sections, is fixed to a bonding head” in claim 7, “the head end” in claim 8, and “the deflecting and beam-splitting unit and/or the laser generator and/or the collimator and/or the temperature sensor are arranged in a stationary manner outside the bonding head and/or wherein the beam-forming optical unit is fixed on the bonding head” in claim 9 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.
The examiner notes the applicants arguments drawn to the drawing objections but none of these arguments directly address what is not being shown or properly labeled, if present, and/or depiction of these features is not necessary since what is not shown is well-known in the art; i.e. prior art, and thus not necessary for the understanding of the invention.
Claim Interpretation
The limitation “a device for exciting” in claim 1 is still being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
The examiner acknowledges the applicant’s arguments drawn to this and notes nothing in 0026-0029 disclose what the device for exciting is. As for what one of ordinary skill in the art may consider the device to be is simply a matter of opinion since one may consider it to be a motor driving a piston or a piezo vibrator and not a transducer horn and associated drive electronics. Also as stated in the previous office action “means” is not required to invoke 112(f) and methods to not invoke 112(f).
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 7, and 9 are objected to because of the following informalities: in claim 1, “a thermal radiation” is grammatically incorrect since radiation is a uncountable noun and claims 7 and 9 are grammatically incorrect since there are too many “and/or”. Appropriate correction is required.
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 1-4 and 9-11 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 limitation “device for exciting” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 4 recites “an end face of the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide”. It is unclear if this end face is the same as that of claim 1. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as there are the same.
Claim 9 recites “a collimator” while claim 8 recites “a beam-forming optical unit” which is a collimator as noted in the specification. Thus, it is unclear if the collimator of claim 9 is in addition to or is the beam-forming optical unit. For the purposes of this examination, this limitation will be interpreted as either.
A broad range or limitation together with a narrow range or limitation that falls within the broad range or limitation (in the same claim) may be considered indefinite if the resulting claim does not clearly set forth the metes and bounds of the patent protection desired. See MPEP § 2173.05(c). In the present instance, claim 10 recites the broad recitation “1500 nm to 15000 nm”, and the claim also recites “1800 nm to 2100 nm” and claim 11 recites the broad recitation “200 nm to 1200 nm”, and the claim also recites “1070 nm” which are the narrower statement of the range/limitation. The claims are considered indefinite because there is a question or doubt as to whether the feature introduced by such narrower language is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action.
Claims 1-3 and 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troska et al. (US 2020/0282663 A1) in view of Vanzetti et al. (US 4,696,101) and Kim et al. (US 6,344,625 B1).
Concerning claim 1, Troska teaches:
An apparatus [joining arrangement shown in figure 1] for detecting temperature during laser-assisted ultrasonic bonding [0025], the apparatus comprising:
an automatic bonding machine [joining arrangement shown in figure 1] having a bonding tool [tool (42)], having a displacement and/or positioning module for the bonding tool [the tool is moved so the arrangement inherently has a displacement module; 0017] and having a device for exciting the bonding tool to ultrasonically vibrate [ultrasonic transducer (43)];
a laser generator to provide a laser beam [temperature unit (421) may contain a laser unit which inherently has a generator in in order to create a laser]; and
a temperature sensor [temperature unit (421) may contain an infrared temperature sensor; 0038-0039].
Troska does not teach:
an optical waveguide to guide the laser beam from the laser generator to the bonding tool, the optical waveguide having a multi-part design; and
a deflecting and beam-splitting unit provided between at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide;
wherein the deflecting and beam-splitting unit is arranged between the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide and is assigned to the temperature sensor such:
that the laser beam provided by the laser generator is guided through a first part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide to the deflecting and beam-splitting unit, then is incident on the deflecting and beam-splitting unit and there is deflected in a direction of a second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide and is guided through the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide to the bonding tool and the bonding tool is heated;
that a portion of a thermal radiation emitted by the bonding tool as a result of the heating is coupled into the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide via an end face of the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide that is facing the bonding tool, and is fed to the deflecting and beam-splitting unit; and
that at least some of the coupled-in thermal radiation passes through the deflecting and beam-splitting unit and then is incident on the temperature sensor.
Concerning the guiding of the laser,
Vanzetti teaches an arrangement for heating an area during bonding and controlling the heat by sensing the reflected radiation of the bonding area comprising Nd:YAG heating laser (20), optical fiber (12), lens (13), infrared detector (19), and dichroic mirror (14); wherein the laser beam is guided from the laser to the mirror via the optical fiber and lens and then onto the bonding area by the mirror, the lens renders the beam parallel, and the reflected radiation passes back through the mirror to the infrared detector; front page; 6:52-68.
Since Troska desires a laser that can heat the tool and a means for detecting the temperature of the tool it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Vanzetti arrangement since it can do both.
Concerning the second part of the optical waveguide,
Kim teaches an apparatus for laser welding comprising the laser (27), fibers (25, 17), dichromatic mirror (21), and radiation detectors (45, 47, 49); wherein the second fiber (17) carries the laser beam from the mirror to optical unit (59) which emits the laser beam to the bonding area; figure 2.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention that any number of fibers/wave guide parts can be used in order to get the laser beam to its destination, as taught by Kim, and to incorporate a second optical fiber and optical unit after the mirror to do so. One would have been motivated to use a second optical fiber as taught by Kim due to the positioning of the components that make up the joining arrangement and/or to keep sensitive components safe. In doing so, the second optical fiber would have the working end assigned to the outside of the bonding tool.
Concerning claim 2, this claim is addressed by the incorporation of Vanzetti as noted above:
wherein a collimator [Vanzetti lens (13)] is assigned to an end face of the first part of the optical waveguide facing the deflecting and beam-splitting unit such that the laser beam is incident on the deflecting and beam-splitting unit with an at least essentially parallel beam path [6:55-58].
Concerning claim 3, Troska teaches:
wherein the temperature sensor is connected to the laser generator via a communication link and wherein a control unit interacting with the temperature sensor and/or the laser generator is provided for operating the laser generator in dependance on the temperature of the bonding tool that is determined via the temperature sensor [0038-0040].
Concerning claims 7 and 8, these claims are addressed by the incorporation of Kim noted in the rejection of claim 1:
wherein the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide is assigned to the bonding tool from outside and/or wherein the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide is spaced at a distance from the bonding tool and/or wherein the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide, at least in sections, is fixed to a bonding head of the automatic bonding machine serving to receive and position the bonding tool and is moved along with the bonding head when it is displaced; and
wherein a head end of the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide is assigned a beam-forming optical unit such that a beam path is formed from the laser beam escaping from the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide.
Concerning claim 9, Troska does not teach:
wherein the deflecting and beam-splitting unit and/or the laser generator and/or a collimator and/or the temperature sensor are arranged in a stationary manner outside the bonding head and/or wherein the beam-forming optical unit is fixed on the bonding head and moved along with the bonding head when this is displaced.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to stationarily place Nd:YAG laser outside the bonding head as it does not need to move and/or the second fiber optic/optical unit (59) onto the bond head as the flexibility of the optical fiber would allow it to move.
Concerning claim 10, Troska does not teach:
wherein the temperature sensor has a wavelength measuring range of 1500 nm to 15000 nm or of 1800 nm to 2100 nm.
Vanzetti teaches infrared detector (19) measures radiation in the range of 2.5-5.5 µm; 6:64-66.
Thus, the incorporation of Vanzetti laser meets this limitation.
Concerning claim 11, Troska does not teach:
wherein the laser beam provided by the laser generator has a wavelength in the range of 200 nm to 1200 nm or of 1070 nm.
Kim teaches the wavelength of Nd:YAG laser is 1.06 µm; 6:25-30.
Thus, the incorporation of Vanzetti laser meets this limitation.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Troska et al. (US 2020/0282663 A1) in view of Vanzetti et al. (US 4,696,101) and Kim et al. (US 6,344,625 B1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Geissler et al. (US 8,020,746 B2).
Concerning claim 4, Troska does not teach:
wherein a recess is formed on a casing side of the bonding tool and wherein an end face of the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide facing the bonding tool is assigned to the recess such that the laser beam escaping from the second part of the at least two adjacent parts of the optical waveguide is incident on an upper surface of the recess.
Geissler teaches ultrasonic device (1) comprising tool (2) and laser interferometer (8), wherein the tool has region/recess (5) as to guarantee that the reflected light beam (7) is oriented parallel with respect to the incident light beam (6) when beam (6) hits the surface of the region; 8:1-21.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to incorporate the Geissler recess concept into Troska in order to guarantee that the reflected radiation is oriented parallel with respect to the laser beam. In doing so, the second optical fiber would be assigned to the region.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 3/22/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
The applicant argues,
“Importantly, Troska does not disclose detecting temperature by sensing thermal radiation emitted by the bonding tool.”
However, Troska specifically teaches using an infrared temperature sensor to detect the temperature of the joining tool; 0038, 0040. Note that infrared radiation is thermal radiation.
In response to applicant's argument that Kim is drawn to monitoring size and variation and focus shift of a weld pool during laser welding and thus is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Kim is analogous since Kim concerns the problem of how to direct a laser beam.
In response to applicant's argument that Vanzetti is drawn laser reflow soldering in which an infrared detector senses radiation emitted by heated solder material to determine the instant of solder liquefaction and thus is nonanalogous art, it has been held that a prior art reference must either be in the field of the inventor’s endeavor or, if not, then be reasonably pertinent to the particular problem with which the inventor was concerned, in order to be relied upon as a basis for rejection of the claimed invention. See In re Oetiker, 977 F.2d 1443, 24 USPQ2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1992). In this case, Vanzetti is analogous since Vanzetti concerns the problem of how to heat with a laser beam and sense the temperature of the heated object.
In response to applicant's arguments against the references individually, one cannot show nonobviousness by attacking references individually where the rejections are based on combinations of references. See In re Keller, 642 F.2d 413, 208 USPQ 871 (CCPA 1981); In re Merck & Co., 800 F.2d 1091, 231 USPQ 375 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Troska was not relied upon to teach a multi-part optical waveguide, optical coupling of thermal radiation emitted by the bonding tool, etc. Troska was relied upon to teach a laser generator, since this inherently needed to produce a laser, and that it is known to heat a bonding tool with a laser and to measure the temperature of the tool with an infrared sensor, which are for the same purpose as the applicant’s invention. In the case of Kim, the applicant again attacks the reference for elements that Kim was not relied upon and ignores that Kim is solely relied upon to teach how to use various elements to guide a laser beam. The applicant continues this pattern with Vanzetti while ignoring that Vanzetti is used to teach a laser system that can heat an object and detect the temperature of the heated object.
The applicant argues,
“Vanzetti does not disclose a multi-part optical waveguide in which laser radiation and thermal radiation propagate in opposite directions through the same waveguide”.
Note that Vanzetti clearly comprises/teaches the claimed multi-part optical waveguide components; see figure 3, and clearly teaches radiation reflected from the heated object returns to and passes through dichroic mirror (14) so that lens (16) can focus this reflected radiation into infrared detector (19); 6:52-7:3.
The applicant argues,
“In light of the forgoing, no cited reference teaches or suggests (i) laser-assisted heating of a bonding tool, (ii) a multi-part optical waveguide, or (iii) optical temperature detection based on thermal radiation emitted by the bonding tool”.
The examiner disagrees as (i) is taught by Troska, (ii) is taught by Vanzetti/Kim, and (iii) is the result of the combination of these.
In response to applicant's argument that the examiner's conclusion of obviousness is based upon improper hindsight reasoning, it must be recognized that any judgment on obviousness is in a sense necessarily a reconstruction based upon hindsight reasoning. But so long as it takes into account only knowledge which was within the level of ordinary skill at the time the claimed invention was made, and does not include knowledge gleaned only from the applicant's disclosure, such a reconstruction is proper. See In re McLaughlin, 443 F.2d 1392, 170 USPQ 209 (CCPA 1971).
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 CARLOS J GAMINO whose telephone number is (571)270-5826. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9-6.
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, Keith Walker can be reached at 5712723458. 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.
/CARLOS J GAMINO/Examiner, Art Unit 1735
/KEITH WALKER/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1735
Prosecution Insights