DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they do not include the following reference sign(s) mentioned in the description: control device 8 (page 5 of the Specification). 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. 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.
Although the Instant Application is a 371 (National Stage) application and as a result is not subject to 37 CFR for the application’s drawings, international applications have a similar drawing requirement where “reference signs not mentioned in the description shall not appear in the drawings, and vice versa” (MPEP 1825, PCT Rule 11.13).
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: recommend stating what the acronym “FI” stands for in the Specification, which describes using an “FI optic.”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-4 are objected to because of the following informalities: in line 2 of claim 1 and line 1 of claims 2-4, recommend inserting “method” into the claims: “…in which method…” in order to clarify that the antecedent for “which” in each of the lines is the claimed method. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation is: a “beam shaping element” in claim 5. The generic placeholder is “element,” and the functional limitation is “beam shaping.” Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the claimed functional limitation includes a “diffractive optical element.” Claim 6 has sufficient structure such that 35 USC 112(f) is not invoked for this claim.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) 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.
Claims 1-2 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieland et al. (US-20170008122-A1) in view of Marjanovic et al. (US-20150165548-A1).
Regarding claim 1, Wieland teaches a method for cutting a glass element (“processes of cutting and drilling in a…glass substrate sheet,” abstract; substrate 12, fig. 1) with a processing laser (“single laser system,” para 0070; laser used to produce the beam ), in which the processing laser is operated in a first processing step (step 206, fig. 12) as a perforation laser (“creates a first set of defects, such as pilot hole patterns,” para 0066; drilling holes is construed as being a “perforation”), with which a perforation (fig. 4) is produced in the glass element along an intended cutting line (“the first plurality of defects is disposed within the closed boundary,” para 0064; crack 34 is construed as the claimed “cutting line,” fig. 4), and in which the same processing laser (“single optical head,” para 0066) is operated in a second processing step (step 208, fig. 12) with a modified laser beam as a separating laser (“a second set of defects adapted to perforate and separate (i.e. cut) the larger substrates (e.g., glass sheet substrates) into wafers, panels, or sub-panels,” para 0066; para 0099 teaches how by modifying the “burst number,” microcracks form instead of defects/perforations; construed such that a “modified laser beam” is a laser beam modified based on its burst number or pulse rate), with which a splitting of filaments (crack 34 splits defects 36, fig. 4) forming the perforation is effected (fig. 4), the filaments (defects 36, fig. 4) forming the perforation being split by ablative laser processing (“the crack 34 and laser formed defects may be used to cut or score the substrate 32,” para 0092; forming a closed boundary to create “micro cracks” or crack 34 with the second set of defects, as opposed to pilot holes which are construed as being the defects 36 in fig. 4, is taught in paras 0012, 0030-0031, 0037, 0073, 0092-0093, and 0116), characterized in that a laser beam (laser beam 14, fig. 1) of the processing laser is split in the second processing step by beam shaping (beam 14 is split by axicon 18, fig. 1) into a plurality of partial beams (axicon 18 splits beam 14 into four different beams, each with their own focal point, fig. 1), a notch (crack 34, fig. 4) being produced in the second processing step (“a boundary edge is formed by a second plurality of defects and a plurality of micro cracks extending between the second plurality of defect,” para 0031) in a region of the previously introduced perforation (defects 36, fig. 4) by ablative laser processing (steps 206 and 208, fig. 12).
Wieland, figs. 1, 4, and 12
PNG
media_image1.png
364
518
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
674
564
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
1079
734
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Wieland does not explicitly disclose a notch with a bevel.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting glass substrates, Marjanovic teaches a notch (break in the substrates, fig. 7C) with a bevel (the right substrate is chamfered on the top and bottom, fig. 7C; construed as having two bevels).
Marjanovic, fig. 7C
PNG
media_image4.png
1065
670
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 Wieland to include, a notch with a bevel, in view of the teachings of Marjanovic, by creating a chamfered edge during a picosecond process, as taught by Marjanovic, while creating the second plurality of defects using the picosecond process, as taught by Wieland, in order to form a chamfered shape for a glass substrate, which has improved strength, by using an ultra-short pulse laser that is faster, cleaner, cheaper, more repeatable, and more reliable than other alternative technologies, such as using thermal or mechanical sources, which often require post-cut grinding and polishing to remove subsurface damage (Marjanovic, paras 0002, 0005, 0007, and 0061).
Regarding claim 2, Wieland teaches in which an ultrashort pulse laser (“duration in a range of between greater than about 1 picosecond and less than about 100 picoseconds,” para 0029; page 3 of the Specification in the Instant Application describes ultrashort pulses as being in the pico- to femtosecond range) is used as the processing laser (laser used in fig. 1; par 0070).
Claims 3 and 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieland et al. (US-20170008122-A1) in view of Marjanovic et al. (US-20150165548-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kumkar et al. (US-20220032398-A1, effective filing date of 15 April 2019).
Regarding claim 3, Wieland teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in which the laser beam of the processing laser is divided into six partial beams by beam shaping in the second processing step.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting glass substrates, Kumkar teaches in which the laser beam (laser beam 12, fig. 11a) of the processing laser is divided into six partial beams (two partial beams 5a-b, fig. 11a, para 0075; construed as dividing each of the four partial beams taught by Wieland in fig. 1 to two or a total of eight partial beams) by beam shaping in the second processing step (beams are shaped and produced by axicon 20 and polarizing element 1b, fig. 11a; para 0075).
Kumkar, fig. 11a
PNG
media_image5.png
338
724
media_image5.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 Wieland to include, in which the laser beam of the processing laser is divided into six partial beams by beam shaping in the second processing step, in view of the teachings of Kumkar, by using a polarizing element 1b, as taught by Kumkar, after the axicon 18, as taught by Wieland, in order to use a birefringent polarizer to split each of the laser beams into a pair of partial beams that are polarized perpendicularly to each other, for the advantage of preventing undesired interference effects on the partial beams, which is avoided because the superposition of perpendicularly polarized beams are less likely to give rise to interference effects, e.g., a waveform that oscillates in a vertical direction is superimposed with a waveform in a horizontal direction such that the two waveforms do not directly overlap with each other because of the polarization, reducing the likelihood of interference effects (Kumkar, paras 0008 and 0025-0027).
Regarding claim 5, Wieland teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein a beam shaping element is pivoted into a beam path of the processing laser for the second processing step.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting glass substrates, Kumkar teaches wherein a beam shaping element (diffractive optical element 18 and polarizing element 1a, fig. 10b) is pivoted (“rotate,” para 0073; rotary drive 24, fig. 10b) into a beam path (laser beam 12, fig. 10b) of the processing laser for the second processing step (paras 0050 and 0074 describe how rotation can be used to control a “splitting ratio” of the polarized beams; construed such that by changing this ratio, Wieland’s “second set of laser parameters” can be achieved).
Kumkar, fig. 10b
PNG
media_image6.png
480
820
media_image6.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 Wieland to include, wherein a beam shaping element is pivoted into a beam path of the processing laser for the second processing step, in view of the teachings of Kumkar, by using a diffractive optical element 18 and polarizing element 1a, as taught by Kumkar, instead of the axicon 18, as taught by Wieland, in order to use a diffractive optical element 18 and birefringent polarizer 1a to split each of the laser beams into a pair of partial beams that are polarized and which can be rotated relative to each other, to control a splitting ratio of the intensity of the power between the two beams, for the advantage of increasing the interference effects / reducing the splitting ratio during the first set of laser parameters (step 206 of Wieland) and decreasing the interference effects / increasing the splitting ratio during the second set of laser parameters (step 208 of Wieland), because the superposition of perpendicularly polarized beams gives rise to interference effects, e.g., a waveform that oscillates in a vertical direction when superimposed with a waveform in a horizontal direction reduces the likelihood of interference effects, but when the two beams are not polarized and overlap with each other, the likelihood of interference effects increases (Kumkar, paras 0008, 0025-0027, and 0050-0051).
Regarding claim 6, the combination of Wieland in view of Marjanovic and Kumkar as set forth above regarding claim 5 teaches the invention of claim 6. Specifically, Kumkar teaches wherein a diffractive optical element (diffractive optical element 18, fig. 10b) is used as the beam shaping element (diffractive optical element 18 and polarizing element 1a, fig. 10b).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Wieland et al. (US-20170008122-A1) in view of Marjanovic et al. (US-20150165548-A1) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Tamura et al. (US-20190221985-A1).
Wieland teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose in which a plasma is generated in the glass element by the processing laser during operation as a separating laser.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser cutting glass substrates, Tamura teaches in which a plasma (plasma “P,” fig. 3B) is generated in the glass element by the processing laser during operation as a separating laser (first laser beam “L1,” fig. 3A; para 0034).
Tamura, figs. 3A-3E
PNG
media_image7.png
796
641
media_image7.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 Wieland to include, in which a plasma is generated in the glass element by the processing laser during operation as a separating laser, in view of the teachings of Tamura, by allowing a plasma to form using a time of 20-2000 picoseconds, as taught by Tamura, in between the first-set-laser-parameter step 206 and the second-set-laser-parameter step 208, as taught by Wieland, in order to use the generated plasma for a light-absorbing effect when the second laser beam L2 is directed to the glass substrate, for the benefit of efficiently transmitting the energy of the second laser beam into the transparent material in an optimal manner (Tamura, paras 0004 and 0034-0037; para 0045 teaches that the optimal time between beams is 20-2000 picoseconds; Wieland has a similar teaching in paras 0083-0084 where ionization (plasma is ionized gas) causes a “nonlinear effect” in absorbing laser beam intensity).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Greenberg et al. (US-10668561-B2) teach using diffractive optical elements and axicons to form several spots.
Flamm et al. (US-20230347451-A1) teach forming bevels in glass substrates.
Mishchik et al. (US-11883903-B2) is similar to US-10668561-B2.
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 8/6/2025