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
This action is responsive to the amendments filed 02/17/2026. Claims 1-2, 4-11, 13 are pending in this application. As directed, claims 1, 2, 5-6, 13 have been amended; claims 3, 12, 14 cancelled.
With respect to Drawings Objections: Applicant’s amendments have overcome the Drawings Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/18/2025.
With respect to Claim Objections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the Claim Objections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/18/2025. Therefore, the Claim Objections are maintained in this Office Action, see details in the Claim Objections section below.
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections: Applicant’s amendments to the Claims have not overcome the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections set forth in the Non-Final Office Action dated 11/18/2025. Therefore, the 35 U.S.C. 112(b) Claim Rejections are maintained in this Office Action, see details in the 35 U.S.C. 112 Claim Rejections section below.
Response to Arguments
With respect to 35 U.S.C. 102 & 103 Claim Rejections: Applicant(s)’ arguments filed 02/17/2026 have been fully considered but are moot based on new ground(s) of rejection necessitated by amendments. Specifically, the newly cited references Kutsuna (WO 2010119995 A1, newly cited) and Ito et al. (WO 2012029123 A1, newly cited) are added to the rejections in this Office Action to teach the newly added limitations: “the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer is lower than that of the second layer, the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition is higher than the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition” as recited in the independent claim 1 (lines 17-20) and the independent claim 13 (lines 20-22), see details in the 35 U.S.C. 103 Claim Rejections section below.
Claim Objections
Claims 5-10 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 5 stated “(Previously Presented)”, however, the claim appears to have been amended. See 37 CFR 1.121(c).
Claim 5 recites the limitation “the first inter-layer condition” in lines 11-12. It is understood that the limitation “the first inter-layer condition” recited in claim 5 (lines 11-12) refers to the limitation “the predetermined first inter-layer condition” recited previously in claim 5 (lines 6-7). Therefore, the limitation “the first inter-layer condition” recited in claim 5 (line 11) should be changed to “the predetermined first inter-layer condition” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 5 (lines 6-7).
Claim 6 recites the limitation “the method” in line 5. This should be changed to “the laser processing method” to properly refers to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 6 (line 1).
Claims 7-10 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 6.
Claim 7 recites the limitation “the second inter-layer condition” in line 4. Since claim 7 depends on claim 6, it is understood that the limitation “the second inter-layer condition” recited in claim 7 (line 4) refers to the limitation “a predetermined second inter-layer condition” recited previously in claim 6 (lines 8-9). Therefore, the limitation “the second inter-layer condition” recited in claim 7 (line 4) should be changed to “the predetermined second inter-layer condition” to properly refer to the corresponding limitation recited previously in claim 6 (lines 8-9).
Claims 8-10 are objected by virtue of their dependence on claim 7.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “an amount of heat input by the laser per unit time to the workpiece light” in lines 23-24. This appears to be a typo and should be changed to “an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light”.
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 1-2, 4-11 and 13 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 “the surface” in “the surface of the second layer” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no surface of the second layer recited previously. Therefore, it is unclear “the surface of the second layer” recited in claim 1 (line 7) refers to what surface of the second layer. For examination purposes, the limitation “the surface of the second layer” recited in claim 1 (line 7) will be interpreted as the upper surface of the second layer.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “a surface of the second layer” in line 8. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 1 recites the limitation “the surface of the second layer” previously in line 7. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “a surface of the second layer” recited in claim 1 (line 8) refers to “the surface of the second layer” recited in claim 1 (line 7), or the limitation “a surface of the second layer” recited in claim 1 (line 8) refers to a different surface of the second layer. For examiner purposes, the limitation “a surface of the second layer” recited in claim 1 (line 8) and “the surface of the second layer” recited in claim 1 (line 7) will be interpreted as the same surface of the second layer.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the near-inter-layer position” in lines 12-13. It is unclear what this limitation refers to because there are two different “near-inter-layer position”(s) recited previously in claim 1, which are “a near-inter-layer position inward of the second layer” recited in claim 1 (lines 7-8) and “a near-inter-layer position inward of the first layer” recited in claim 1 (lines 8-9). Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “the near-inter-layer position” recited in claim 1 (line 12-13) refers to the near-inter-layer position inward of the first layer or the near-inter-layer position inward of the second layer recited previously in claim 1. For examination purposes, the limitation “the near-inter-layer position” recited in claim 1 (line 12-13) will be interpreted as the near-inter-layer position inward of the first layer.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the heat input per unit time” in the sentence “the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition” in line 19. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the heat input per unit time” in the claim because there is no heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition recited previously.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the heat input per unit time” in the sentence “the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition” in lines 19-20. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the heat input per unit time” in the claim because there is no heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition recited previously.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “the workpiece” in line 22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no workpiece recited previously. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the workpiece” recited in claim 1 (line 22) and the “base material” recited previously in claim 1 (line 2) are the same or different components.
Claims 2, 4-11 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation “a part from the surface of the second layer” in lines 2-3. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 4 depends on claim 1, however, claim 1 previously recites “a part from the surface of the second layer” in lines 14-15. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same part or different parts from the surface of the second layer.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “a second condition” in line 10. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 5 depends on claim 1, however, claim 1 previously recites “a second condition” in lines 15-16. Therefore, it is unclear if they are the same second condition or different second conditions.
Claim 5 recites the limitation “an amount of heat input under the first inter-layer condition” in lines 11-12. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation. Specifically, it is understood that the limitation “the first inter-layer condition” recited in claim 5 (lines 11-12) refers to the limitation “the predetermined first inter-layer condition” recited previously in claim 5 (lines 6-7) or in claim 1 (line 21), see Claim Objections section above. Claim 5 depends on claim 1, however, claim 1 recites “the predetermined first inter-layer condition is a condition in which an amount of heat input by the laser light” previously in lines 21-22. Since both “an amount of heat input” recited in claim 1 (lines 14-15) and claim 5 (line 11) refer to amount of heat input of the predetermined first inter-layer condition, therefore, it is unclear if “an amount of heat input” recited in claim 5 (line 11) and “an amount of heat input” recited in claim 1 (lines 21-22) are the same or different. For examination purposes, they will be interpreted as the same amount of heat input.
Claim 6 recites the limitation “a third layer” in line 7. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 6 recites the limitation “a third layer” previously in line 2. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “a third layer” recited in claim 6 (line 7) refers to the limitation “a third layer” recited in claim 6 (line 2), or the limitation “a third layer” recited in claim 6 (line 7) refers to a different third layer. For examination purposes, the limitation “a third layer” recited in claim 6 (line 7) and the limitation “a third layer” recited in claim 6 (line 2) will be interpreted as the same third layer.
Claims 7-10 are rejected by virtue of their dependence on claim 6.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the controller … cuts the second layer … with the laser light under a first condition” in lines 8-19. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because it is unclear how the controller itself is able to cut the second layer, the first inter-layer part, and the first layer, as required by claim 13 (lines 8-19). It is noted that Par.0026 of the Instant Application described: “The irradiation controller 30 controls an operation of the laser irradiating device 10. The irradiation controller 30 controls the output of the laser light L by the laser irradiating device 10. In the present embodiment, the irradiation controller 30 controls an output value of the laser light L which is output from the laser irradiating device 10.”. Therefore, according to the specification of the Instant Application, the controller is configured to control the laser irradiating device 10, and the laser irradiating device 10 is configured to perform cutting process. However, the claim 13 requires the controller to perform the cutting process by the controller itself in lines 8-19; therefore, claim 13 is unclear and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph. For examination purposes, the limitation “the controller … cuts the second layer … with the laser light under a first condition” recited in claim 13 (lines 8-19) will be interpreted as the controller is configured to control the laser irradiation part to perform the cutting process as defined by the Specification of the Instant Application.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “wherein the controller controls the operation of the laser irradiation part” in lines 8-9. However, claim 13 previously recites “a controller that controls an operation of the laser irradiation part” in line 7. Therefore, it is unclear why this limitation is repeated one more time in lines 8-9.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the surface” in “the surface of the second layer” in line 10. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no surface of the second layer recited previously in claim 13. Therefore, it is unclear “the surface of the second layer” recited in claim 13 (line 10) refers to what surface of the second layer. For examination purposes, the limitation “the surface of the second layer” recited in claim 13 (line 10) will be interpreted as the upper surface of the second layer.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “a surface of the second layer” in line 14. It is unclear what is meant by this limitation because claim 13 recites the limitation “the surface of the second layer” previously in line 10. Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “a surface of the second layer” recited in claim 13 (line 14) refers to “the surface of the second layer” recited in claim 13 (line 10), or the limitation “a surface of the second layer” recited in claim 13 (line 14) refers to a different surface of the second layer. For examiner purposes, the limitation “a surface of the second layer” recited in claim 13 (line 14) and “the surface of the second layer” recited in claim 13 (line 10) will be interpreted as the same surface of the second layer.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the near-inter-layer position” in lines 18-19. It is unclear what this limitation refers to because there are two different “near-inter-layer position”(s) recited previously in claim 13, which are “a near-inter-layer position of the second layer” recited in claim 13 (lines 13-14) and “a near-inter-layer position of the first layer” recited in claim 13 (lines 14-15). Therefore, it is unclear if the limitation “the near-inter-layer position” recited in claim 13 (line 18-19) refers to the near-inter-layer position of the first layer or the near-inter-layer position of the second layer recited previously in claim 13. For examination purposes, the limitation “the near-inter-layer position” recited in claim 13 (line 18-19) will be interpreted as the near-inter-layer position of the first layer.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the heat input per unit time” in the sentence “the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition” in line 21. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the heat input per unit time” in the claim because there is no heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition recited previously.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the heat input per unit time” in the sentence “the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition” in lines 21-22. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation “the heat input per unit time” in the claim because there is no heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition recited previously.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “the workpiece” in line 24. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim because there is no workpiece recited previously. Furthermore, it is unclear if “the workpiece” recited in claim 13 (line 24) and the “base material” recited previously in claim 13 (line 2) are the same or different components.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
Claims 1-2, 4, 11, 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,073,687 A, previously cited) in view of Kutsuna (WO 2010119995 A1, newly cited, Translation is attached), and further in view of Ito et al. (WO 2012029123 A1, newly cited, Translation is attached).
Regarding claim 1, Inagawa discloses a laser processing method (as shown in Inagawa Fig.1) of performing cutting processing of cutting a base material (print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Figs.1 & 3), which includes a first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) and a second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) laminated on one surface (upper surface of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) and having a thermal expansion coefficient different from a thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) (thermal expansion coefficient of resin is different from thermal expansion coefficient of copper, as evidenced by Engineering Tool Box [https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html, accessed on 05/18/2026]), by irradiating the base material (print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Figs.1 & 3) with laser light (Inagawa Col.4 lines 60-61 discloses: “The laser beam is irradiated to the print board 1”; or R1-R4 as shown in Inagawa Fig.3, it is noted that R1-R4 are laser beam generated by the same laser 6), the laser processing method comprising:
a step of cutting a first inter-layer part (first inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the base material (print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Figs.1 & 3) in a state where the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) is not exposed from the surface (upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3), which extends from a near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) inward of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) from a surface (upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) to a near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) inward of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) from the one surface (upper surface of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) through an inter-layer (inter-layer, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) between the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) and the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3), by irradiating the first inter-layer part (first inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) with the laser light under a predetermined first inter-layer condition (the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3 because Inagawa Figs.2-3 show the pulses P2 & P3 are used to cut the first inter-layer part [see the first inter-layer part in Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below], additionally, Inagawa Col.4 lines 44-47 discloses: “As shown in FIG. 2, the excitation pulses P2 to P6 to work the resin portion are set so as to gradually increase the pulse output and to gradually decrease the pulse widths”; therefore, pulses P2 to P3 are predetermined; therefore, Inagawa discloses the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3, Inagawa Figs.2-3); and
a step of cutting the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) by irradiating a part of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) inward from the near- inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) with the laser light under a first condition (the first condition is pulses P4 to P6 because Inagawa Figs.2-3 show the pulses P4 to P6 are used to cut the resin portion 1b),
a step of cutting the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) by irradiating a part from the surface (upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) to the near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) with the laser light under a second condition (the second condition is pulse P1 because Inagawa Figs.2-3 show the copper foil portion 1a is cut by pulse P1),
the predetermined first inter-layer condition (the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3, Inagawa Figs.2-3) is a condition in which an amount of heat input by the laser light is less than an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece under the first condition (the first condition is pulses P4 to P6, Inagawa Figs.2-3) (Inagawa Fig.2 shows the power output of pulses P2 & P3 are less than the power output of pulses P4 to P6; Inagawa Col.4 lines 44-47 also discloses: “As shown in FIG. 2, the excitation pulses P2 to P6 to work the resin portion are set so as to gradually increase the pulse output”; therefore, Inagawa discloses the predetermined first inter-layer condition is a condition in which an amount of heat input by the laser light is less than an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece under the first condition).
PNG
media_image1.png
608
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inagawa also discloses that the base plate layer is made of a composite resin material in which a mixture material such as glass fibers or the like to reinforce the base plate is mixed into the polyamide system resin material in Col.6 lines 62-66.
However, Inagawa does not explicitly disclose:
wherein the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer is lower than that of the second layer,
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition is higher than the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition
Kutsuna teaches (Kutsuna Translated Abstract):
a fiber-reinforced composite material including carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) (Kutsuna Translated Abstract teaches: “a fiber-reinforced composite material including CFRP”)
wherein the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer is lower than that of the second layer (It is noted that in combination, by substituting the Inagawa composite resin material (i.e., layer 1b of Inagawa, a composite resin material in which a mixture material such as glass fibers or the like to reinforce the base plate is mixed into the polyamide system resin material as indicated by Inagawa Col.6 lines 62-66) with the Kutsuna fiber-reinforced composite material including carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), Inagawa in view of Kutsuma teaches the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer (i.e., CFRP) is lower than that of the second layer (i.e., copper foil) because it is known that the thermal expansion coefficient of CFRP is lower than that of copper foil, as evidenced by Samejima et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0279765 A1, newly cited, see the Conclusions section of this Office Action regarding pertinent arts below), specifically, Samejima Par.0033 teaches: “the thermal expansion coefficient of CFRP is .+-.2 ppm/.degree. C. and thus the CFRP board almost does not thermally contract, the thermal expansion coefficient of the copper foil is as high as 16 ppm/.degree. C. and thus the copper foil contracts more”),
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition (it is noted that the first condition is the condition that is used to cut the first layer (in this case, the CFRP layer), Kutsuna Translated Document on page 9 – third paragraph teaches: “The fiber according to claim 1, wherein the pulse width is in the range of 100 picoseconds to 50 nanoseconds, and the energy density is 0.1 to 20 GW / cm .sup.2 by using a laser beam in air or in water. Laser processing method of reinforced composite material.”, thus, Kutsuna teaches 0.1 to 20 GW/cm2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Inagawa composite resin material with the Kutsuna fiber-reinforced composite material including carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of having the base plate layer that is made of a composite resin material. MPEP 2143 I (B). Furthermore, the CFRP provides high strength and lightweight characteristics, thereby improving structural strength and resistance to deformation, and allowing lighter multilayer structures while maintaining rigidity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, by adding the teachings of heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition, as taught by Kutsuna, in order to achieve improved cutting quality, stable machining, and efficient material removal with high precision, as recognized by Kutsuna [Kutsuna Translated Abstract].
Inagawa in view of Kutsuna does not explicitly teach:
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition is higher than the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition
Ito teaches a laser processing method of performing cutting processing of cutting a workpiece in which an insulating layer is sandwiched between a first conductor layer of copper foil and a second conductor layer of copper foil (Ito Translated Abstract & on page 2 – paragraph 9):
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition (it is noted that the second condition is the condition that is used to cut the second layer (i.e., the copper foil layer), in this case, Ito Translated Document on page 4 – paragraphs 3-4 teach the laser condition for cutting the copper foil layer is: “Energy density: 0.07 J / mm .sup.2” and “Oscillation frequency: 15 kHz”; therefore, (0.07 J / mm2) x (15 000 Hz) = 1050 W/mm2 = 0.000105 GW/cm2)
Therefore, in combination, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito teaches:
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition (Kutsuna teaches 0.1 to 20 GW/cm2, as cited and incorporated above) is higher than the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition (Ito teaches 0.000105 GW/cm2, as cited and explained above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, by adding the teachings of heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition, as taught by Ito, in order to precisely remove the copper foil layer while suppressing excessive thermal damage to the surrounding portions of the multilayer structure, thereby improving processing precision, machining quality and productivity.
Regarding claim 2, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito teaches the method set forth in claim 1, and also teaches:
wherein the predetermined first inter-layer condition (the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3, Inagawa Figs.2-3; as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1) is a condition in which the amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is less than an amount of heat input under the second condition (the second condition is pulse P1, Inagawa Figs.2-3) (Inagawa Fig.2 shows the power output of pulses P2 & P3 are less than the power output of pulse P1; therefore, Inagawa discloses the first inter-layer condition is a condition in which the amount of heat input by the laser light is less than an amount of heat input under the second condition).
PNG
media_image2.png
608
798
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 4, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito teaches the method set forth in claim 1, and Inagawa also discloses further comprising:
a step of cutting the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) by irradiating a part from the surface (upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) to the near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) with the laser light under the predetermined first inter-layer condition (the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3, Inagawa Figs.2-3; as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1 above) (Inagawa discloses portion of the copper foil portion 1a is ablated with P1, and the rest of the copper foil portion 1a and part of the resin portion 1b is cut by P2 & P3, as shown in Inagawa Figs.2-3; therefore, the step of cutting the copper foil portion 1a from the upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a to the near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1a with pulses P1 to P3; thus, part of the process is cut with the laser light under the predetermined first inter-layer condition pulses P2 & P3. Therefore, part of the process of cutting the copper foil portion 1a by irradiating part of the upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a to the near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1a with the laser light under the predetermined first inter-layer condition pulses P2 & P3)
PNG
media_image1.png
608
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 11, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito teaches the method set forth in claim 1, and also teaches
wherein the predetermined first inter-layer condition (the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3, Inagawa Figs.2-3; as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1) and the first condition (the first condition is pulses P4 to P6, Inagawa Figs.2-3 and as modified by Kutsuna; as cited and incorporated in the rejection of claim 1 above) are different from each other in at least one of an output of the laser light (Inagawa Fig.2 & from the rejection of claim 1 above, the power output of pulses P2 & P3 and the power output of pulses P4 to P6 are different), a scanning speed of the laser light, or a spot diameter of the laser light [it is noted that the limitation “at least one of an output of the laser light, a scanning speed of the laser light, or a spot diameter of the laser light” is in alternative form; therefore, only one of these was required during examination].
Regarding claim 13, Inagawa discloses a laser processing device (as shown in Inagawa Fig.1) that performs cutting processing of cutting a base material (print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Figs.1 & 3), which includes a first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) and a second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) laminated on one surface (upper surface of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) and having a thermal expansion coefficient different from a thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) (thermal expansion coefficient of resin is different from thermal expansion coefficient of copper, as evidenced by Engineering Tool Box [https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html, accessed on 05/21/2026]), by irradiating the base material (print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Figs.1 & 3) with laser light (laser light, Inagawa annotated Fig.1 below) (Inagawa Col.4 lines 60-61 discloses: “The laser beam is irradiated to the print board 1”), the laser processing device (as shown in Inagawa Fig.1) comprising:
a laser irradiation part (carbon dioxide (CO2) laser 6, Inagawa Fig.1) that irradiates the base material (print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Figs.1 & 3) with the laser light (laser light, Inagawa annotated Fig.1 below) (Inagawa Col.4 lines 60-61 discloses: “The laser beam is irradiated to the print board 1”); and
a controller (“computer”, Inagawa Col.2 lines 24-25) that controls an operation of the laser irradiation part (carbon dioxide (CO2) laser 6, Inagawa Fig.1) (Inagawa Col.2 lines 18-28 discloses: “the invention provides a working method whereby constructing conditions of a print board in which holes are to be formed, for instance, a material and a thickness of a resin of a resin base plate layer and thickness dimensions of copper foil portions of front and back surfaces of the base plate layer are processed into information which can be controlled by a computer, an output value and an output time of a laser beam are determined on the basis of the information processed signal, and thereby enabling the holes to be highly accurately formed.”),
wherein the controller (“computer”, Inagawa Col.2 lines 24-25)
controls the operation of the laser irradiation part (carbon dioxide (CO2) laser 6, Inagawa Fig.1) (Inagawa Col.2 lines 18-28 discloses: “the invention provides a working method whereby constructing conditions of a print board in which holes are to be formed, for instance, a material and a thickness of a resin of a resin base plate layer and thickness dimensions of copper foil portions of front and back surfaces of the base plate layer are processed into information which can be controlled by a computer, an output value and an output time of a laser beam are determined on the basis of the information processed signal, and thereby enabling the holes to be highly accurately formed.”)
cuts the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) by irradiating a part from the surface (upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) to the near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) with the laser light under a second condition (the second condition is pulse P1 because Inagawa Figs.2-3 show the copper foil portion 1a is cut by pulse P1),
cuts a first inter-layer part (first inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the base material (print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Figs.1 & 3) in a state where the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) is not exposed from the surface (upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3), which extends from a near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) inward from a surface (upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) of the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) to a near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) inward from the one surface (upper surface of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) through an inter-layer (inter-layer, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) between the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) and the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3), by irradiating the first inter-layer part (first inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) with the laser light under a predetermined first inter-layer condition (the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3 because Inagawa Figs.2-3 show the pulses P2 & P3 are used to cut the first inter-layer part [see the first inter-layer part in Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below], additionally, Inagawa Col.4 lines 44-47 discloses: “As shown in FIG. 2, the excitation pulses P2 to P6 to work the resin portion are set so as to gradually increase the pulse output and to gradually decrease the pulse widths”; therefore, pulses P2 to P6 are predetermined; therefore, Inagawa discloses the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3, Inagawa Figs.2-3), and
cuts the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) by irradiating a part of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) inward from the near- inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) with the laser light under a first condition (the first condition is pulses P4 to P6 because Inagawa Figs.2-3 show the pulses P4 to P6 are used to cut the resin portion 1b), and
the predetermined first inter-layer condition (the predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3, Inagawa Figs.2-3) is a condition in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is less than an amount of heat input under the first condition (the first condition is pulses P4 to P6, Inagawa Figs.2-3) (Inagawa Fig.2 shows the power output of pulses P2 & P3 are less than the power output of pulses P4 to P6; Inagawa Col.4 lines 44-47 also discloses: “As shown in FIG. 2, the excitation pulses P2 to P6 to work the resin portion are set so as to gradually increase the pulse output”; therefore, Inagawa discloses the first inter-layer condition is a condition in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is less than an amount of heat input under the first condition).
PNG
media_image3.png
589
689
media_image3.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image1.png
608
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inagawa also discloses that the base plate layer is made of a composite resin material in which a mixture material such as glass fibers or the like to reinforce the base plate is mixed into the polyamide system resin material in Col.6 lines 62-66.
However, Inagawa does not explicitly disclose:
the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer is lower than that of the second layer,
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition is higher than the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition
Kutsuna teaches (Kutsuna Translated Abstract):
a fiber-reinforced composite material including carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP) (Kutsuna Translated Abstract teaches: “a fiber-reinforced composite material including CFRP”)
wherein the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer is lower than that of the second layer (It is noted that in combination, by substituting the Inagawa composite resin material (i.e., layer 1b of Inagawa, a composite resin material in which a mixture material such as glass fibers or the like to reinforce the base plate is mixed into the polyamide system resin material as indicated by Inagawa Col.6 lines 62-66) with the Kutsuna fiber-reinforced composite material including carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), Inagawa in view of Kutsuma teaches the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer (i.e., CFRP) is lower than that of the second layer (i.e., copper foil) because it is known that the thermal expansion coefficient of CFRP is lower than that of copper foil, as evidenced by Samejima et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0279765 A1, newly cited, see the Conclusions section of this Office Action regarding pertinent arts below), specifically, Samejima Par.0033 teaches: “the thermal expansion coefficient of CFRP is .+-.2 ppm/.degree. C. and thus the CFRP board almost does not thermally contract, the thermal expansion coefficient of the copper foil is as high as 16 ppm/.degree. C. and thus the copper foil contracts more”),
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition (it is noted that the first condition is the condition that is used to cut the first layer (in this case, the CFRP layer), Kutsuna Translated Document on page 9 – third paragraph teaches: “The fiber according to claim 1, wherein the pulse width is in the range of 100 picoseconds to 50 nanoseconds, and the energy density is 0.1 to 20 GW / cm .sup.2 by using a laser beam in air or in water. Laser processing method of reinforced composite material.”, thus, Kutsuna teaches 0.1 to 20 GW/cm2)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to substitute the Inagawa composite resin material with the Kutsuna fiber-reinforced composite material including carbon fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP), because the substitution of one known element for another with no change in their respective functions, and the modification would yield a predictable result of having the base plate layer that is made of a composite resin material. MPEP 2143 I (B). Furthermore, the CFRP provides high strength and lightweight characteristics, thereby improving structural strength and resistance to deformation, and allowing lighter multilayer structures while maintaining rigidity.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, by further adding the teachings of heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition, as taught by Kutsuna, in order to achieve improved cutting quality, stable machining, and efficient material removal with high precision, as recognized by Kutsuna [Kutsuna Translated Abstract].
Inagawa in view of Kutsuna does not explicitly teach:
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition is higher than the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition
Ito teaches a laser processing apparatus for cutting a workpiece in which an insulating layer is sandwiched between a first conductor layer of copper foil and a second conductor layer of copper foil (Ito Translated Abstract & on page 2 – paragraph 9):
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition (it is noted that the second condition is the condition that is used to cut the second layer (i.e., the copper foil layer), in this case, Ito Translated Document on page 4 – paragraphs 3-4 teach the laser condition for cutting the copper foil layer is: “Energy density: 0.07 J / mm .sup.2” and “Oscillation frequency: 15 kHz”; therefore, (0.07 J / mm2) x (15 000 Hz) = 1050 W/mm2 = 0.000105 GW/cm2)
Therefore, in combination, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito teaches:
the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the first condition (Kutsuna teaches 0.1 to 20 GW/cm2, as cited and incorporated above) is higher than the heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition (Ito teaches 0.000105 GW/cm2, as cited and explained above)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, by adding the teachings of heat input per unit time by the laser light under the second condition, as taught by Ito, in order to precisely remove the copper foil layer while suppressing excessive thermal damage to the surrounding portions of the multilayer structure, thereby improving processing precision, machining quality and productivity.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,073,687 A, previously cited) in view of Kutsuna (WO 2010119995 A1, newly cited), Ito et al. (WO 2012029123 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Kim et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2013/0095586 A1, previously cited) and Saeki et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2019/0304838 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 5, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito teaches the method set forth in claim 1, and Inagawa also discloses:
wherein the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) and the first inter-layer part (first inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) are cut by irradiating the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) and the first inter-layer part (first inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) with the laser light under the predetermined first inter- layer condition (predetermined first inter-layer condition is pulses P2 & P3, Inagawa Figs.2-3; as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 1. Furthermore, Inagawa discloses portion of the copper foil portion 1a is ablated with P1, and the rest of the copper foil portion 1a and part of the resin portion 1b is cut by P2 & P3, as shown in Inagawa Figs.2-3; therefore, the step of cutting the copper foil portion 1a from the upper surface of the copper foil portion 1a to the near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1a with pulses P1 to P3; thus, part of the process is cut with the laser light under the predetermined first inter-layer condition pulses P2 & P3. Therefore, the copper foil portion 1a and the first inter-layer part are cut by irradiating the copper foil portion 1a and the first inter-layer part with the laser light under the predetermined first inter- layer condition)
PNG
media_image1.png
608
798
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito does not teach:
a step of setting, on the base material before the cutting, a processing line as a boundary between a product to be cut and a remaining portion which is the base material after the product is cut out, wherein the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut along the processing line by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part with the laser light along the processing line, and
the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part closer to a side of the remaining portion than the processing line with the laser light under a second condition, in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is greater than an amount of heat input under the first inter-layer condition.
Kim teaches a laser processing method (Kim Figs.6-7):
a step of setting, on the base material (material layer 30 and substrate 10, Kim Figs.6-7) before the cutting, a processing line (cutting line C, Kim Figs.6-7) as a boundary between a product to be cut (product to be cut is on the left side of the cutting line C, Kim annotated Fig.7 below) and a remaining portion (remaining portion is on the right side of the cutting line C, Kim annotated Fig.7 below) which is the base material (material layer 30 and substrate 10, Kim Figs.6-7) after the product (product is on the left side of the cutting line C, Kim annotated Fig.7 below) is cut out, wherein the second layer (material layer 30, Kim Figs.6-7) and the first inter-layer part (it is noted that the first inter-layer part is extends from a near-inter-layer position inward from a surface of the second layer to a near-inter-layer position inward from the one surface of the first layer, which is extends from a near-inter-layer position inward from a surface of the material layer 30 to a near-inter-layer position inward from the surface of the substrate 10, as shown in Kim Fig.7) are cut along the processing line (cutting line C, as shown in Kim Fig.7) by irradiating the second layer (material layer 30, Kim Fig.7) and the first inter-layer part (it is noted that the first inter-layer part is extends from a near-inter-layer position inward from a surface of the second layer to a near-inter-layer position inward from the one surface of the first layer, which is extends from a near-inter-layer position inward from a surface of the material layer 30 to a near-inter-layer position inward from the surface of the substrate 10, as shown in Kim Fig.7) with the laser light (L, Kim Fig.7) along the processing line (cutting line C, as shown in Kim Fig.7) (it is noted that the primary reference Inagawa already disclose the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part with the laser light under the first inter- layer condition, as cited and explained previously in the rejection of this claim 5; therefore, in combination, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Kim teaches the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut along the processing line by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part with the laser light under the first inter- layer condition along the processing line)
PNG
media_image4.png
457
732
media_image4.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito, by adding the teachings of a step of setting, on the base material before the cutting, a processing line as a boundary between a product to be cut and a remaining portion which is the base material after the product is cut out, wherein the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut along the processing line, as taught by Kim, in order to allow visual confirmation of the line to be processed by the laser light, ensuring accuracy and preventing errors; thus, providing precise laser cuts.
Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Kim teaches the method as set forth above, but does not explicitly teach:
the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part closer to a side of the remaining portion than the processing line with the laser light under a second condition, in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is greater than an amount of heat input under the first inter-layer condition.
Saeki teaches a laser processing method (Saeki Fig.14):
the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part (it is noted that the primary reference Inagawa already discloses the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part, as cited and explained previously in the rejection of this claim 5) closer to a side of the remaining portion (remaining portion is portion on the right side of the preset-line Y1, Saeki annotated Fig.14 below) than the processing line (preset-line Y3, Saeki Fig.14) with the laser light under a second condition (Saeki Par.0121 teaches: “Although FIG. 14 depicts three of the irradiation preset-lines in the width direction along the dicing region 110, the number of the irradiation preset-lines is not limited thereto. Even if the melting laser beam Lm is irradiated along four or more of the irradiation preset-lines in the width direction of the dicing region 110, the last irradiation is made along the irradiation preset-line closest to one side portion of the dicing region 110”; therefore, Saeki teaches plurality of irradiation in which the last irradiation is made along the irradiation preset-line closest to one side portion of the dicing region 110; thus, the last irradiation could be on Y1 or Y2), in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is greater than an amount of heat input under the first inter-layer condition (it is noted that the primary reference Inagawa already disclose the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part with the laser light under the first inter- layer condition, as cited and explained previously in the rejection of this claim 5; therefore, in combination, by irradiating more on one specific side, the second condition would have greater heat input compared to the first inter-layer condition).
PNG
media_image5.png
612
629
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Kim, by adding the teachings the second layer and the first inter-layer part are cut by irradiating the second layer and the first inter-layer part closer to a side of the remaining portion than the processing line with the laser light under a second condition, in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is greater than an amount of heat input under the first inter-layer condition, as taught by Saeki, in order to achieve the accurate predetermined size of the product after the product is cut out because without this modification, the laser radiation tends to remove a small portion of the product along the processing line during cutting. Therefore, the modification would allow products after cutting to have consistent size, and thus, the overall product quality would be improved.
Claims 6-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,073,687 A, previously cited) in view of Kutsuna (WO 2010119995 A1, newly cited), Ito et al. (WO 2012029123 A1, newly cited), and further in view of Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 6, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito teaches the method set forth in claim 1, and Inagawa also discloses:
wherein in the base material (print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Figs.1 & 3), a third layer (copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Fig.3) having a thermal expansion coefficient different from the thermal expansion coefficient of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) (thermal expansion coefficient of resin is different from thermal expansion coefficient of copper, as evidenced by Engineering Tool Box [https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/linear-expansion-coefficients-d_95.html, accessed on 11/13/2025]) is formed on an other surface (bottom surface of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3),
the method further comprises a step of cutting a second inter-layer part (second inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) (it is noted that the print board 1 comprising copper foil portion 1a, resin portion 1b and copper foil portion 1c is cut step by step by plural number of pulses, which means with each laser pulse, a small portion of the print board 1 is removed until the entire print board 1 is cut as shown in the final step in Inagawa Fig.3; it is noted that the annotated Fig.3 below is for illustration purpose only to better understand/describe the invention of Inagawa when cutting the resin portion 1b by plural number of pulses), which extends from a near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position inward from the bottom surface of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) inward from the other surface (bottom surface of the resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) of the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) to a near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of a third layer (copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Fig.3) inward from a surface (bottom surface of the copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Fig.3) of the third layer (copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Fig.3) through an inter-layer (inter-layer between 1b and 1c, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) between the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3) and the third layer (copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Fig.3) under a predetermined second inter-layer condition (the predetermined second inter-layer condition is pulses that are between pulses P4-P6 because Inagawa Figs.2-3 show the pulses P4-P6 are used to cut from the resin portion 1b to portion of the copper foil portion 1c before the print board 1 is cut completely/entirely, additionally, Inagawa Col.4 lines 44-47 discloses: “As shown in FIG. 2, the excitation pulses P2 to P6 to work the resin portion are set so as to gradually increase the pulse output and to gradually decrease the pulse widths”; therefore, pulses P4-P6 are predetermined; therefore, Inagawa discloses the predetermined second inter-layer condition is pulses that are between pulses P4-P6, Inagawa Figs.2-3), by irradiating the second inter-layer part (second inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) with the laser light (Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below shows irradiating the second inter-layer part with the laser light)
PNG
media_image6.png
652
770
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito does not teach:
the predetermined second inter-layer condition is a condition in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is less than the amount of heat input under the first condition.
Chang teaches a laser processing method (Chang Figs.5-8):
the predetermined second inter-layer condition (it is noted that the second inter-layer condition is the step of cutting the second inter-layer part that is between the first layer and the third layer that is located directly below the first layer, as recited previously in claim 6; therefore, the second inter-layer condition is the step of using laser beam 23 as shown in Chang Figs.7-8) is a condition in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is less than the amount of heat input under the first condition (it is noted that the first condition is the step of cutting the first layer, as recited in claim 1; therefore, in this case, the first condition is step of using the laser beam 22 to cut the hole 20 and leave the membrane 25 at the bottom of the hole 20 as shown in Chang Figs.5-6; Chang Par.0063 teaches: “The infrared laser beam 22 can remove almost all of the interior of the hole 20 leaving only a thin membrane 25 at the bottom. The lower power short wavelength laser beam 23 can then trepan the hole cleaning up the edge and removing the membrane 25 at the same time thereby reducing the amount of laser light which exits the hole 20.”; therefore, Chang teaches the laser beam 23 has lower power than the laser beam 22; thus, Chang teaches the second inter-layer condition is a condition in which an amount of heat input by the laser light is less than the amount of heat input under the first condition).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna and Ito, by adding the teachings of the predetermined second inter-layer condition is a condition in which an amount of heat input per unit time to the workpiece by the laser light is less than the amount of heat input under the first condition, as taught by Chang, in order to accurately clean up ragged hole/groove so that the final cut has dimensions of high precision because in some industrial applications, there are critical elements behind the partial cut (hole/groove) which cannot be exposed to high power laser light, as recognized by Chang [Chang, Pars.0009 & 0063].
Regarding claim 7, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Chang teaches the method set forth in claim 6, Inagawa also discloses further comprising
a step of cutting the third layer (copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Fig.3) by irradiating a part of the near-inter-layer position (near-inter-layer position of the copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) of the third layer (copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Fig.3) with the laser light under a third condition (the third condition are pulses P7-P8, Inagawa Figs.2-3) in which an amount of heat input by the laser light is greater than the amount of heat input under the second inter- layer condition (the predetermined second inter-layer condition is pulses that are between pulses P4-P6, Inagawa Figs.2-3; as cited and explained in the rejection of claim 6 above) (Inagawa Figs.2-3 shows pulses P7-P8 have greater power output than pulses P4-P6; therefore, Inagawa discloses the third condition in which an amount of heat input by the laser light is greater than the amount of heat input under the second inter- layer condition).
PNG
media_image6.png
652
770
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 8, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Chang teaches the method set forth in claim 7, Inagawa also discloses:
wherein the steps of cutting the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3), the first inter-layer part (first inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below), the first layer (resin portion 1b, Inagawa Fig.3), the second inter-layer part (second inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below), and the third layer (copper foil portion 1c, Inagawa Fig.3) are executed in this order (as shown in Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below).
PNG
media_image7.png
652
773
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,073,687 A, previously cited) in view of Kutsuna (WO 2010119995 A1, newly cited), Ito et al. (WO 2012029123 A1, newly cited), Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Sercel et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0234807 A1, previously cited).
Regarding claim 9, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Chang teaches the method set forth in claim 7, and Inagawa also discloses:
wherein the steps of cutting the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) and the first inter-layer part (first inter-layer part, Inagawa annotated Fig.3 below) are executed with the second layer (copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) disposed on a side (upper side of the copper foil portion 1a, Inagawa Fig.3) irradiated with the laser light (laser light R1-R2, it is noted that R1-R4 are laser beam generated by the same laser 6, as cited in the rejection of claim 1 above),
PNG
media_image7.png
652
773
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Chang does not teach:
then, the third layer is disposed on the side irradiated with the laser light, and the steps of cutting the third layer and the second inter-layer part are executed, and then, the step of cutting the first layer is executed on the first layer exposed through the cutting.
Sercel teaches a laser processing method (Sercel Fig.13 and Par.0082):
then, the third layer is disposed on the side irradiated with the laser light (Sercel Par. 0082 teaches: “one side of the workpiece may be scribed with the laser beam spot optimized for that side, the workpiece may be flipped, and the other side may be scribed with the laser beam spot optimized for that side”; it is noted that the primary reference Inagawa already discloses the third layer copper foil portion 1c is located at the bottom of the base material 1, as cited and explained previously; thus, in combination, by adding the teaching of flipping the workpiece, as taught by Sercel, the modification would allow the Inagawa third layer copper foil portion 1c to be disposed on the side that is irradiated with the laser light), and the steps of cutting the third layer and the second inter-layer part are executed (Sercel Par. 0082 teaches: “one side of the workpiece may be scribed with the laser beam spot optimized for that side, the workpiece may be flipped, and the other side may be scribed with the laser beam spot optimized for that side”; therefore, in combination, by adding the teaching of flipping the workpiece, as taught by Sercel, when the Inagawa base material 1 is flipped, the Inagawa third layer copper foil portion 1c is disposed on the side irradiated with the laser light and cut by the laser light, thus, the Inagawa third layer copper foil portion 1c and the second inter-layer part [see the second inter-layer part in Inagawa annotated Fig.3 above] are executed), and then, the step of cutting the first layer is executed on the first layer exposed through the cutting (as explained previously, in combination, by adding the teaching of flipping the workpiece, as taught by Sercel, when the Inagawa base material 1 is flipped, the Inagawa third layer copper foil portion 1c is disposed on the side irradiated with the laser light and cut by the laser light, thus, the Inagawa third layer copper foil portion 1c and the second inter-layer part [see the second inter-layer part in Inagawa annotated Fig.3 above] are executed, thus, the cutting through the first layer resin portion 1b is then executed because the first layer resin portion 1b is located right below the third layer copper foil portion 1c when the base material 1 is flipped, as taught by Sercel).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Chang, by adding the teachings of flipping the workpiece so that the other side of the workpiece is disposed on the side irradiated with the laser light and cut the other side of the workpiece with the laser light, as taught by Sercel, in order to avoid having to adjust the laser power to change the energy density and optimize the fluence, as recognized by Sercel [Sercel, Par.0082]; thus, increasing the productivity and efficiency while maintaining consistent cut on and from both sides of the workpiece. Therefore, improving the laser cut quality.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Inagawa et al. (U.S. Patent No. 5,073,687 A, previously cited) in view of Kutsuna (WO 2010119995 A1, newly cited), Ito et al. (WO 2012029123 A1, newly cited), Chang et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2002/0104831 A1, previously cited), and further in view of Takeuchi et al. (JP 2000015467 A, previously cited).
Regarding claim 10, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Chang teaches the method set forth in claim 7, however, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Chang does not teach wherein
a cooling medium is supplied to the third layer to cool the third layer in a case where the first layer and the second layer are cut.
Takeuchi teaches a laser processing method (Takeuchi Fig.5b):
a cooling medium (water 21, Takeuchi Fig.5b) is supplied to the third layer (lower surface 30b of the workpiece 30, Takeuchi Fig.5b; it is noted that the primary reference Inagawa already discloses the third layer copper foil portion 1c is located at the bottom of the base material 1, as cited and explained previously; thus, in combination, by adding the Takeuchi injection nozzle 17 to the Inagawa laser processing apparatus, the injection nozzle 17 would supply water 21 to the bottom of the Inagawa base material 1, which is the third layer copper foil portion 1c of the base material 1) to cool the third layer (lower surface 30b of the workpiece 30, Takeuchi Fig.5b; it is noted that the primary reference Inagawa already discloses the third layer copper foil portion 1c is located at the bottom of the base material 1, as cited and explained previously; thus, in combination, by adding the Takeuchi injection nozzle 17 to the Inagawa laser processing apparatus, the injection nozzle 17 would supply water 21 to the bottom of the Inagawa base material 1, which is the third layer copper foil portion 1c of the base material 1) in a case where the first layer and the second layer are cut (it is noted that the primary reference Inagawa already discloses the first layer resin portion 1b and the second layer copper foil portion 1a are located on upper surface of the third layer copper foil portion 1c, as cited and explained previously and shown in Inagawa Fig.3; thus, in combination, by adding the Takeuchi injection nozzle 17 to the Inagawa laser processing apparatus, the injection nozzle 17 would supply water 21 to the bottom of the Inagawa base material 1, which is the third layer copper foil portion 1c of the base material 1; furthermore, Takeuchi teaches irradiating the workpiece with the laser light while supplying the cooling medium to the bottom of the workpiece, as indicated by Takeuchi Translated Par.0049: “When the water 21 is supplied from the injection nozzle 17, the workpiece 30 can be irradiated with laser light”, and as shown in Takeuchi Fig.5b, the laser light is irradiated on the upper surface 30a of the workpiece 30. Therefore, in combination, Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito, Chang and Takeuchi teaches cooling medium is supplied to the third layer to cool the third layer in a case where the first layer and the second layer are cut).
PNG
media_image8.png
366
429
media_image8.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Inagawa in view of Kutsuna, Ito and Chang, by adding cooling medium supplied to the third layer to cool the third layer in a case where the first layer and the second layer are cut, as taught by Takeuchi, in order to prevent overheating during laser cutting process; thus, ensuring high precision cutting. Furthermore, dust from the workpiece generated during processing such as cutting of the workpiece can be easily and quickly removed by the liquid cooling medium, and the adhesion of the dust to the workpiece can be prevented, this makes it possible to prevent deterioration in the quality of the workpiece due to processing such as cutting, as recognized by Takeuchi [Takeuchi, Translated Document Par.0013].
Conclusion
The following prior art(s) made of record and not relied upon is/are considered pertinent to Applicant’s disclosure.
Samejima et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2012/0279765 A1) discloses that copper expands significantly more than CFRP when exposed to heat. Specifically, Samejima Par.0033 teaches: “the thermal expansion coefficient of CFRP is .+-.2 ppm/.degree. C. and thus the CFRP board almost does not thermally contract, the thermal expansion coefficient of the copper foil is as high as 16 ppm/.degree. C. and thus the copper foil contracts more”.
Li et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2006/0091125 A1) discloses laser scribing or dicing portions of a workpiece using multi-source laser systems. In one embodiment, a first laser uses multiphoton absorption to lower the ablation threshold of portions of the workpiece prior to a second laser ablating the portions of the workpiece. In an alternative embodiment, a first laser uses high energy single-photon absorption to lower the ablation threshold of portions of the workpiece prior to a second laser ablating the portions of the workpiece.
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 THAO TRAN-LE whose telephone number is (571)272-7535. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9:00 - 5:00 EST.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/THAO UYEN TRAN-LE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 05/21/2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights