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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 08/18/2026 has been entered.
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, 12-14 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashburn (US 5483037) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2005/0006345) and Brugger (DE 102018104829 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Mashburn discloses “a system” (fig.2) “for cleaning an oxide layer from an exterior surface of a base metal of a metal part” (intended use), the system comprising:
“a laser system” (28) for projecting a laser beam onto “an oxide surface of the oxide layer, the oxide layer formed on the exterior surface” (MPEP 2115. Col.1 at lines 10-20, i.e., The present invention relates generally to laser ablation devices and, more specifically, to a rapidly switched multiple target laser ablation system for depositing metal and metal oxide films on a substrate. The metal and metal oxide components are ablated individually or in combination by placing them on a movable support and synchronizing discharges of an ablation laser with movement of the support);
“a rotary system” (18 and 22) “for rotating the metal part about an axis” (col.3 at lines 1-7, i.e., The drum is rotated about rotation axis "A" by any suitable means for imparting high speed rotation), “the rotary system having a holder” (18) “for holding the metal part adjacent to the laser system” (col.2 at lines 63-67, i.e., A movable support 18 is mounted in the ablation chamber 12. In the illustrated embodiment, the support 18 is a rotatable drum having a plurality of target segments 20, each made of material to be ablated,); and
“a control system” (26) “for controlling a plurality of parameters for facilitating an ablation of the oxide layer from the exterior surface as the metal part is rotated about the axis by the rotary system” (col.3 at lines 27-33, i.e., This electrical signal is supplied to a controller 26 to help determine, along with other inputs, control of a pulsed ablation laser 28. The controller 26 controls the laser timing and energy levels needed to achieve a desired film composition. Col.1 at lines 10-20, i.e., The metal and metal oxide components are ablated individually or in combination by placing them on a movable support).
Modified Mashburn discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for values of the plurality of parameters are selected such that removal of the oxide layer is facilitated while ablation of the base metal is inhibited.
Thomas et al. teaches “values of the plurality of parameters are selected” ([0024] A laser was set up to operate with the following parameters:-[0025] Repetition rate: 3.5 kHz [0026] Scan speed: 400 mm/sec [0027] Spot size: .about.50 .mu.m [0028] Wavelength: 1064 nm [0029] Energy per pulse: 15 mJ [0030] Pulse width: .about.250 ns max [0031] Peak power: .about.200 KW) such that “removal of the oxide layer is facilitated while ablation of the base metal is inhibited” ([0007] Preferably, said pulsed radiation beam is effective also to etch or clean the surface of the substrate adjacent the interface. This is particularly useful to remove e.g. metal oxides. abstract, i.e., The removal is affected by creating an interaction effect at the interface between the substrate and the layer or coating to create an effect similar to a shockwave which causes local separation of the layer or coating at the interface. This suggest that no substrate is being removed only the coating is removed). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Mashburn with Thomas et al., by adding Thomas et al.’s laser parameter to Mashburn’s controller, to provide coating removal processing for specific type of coating material (para.0006-0007) as taught by Thomas et al.
Modified Mashburn is silent regarding a power density of the laser beam at the oxide surface reaches a vaporization threshold of the oxide layer whilst remaining below a vaporization threshold of the base metal, thereby facilitating removal of the oxide layer while inhibiting ablation of the base metal.
Brugger teaches “a power density of the laser beam at the oxide surface reaches a vaporization threshold of the oxide layer whilst remaining below a vaporization threshold of the base metal, thereby facilitating removal of the oxide layer while inhibiting ablation of the base metal” (fig.2 show that laser vaporizes and remove AlSi-coated layer while the intermetallic intermediate layer remains. Fig.2 implies that under the disclosed laser processing conditions, the laser exposure is sufficient to vaporize and ablate AlSi-coated layer but insufficient to vaporize and ablate the intermetallic intermediate layer). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mashburn with Brugger, by modifying Mashburn’s laser power density according to Brugger’s power density, to remove only a coating layer based on design specification.
Regarding claim 12, modified Mashburn discloses "a power level parameter of
the plurality of parameters" (Thomas et al., [0035], i.e., Example 1, 85KW and Example 2, 200KW) is adjusted in order to "provide for said ablation of the base metal is inhibited" (Thomas et al., [0007] Preferably, said pulsed radiation beam is effective also to etch or clean the surface of the substrate adjacent the interface. This is particularly useful to remove e.g. metal oxides. abstract, i.e., The removal is effected by creating an interaction effect at the interface between the substrate and the layer or coating to create an effect similar to a shockwave which causes local separation of the layer or coating at the interface. This suggest that no substrate is being removed only the coating is removed).
Regarding claim 13, modified Mashburn discloses “a power level parameter of the plurality of parameters is adjusted” (Thomas et al., [0035], i.e., Example 1, 85KW and Example 2, 200KW) in order to “inhibit causing a change in a material property of the base metal” (Thomas et al., [0007] Preferably, said pulsed radiation beam is effective also to etch or clean the surface of the substrate adjacent the interface. This is particularly useful to remove e.g. metal oxides. abstract, i.e., The removal is effected by creating an interaction effect at the interface between the substrate and the layer or coating to create an effect similar to a shockwave which causes local separation of the layer or coating at the interface. This suggest that no substrate is being removed only the coating is removed).
Regarding claim 14, modified Mashburn discloses “the power level parameter is selected” (Thomas et al., [0035], i.e., Example 1, 85KW and Example 2, 200KW) “in order to provide for a vaporization threshold within a predefined range” (functional language. In this case, the power level parameter is selected so that only the coating is removed and the vaporization threshold is within a predefined range).
Regarding claim 20, modified Mashburn discloses "the exterior surface having a
texture formed by the base metal" (Thomas et al., [0007] Preferably, said pulsed radiation beam is effective also to etch or clean the surface of the substrate adjacent the interface. This is particularly useful to remove e.g. metal oxides. abstract, i.e., The removal is affected by creating an interaction effect at the interface between the substrate and the layer or coating to create an effect similar to a shockwave which causes local separation of the layer or coaling at the interface. This suggest that no substrate is being removed only the coating is removed).
Claims 2 and 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashburn (US 5483037) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2005/0006345) and Brugger (DE 102018104829 A1) as applied in claims 1, 12-14 and 20 above, and further in view of Sercel et al. (US 2007/0017908).
Regarding claim 2, Mashburn discloses the plurality of parameters includes col.3 at lines 27-33, i.e., This electrical signal is supplied to a controller 26 to help determine, along with other inputs, control of a pulsed ablation laser 28. The controller 26 controls the laser timing and energy levels needed to achieve a desired film composition).
Mashburn is silent regarding a rotational speed of the metal part performed by the rotary system for the plurality of parameters.
Sercel et al. teaches “a rotational speed of the metal part performed by the rotary system” ([0027] In one embodiment, the workpiece 140 may be moved by rotating the workpiece 140 about a longitudinal axis under the patterned beam 132, as indicated by the arrow 142. Rotation of the workpiece 140 allows machining of a cylindrical surface, curved surface or other surface that wraps around the workpiece 140. In this embodiment, the workpiece 140 may be positioned on and rotated using a rotation stage 160, as is known to those skilled in the art. In one example, the rotation speed of the workpiece may be in the range of about 0.1 rpm to 10 rpm, and preferably about 1.5 rpm. [0029], i.e., In one embodiment, the mask translation, the part rotation and the laser may all be controlled using a controller 170, as is known to those skilled in the art. The scanning speed (e.g., the mask linear translation) and the workpiece speed (e.g., rotation) may be coordinated together with a precision laser fire-on-the-fly pulsing technique known to those skilled in the art to enable control of the power density and the feature image geometry). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mashburn with Sercel et al., by adding Sercel et al.’s parameter to Mashburn’s controller, to coordinate scanning speed and workpiece speed for controlling power density and the feature image geometry (para.0027 and 0029) as taught by Sercel et al.
Regarding claim 16, modified Mashburn discloses “a distance of the exterior surface from the axis is substantially constant” (140 has an exterior surface to the rotation axis of the workpiece is substantially constant).
Regarding claim 17, modified Mashburn discloses “a cross sectional shape of the metal part is circular” (MPEP 2115. Examiner noted that the workpiece is not part of the apparatus. Sercel et al., 140 has a cross sectional shape of the metal part is circular. [0030], to machine non-sensitive materials such as glass, metals).
Claim 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashburn (US 5483037) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2005/0006345) and Brugger (DE 102018104829 A1) as applied in claims 1, 12-13 and 20 above, and further in view of Cedric (WO 2021/205030).
Regarding claim 3, modified Mashburn discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the control system configured for controlling scanning of the laser beam on a plurality of paths along the axis, as the metal part rotates.
Cedric teaches “the control system” (The automation module 6) “configured for controlling scanning of the laser beam on a plurality of paths along the axis, as the metal part rotates” (MPEP 2115 with respect to the metal part (i.e., workpiece). Fig.2 shows the plurality of paths (item T) along axis X). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mashburn with Cedric, by adding Cedric’s control algorithm to Mashburn’s controller, to generate desired profile on the part to be machined on the workpiece (abstract) as taught by Mashburn.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashburn (US 5483037) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2005/0006345) and Brugger (DE 102018104829 A1) and Cedric (WO 2021/205030) as applied in claims 3 above, and further in view of Sercel et al. (US 2009/0127240).
Regarding claim 4, modified Mashburn discloses “the plurality of parameters includes parameters of the laser system selected from the group consisting of: “scan speed” (On page 4, i.e., the scanner 12 is arranged and / or configured to move the focal point of the laser at a speed of more than 0.5 m / s, or even more than 10 m / s, or even more than 20 m / s. The scanner 12is arranged and / or configured to move the focal point of the laser with accelerations of more than 5 m/ s .sup.2, or even more than 500 m / s .sup.2), “pulse frequency” (Cedric, on page 2, energy per pulse parameters. On page 3, i.e., The laser beam used to perform the machining is a laser beam composed of light pulses with a pulse duration between 100fs and 10ps. It can have a frequency greater than 50 kHz);
Modified Mashburn is silent regarding defocus for the parameters.
Sercel et al. teaches “defocus” ([0038] The beam delivery system 120 may also include optics to defocus the beam 112 during at least part of the machining process. For example, the beam may be defocused during the last pass of the COMO scanning to smooth the surface of the workpiece 102). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mashburn with Sercel et al., by adding Sercel’s algorithm to Mashburn’s controller, to defocused during the last pass of the COMO scanning to smooth the surface of the workpiece (para.0038) as taught by Sercel et al.
Claim 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashburn (US 5483037) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2005/0006345) and Brugger (DE 102018104829 A1) and Cedric (WO 2021/205030). as applied in claims 1, 12-13 and 20 above, and further in view of Okazaki et al. (US 5790620).
Regarding claim 5, modified Mashburn discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for an overlap between adjacent positions of the laser beam on the same path of the plurality of paths are defined by at least two of the plurality of parameters controlled by the control system, wherein the control system is configured to control the overlap to inhibit overheating of the base metal.
Okazaki et al. teaches “an overlap between adjacent positions of the laser beam on the same path of the plurality of paths are defined by at least two of the plurality of parameters controlled by the control system” (fig.2 shows multiple scanning lines in the same scanning direction, the overlap between adjacent positions of the laser beam on the same path of the plurality of paths. The scan lines by the laser beam is defined by the parameters such as pulse width (col.6 at lines 40-45, i.e., pulses width of 100 nsec or less, a peak output per 1 pulse is 0.1-10 GW/cm2. Col.19 at lines 1-10, i.e., sweeping speed is about 1.5 m/s. Col.31 at lines 1-30, i.e., the equation Z: pulse laser frequency. Examiner noted that if pulse laser frequency is part of the equation for laser characteristics, it means the frequency has been identified as factor in how the laser works), wherein “the control system is configured to control the overlap to inhibit overheating of the base metal” (the result of laser processing, the control system 214 controls the overlap as shown in fig.2. Okazaki et al does not overheating on the workpiece because the purpose of laser pulse is to improve the residual stress of a material not overheating the material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Mashburn with Okazaki et al., by adding Mashburn’s laser processing to Mashburn’s system, to improve residual stress of a material of a surface of a structure and remove crack (abstract) as taught by Okazaki et al.
Okazaki et al. teaches “an overlap between adjacent positions of the laser beam on different paths of the plurality of paths are defined by at least two of the plurality of parameters controlled by the control system” (col.6 at lines 40-45, i.e., pulses width of 100 nsec or less, a peak output per 1 pulse is 0.1-10 GW/cm2. Col.19 at lines 1-10, i.e., sweeping speed is about 1.5 m/s. Col.31 at lines 1-30, i.e., the equation Z: pulse laser frequency. Examiner noted that if pulse laser frequency is part of the equation for laser characteristics, it means the frequency has been identified as factor in how the laser works), wherein “the control system is configured to control the overlap to inhibit a material property change in the base metal” (the result of laser processing, the control system 214 controls the overlap as shown in fig.2. Okazaki et al does not overheating on the workpiece because the purpose of laser pulse is to improve the residual stress of a material not overheating the material). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to further modify Mashburn with Okazaki et al., by adding Mashburn’s laser processing to Mashburn’s system, to improve residual stress of a material of a surface of a structure and remove crack (abstract) as taught by Okazaki et al.
Claim 7 and rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashburn (US 5483037) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2005/0006345) and Brugger (DE 102018104829 A1) as applied in claims 1, 12-13 and 20 above, and further in view of Tanoue (US 11,752,576).
Regarding claim 7, Mashburn discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for said rotating is at a constant rate.
Tanoue teaches “said rotating is at a constant rate” (col.16 at lines 39-42, i.e., the laser processing can be carried out uniformly by maintaining a rotation speed of the chuck 100 constant). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mashburn with Tanoue, by modifying Mashburn’s rotating rate according to Tanoue’s rotating rate, to provide a pitch of the modification layers M in the horizontal direction can be uniform (col.16 at lines 39-42) as taught by Tanoue.
Claims 8 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mashburn (US 5483037) in view of Thomas et al. (US 2005/0006345) and Brugger (DE 102018104829 A1) as applied in claims 3 above, and further in view of Cedric (WO 2021/205030) and Chang et al. (US 2002/0046995).
Regarding claim 8, Mashburn discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for said scanning is performed at a constant scan rate along the plurality of paths.
Cedric teaches “said scanning is performed at a fig.2, item T pointed at the plurality of paths). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mashburn with Cedric, by adding Cedric’s control algorithm to Mashburn’s controller, to generate desired profile on the part to be machined on the workpiece (abstract) as taught by Mashburn.
Modified Mashburn is silent regarding constant scan rate.
Chang et al. teaches “constant scan rate” ([0009] the scan rate is a constant 200 mm/sec). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Mashburn with Chang et al., by modifying Mashburn’s scan rate according to Chang et al.’s scan rate, to provide desired scant rate (para.0024) as taught by Chang et al.
Regarding claim 10, Mashburn discloses “the texture comprises at least one of indents or projections in the exterior surface” (examiner noted that the workpiece is not part of the apparatus. MPEP 2115).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 15 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 03/19/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
(1) Applicant argues “Masburn in view of Thomas …” on pages 6-9 of remark.
In response, the amendment to claim changed the scope of invention and overcome prior rejections. However, examiner has introduced Brugger reference in current rejection. With respect to Thomas reference, Thoams teaches laser both etching and similar shockwave effect for laser process. However, shockwave effect is not the same as laser shock peening (LSP). Examiner agrees Thomas is silent regarding the amended portion (i.e., vaporization threshold). However, Brugger teaches the amended portion as shown in fig.2 of Brugger. With respect to oxide layer, examiner noted that the oxide layer (coating) is part of workpiece not part of the apparatus. MPEP 2115, i.e., "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
