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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 20 November 2025 has been entered.
New Drawing, Specification, and Claim objections have been added in the current Office action.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 20 November 2025, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. However, after conducting an updated search, additional references were identified, which teach the amended portions of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 20 November 2025, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 14 have been amended.
Claims 1-19 are pending.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because the numbers, lines, and arrows in figs. 3a, 3b, 4a, 4b, 5a, 5b, 6a, and 6b are not black, sufficiently dense and dark, and uniformly thick and well-defined (37 CFR 1.84.l, MPEP 608.02). Instead, a grayscale font is used for the numbers, lines and arrows. 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.
Specification
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because it currently uses language with a phrase that can be implied: “A method …” Several sample abstracts are provided in MPEP 608.01.b.I.e. Recommend deleting this phrase from the first sentence of the abstract.
Claim Objections
Claim 12 is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend amending the claim to recite: “claim10.” Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claims 1, 6, and 8-13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumkar et al. (WO-2015114032-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 1, Kumkar teaches a method for laser processing (“Laser processing device with two different partial beams,” para 0001) of a workpiece (workpieces 25, fig. 20), the method comprising:
splitting a laser beam (beam 3, fig. 20) among a plurality of partial beams (beams 3a and 3b, fig. 20),
processing the workpiece (“joining the two workpieces,” para 0036) by focusing the plurality of partial beams into a plurality of at least partially overlapping partial regions (“focus volumes of both partial beams 3a, 3b,” para 0036; the regions of the two beams 3a and 3b overlap in fig. 20) of a continuous interaction region (combined melt volume 24, fig. 20), wherein partial beams are focused simultaneously into adjacent partial regions (the regions of the two beams 3a and 3b are also adjacent in fig. 20) of the continuous interaction region (“melting occurs simultaneously in the focus volumes of both partial beams 3a, 3b,” para 0036).
Kumkar, fig. 20
PNG
media_image1.png
446
593
media_image1.png
Greyscale
In this embodiment (fig. 20), Kumkar does not explicitly disclose a pulsed laser beam, each partial beam having one of two different polarization states, laser pulses of partial beams having different polarization states are focused.
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 16c), Kumkar teaches a pulsed laser beam (“ultra short pulses,” para 0028), each partial beam having one of two different polarization states (“orthogonally aligned polarization,” para 0028; rotated by “90°” due to the polarizer, para 0020), laser pulses of partial beams having different polarization states are focused (as shown in fig. 16c; “the partial beams 3a, 3b act simultaneously with regard to the flows essential for the expulsion of the ablation products,” para 0033).
Kumkar, fig. 16c
PNG
media_image2.png
890
634
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 20, in view of fig. 16c, where the beams 3a and 3b, as taught in fig. 20, were perpendicularly polarized partial beams with ultra short pulses, as taught in fig. 16c, in order to vary the pulse energy with increasing depth to achieve a melt volume with vertical edges and because by orthogonally aligning the beams, the formation of periodic nanostructures that normally form during laser pulsing can be suppressed or controlled (Kumkar, paras 0028 and 0032-0033).
Regarding claim 6, Kumkar teaches wherein at least two partial regions of the continuous interaction region are offset (vertical offset between beams 3a and 3b, fig. 20) with respect to one another in a longitudinal direction (vertical direction, fig. 20).
Regarding claim 8, in the fig. 20 embodiment, Kumkar does not explicitly disclose wherein the interaction region forms an ablation region for ablating a material of the workpiece.
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 16c), Kumkar teaches wherein the interaction region (interaction between beams 3a and 3b, fig. 16c) forms an ablation region (gap 21, fig. 16c) for ablating a material of the workpiece (“cutting gap,” para 0032).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 20, in view of fig. 16c, where the beams 3a and 3b, as taught in fig. 20, were used to form a cutting gap 21, as taught in fig. 16c, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one laser processing method known in the art (laser welding) with another (laser cutting) with predictable results (Kumkar teaches that the method shown in fig. 20 can also be used in fig. 16c to “achieve a cutting gap 21 with vertical edges over large cutting depths,” para 0032).
Regarding claim 9, the combination of the fig. 20 embodiment in view of the fig. 16c embodiment as set forth above regarding claim 8 teaches the invention of claim 9. Specifically, the fig. 16c embodiment teaches wherein the ablation region (gap 21, fig. 16c) is formed at an entrance-side surface of the workpiece (top surface of workpiece 25, fig. 16c) or at an exit-side surface of the workpiece (not explicitly disclosed), wherein during the laser processing, a predefined surface shape (“parallel cutting edges,” para 0032) is generated at the entrance-side or at the exit-side surface.
Regarding claim 10, Kumkar teaches wherein the interaction region (combined melt volume 24, fig. 20) forms a modification region for structural modification (“melting occurs,” para 0036) of a material of the workpiece (material of workpieces 25, fig. 20), wherein the material of the workpiece is transparent to the laser beam (“transparent workpiece,” para 0036).
Regarding claim 11, in the fig. 20 embodiment, Kumkar does not explicitly disclose wherein the material of the workpiece comprises glass.
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 16c), Kumkar teaches wherein the material of the workpiece comprises glass (“glass,” para 0030).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 20, in view of fig. 16c, where the transparent workpieces 25, as taught in fig. 20, were made of glass, as taught in fig. 16c, because one example of transparent workpiece is glass, and the laser processing method taught in figs. 16c and 20 is effective in transparent materials such as glass, where it is desirable to have nonlinear absorption to overcome the difficulty that arises in glass where repeated passings of a single beam result in a decreased amount of material that is processed (para 0030).
Regarding claim 12, in the fig. 20 embodiment, Kumkar does not explicitly disclose wherein the workpiece is separated after the structural modification along a modification contour formed during the laser processing in a volume of the workpiece.
However, in a different embodiment (fig. 16c), Kumkar teaches wherein the workpiece (workpiece 25, fig. 16c) is separated after the structural modification along a modification contour (“parallel cutting edges,” para 0032; contour of the gap 21, fig. 16c) formed during the laser processing in a volume of the workpiece (workpiece 25 is separated into two pieces at the bottom of 16c after the laser processing in the steps above the bottom figure in fig. 16c).
. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the embodiment of fig. 20, in view of fig. 16c, where the beams 3a and 3b, as taught in fig. 20, were used to form a cutting gap 21, as taught in fig. 16c, because this amounts to a simple substitution of one laser processing method known in the art (laser welding) with another (laser cutting) with predictable results (Kumkar teaches that the method shown in fig. 20 can also be used in fig. 16c to “achieve a cutting gap 21 with vertical edges over large cutting depths,” para 0032).
Regarding claim 13, the combination of the fig. 20 embodiment in view of the fig. 16c embodiment as set forth above regarding claim 12 teaches the invention of claim 13. Specifically, the fig. 16c embodiment teaches wherein the workpiece is separated by a mechanical process (not explicitly disclosed), a thermal process (“partial beams cut above the processing zone,” para 0032; construed as a thermal process because the beams cause thermal heating, which result in the cutting of the gap 21, fig. 16c), or an etching process (not explicitly disclosed).
Claims 2-5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kumkar et al. (WO-2015114032-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Rataj et al. (WO-2015128833-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 2, Kumkar teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the laser beam passes through a diffractive beam splitter and at least one birefringent polarizer during the splitting among the plurality of partial beams.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Rataj teaches wherein the laser beam (beam 10, fig. 3) passes through a diffractive beam splitter (beam offset element 7, fig. 3; “diffractive optical element,” para 0044) and at least one birefringent polarizer (“the polarizing beam offset element is an element made of birefringent material,” para 0044) during the splitting among the plurality of partial beams (beams 11 and 12, fig. 3).
Rataj, fig. 3
PNG
media_image3.png
532
770
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kumkar, in view of the teachings of Rataj, by using the laser processing device 1 of fig. 2 that includes a polarizing beam offset element 7 made of birefringent material, in particular a diffractive optical element, as taught by Rataj, instead of the processing optics 4, as taught by Kumkar, which requires less space than the conventional polarizer, while still enabling a sufficient separation distance between the two partial beams (Rataj, paras 0010 and 0041).
Regarding claim 3, Kumkar teaches the two partial beams are focused into adjacent partial regions (“focus volumes of both partial beams 3a, 3b,” para 0036; the regions of the two beams 3a and 3b are adjacent in fig. 20) of the continuous interaction region (combined melt volume 24, fig. 20).
Kumkar does not explicitly disclose wherein during the splitting of the laser beam, at one or more birefringent polarizer elements, at least one of: a lateral offset or an angle offset is generated between two partial beams having different polarization states,
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Rataj teaches wherein during the splitting of the laser beam (beam 10, fig. 3), at one or more birefringent polarizer elements (beam offset element 7, fig. 3; para 0044), at least one of: a lateral offset or an angle offset is generated between two partial beams (both beams 11 and 12 have lateral offsets and angle offsets, fig. 3) having different polarization states (s-polarized and p-polarized, fig. 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kumkar, in view of the teachings of Rataj, by using the laser processing device 1 of fig. 2 that includes a polarizing beam offset element 7 made of birefringent material, in particular a diffractive optical element, as taught by Rataj, instead of the processing optics 4, as taught by Kumkar, which requires less space than the conventional polarizer, while still enabling a sufficient separation distance between the two partial beams (Rataj, paras 0010 and 0041).
Regarding claim 4, Kumkar teaches wherein during the splitting of the laser beam (beams 3a and 3b, fig. 20), a longitudinal offset is generated between two partial beams having different polarization states (vertical offset between beams 3a and 3b, fig. 20), the two partial beams are focused into adjacent partial regions (“focus volumes of both partial beams 3a, 3b,” para 0036; the regions of the two beams 3a and 3b are adjacent in fig. 20) of the continuous interaction region (combined melt volume 24, fig. 20).
Kumkar does not explicitly disclose one or more birefringent polarizer elements.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Rataj teaches one or more birefringent polarizer elements (beam offset element 7, fig. 3; para 0044).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kumkar, in view of the teachings of Rataj, by using the laser processing device 1 of fig. 2 that includes a polarizing beam offset element 7 made of birefringent material, in particular a diffractive optical element, as taught by Rataj, instead of the processing optics 4, as taught by Kumkar, which requires less space than the conventional polarizer, while still enabling a sufficient separation distance between the two partial beams (Rataj, paras 0010 and 0041).
Regarding claim 5, the combination of Kumkar in view of Rataj as set forth above regarding claim 4 teaches the invention of claim 5. Specifically, Rataj teaches wherein the one or more birefringent polarizer elements (beam offset element 7, fig. 3; para 0044) comprises a birefringent lens element (the beam offset element 7 is construed as being a lens because the beams transmit through the element, figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 7, Kumkar teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein, during the laser processing, the continuous interaction region and the workpiece are moved relative to one another along a feed direction.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Rataj teaches wherein, during the laser processing, the continuous interaction region and the workpiece are moved relative to one another along a feed direction (“Centers are rotated or inclined relative to the feed direction.,” para 0058; construed such that the centers of the beams are moved relative to the workpiece in the feed direction 22 as shown in figs. 4-6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Kumkar, in view of the teachings of Rataj, by rotationally moving the beams along a feed direction, as taught by Rataj, for the beams 3a and 3b in fig 20, as taught by Kumkar, in order to form a melt volume with an asymmetrical edge relative to a feed direction, for the advantage of increasing the absorption of laser beam energy along the kerf front (Rataj, para 0058).
Claims 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rataj et al. (WO-2015128833-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Kumkar et al. (WO-2015114032-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Regarding claim 14, Rataj teaches a processing optical unit (laser processing head 3, fig. 2) for laser processing of a workpiece (workpiece 2, fig. 2), the processing optical unit comprising:
a diffractive beam splitter (beam offset element 7, fig. 3; “diffractive optical element,” para 0044) and one or more birefringent polarizer elements (“the polarizing beam offset element is an element made of birefringent material,” para 0044) for splitting a pulsed (“pulsed,” para 0011) laser beam (beam 10, fig. 3) among a plurality of partial beams (beams 11 and 12, fig. 3), each partial beam having one of two different polarization states (beam 11 is s-polarized and beam 12 is p-polarized, fig. 3), and
a focusing optical element (focusing optics 6, fig. 2), wherein the focusing optical unit is configured to focus laser pulses of partial beams having different polarization states (para 0089) simultaneously into adjacent partial regions (regions of beams 11 and 12 are adjacent and simultaneous, fig. 3; para 0080) of the continuous interaction region (region of the beams intersecting the workpiece 2, fig. 2).
Rataj does explicitly disclose focusing the plurality of partial beams in a plurality of at least partly overlapping partial regions of a continuous interaction region.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Kumkar teaches focusing the plurality of partial beams (beams 3a and 3b, fig. 20) in a plurality of at least partly overlapping partial regions (“focus volumes of both partial beams 3a, 3b,” para 0036; the regions of the two beams 3a and 3b overlap in fig. 20) of a continuous interaction region (combined melt volume 24, fig. 20).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Rataj, in view of the teachings of Kumkar, by using the laser processing head 3, as taught by Rataj, to join two workpieces 25 together, as taught by Kumkar in fig. 20, in order to use the polarized beams produced by the laser processing head for a targeted control of the melt volume, thereby preventing crack formation and enabling gap bridging in the melt volume (Kumkar, para 0036).
Regarding claim 15, Rataj teaches wherein the one or more birefringent polarizer elements (beam offset element 7, fig. 3; para 0044) produce a lateral offset and/or an angle offset between two partial beams (both beams 11 and 12 have lateral offsets and angle offsets, fig. 3) having different polarization states (s-polarized and p-polarized, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 16, the combination of Rataj in view of Kumkar as set forth above regarding claim 14 teaches the invention of claim 16. Specifically, Rataj teaches wherein the one or more birefringent polarizer elements (beam offset element 7, fig. 3; para 0044) produce two partial beams (beams 11 and 12, fig. 3) having different polarization states (s-polarized and p-polarized, fig. 3). Additionally, Kumkar teaches a longitudinal offset (vertical offset between beams 3a and 3b, fig. 20).
Regarding claim 17, Rataj teaches wherein the one or more birefringent polarizer elements (beam offset element 7, fig. 3; para 0044) comprise a birefringent lens element (the beam offset element 7 is construed as being a lens because the beams transmit through the element, figs. 2-3).
Regarding claim 18, Rataj teaches a laser processing apparatus (laser processing device 1, fig. 2) comprising: a processing optical unit (laser processing head 3, fig. 2) as claimed in claim 14 (please see rejection for claim 14 above), and a laser source (laser source 21, fig. 2) for generating the pulsed laser beam (beam in fig. 2; “pulsed,” para 0011).
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rataj et al. (WO-2015128833-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) in view of Kumkar et al. (WO-2015114032-A1, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure) as applied to claims 14 and 18 above and further in view of Akarapu et al. (US-20180093914-A1).
Rataj teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein the pulsed laser beam has a Gaussian beam profile.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing, Akarapu teaches wherein the pulsed laser beam has a Gaussian beam profile (“Gaussian beam,” para 0146; pulse laser beams 12, fig. 1B).
Akarapu, fig. 1B
PNG
media_image4.png
878
632
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Rataj, in view of the teachings of Akarapu, by using a Gaussian beam profile, as taught by Akarapu, for the beam from the source 21, as taught by Rataj, such that the beams passing through the offset element 7, as taught by Rataj, formed a Gauss-Bessel beam, as taught by Akarapu, in order to form a profile with peaks of the intensity the asymmetric pulsed laser beam along the focal line, enabling a more precise concentration of the beam along the desired line of separation (Akarapu, paras 0150 and 0229; fig. 2).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 20 November 2025 have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Kumkar or Rataj combined with Kumkar.
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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 7/30/2026
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights