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 Arguments
The amendments to the Specification have been reviewed. The correction of the word “portion” from “poriton” has rendered the objection moot, and the objection is withdrawn.
The amendments to claims 1, 6, and 7 have been reviewed. The correction of the word “portion” from “poriton” has rendered the objection moot, and the objection is withdrawn.
Applicant's arguments filed November 18, 2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that Hadano fails to disclose performing processing along a virtual plane by internal processing by a laser, a recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. Hadano discloses modifying the layers inside a workpiece in Paras. 3 and 53 which teaches a virtual plane as recited in claims 1 and 7 as an example of the capabilities of the laser apparatus.
In response to applicant's argument that Ortner does not teach that the longitudinal direction of the focusing region intersects the direction of movement, the fact that the inventor has recognized another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See Ex parte Obiaya, 227 USPQ 58, 60 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1985). Ortner teaches the shape of the beam spot impacts the operation the apparatus is performing (Ortner Para. 69), and a person of ordinary skill can also consider Figure. 5 of Ortner to see a longer portion of the beam spot and cross the intersection of movement to achieve desired results.
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.
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 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadano et al US 20190122907 A1 in view of Kenji et al. JP H1158055 A and Ortner et al. US 20160031745 A1 Chard et al. WO 2020008398 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Hadano discloses a laser processing apparatus configured to emit a laser light with a part of a focusing region being on an object to form a modified region along a virtual plane inside the object, the laser processing apparatus comprising (Para. 6): a support portion configured to support the object (Fig. 1, Ref. F); an emission portion configured to emit the laser light onto the object (Fig. 2, Ref. 8); a moving mechanism configured to move at least one of the support portion and the emission portion so that the part of the focusing region (Fig. 1, Ref. 23) moves along the virtual plane inside the object (Para. 53).
Hadano does not specifically disclose a controller configured to control the support portion, the emission portion, and the moving mechanism, wherein the emission portion includes a shaping portion configured to shape the laser light such that a shape of the part of the focusing region in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser light has a longitudinal direction, and wherein the longitudinal direction is a direction intersecting a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kenji teaches a controller configured to control the support portion, the emission portion, and the moving mechanism (Para. 11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Kenji to perform multi-axis processing using simple and inexpensive equipment, requiring little equipment installation space, and reducing product costs.
Also in the same field of endeavor, Ortner teaches wherein the emission portion includes a shaping portion configured to shape the laser light (Para. 46) such that a shape of the part of the focusing region in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser light has a longitudinal direction (Fig. 3), and wherein the longitudinal direction is a direction intersecting a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region (Fig. 3 as annotated below).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Ortner to establish exact control over the substrate to reduce additional stresses.
Regarding claim 2, Hadano does not specifically disclose wherein the longitudinal direction is a direction tilted at 45º or more against a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kenji teaches wherein the longitudinal direction is a direction tilted at 45º or more against a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region (Para. 18 wherein the table is positioned in the x and y direction, allowing the longitudinal direction to change).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Kenji to perform multi-axis processing using simple and inexpensive equipment, requiring little equipment installation space, and reducing product costs.
Regarding claim 3, Hadano does not specifically disclose wherein the longitudinal direction is along a direction perpendicular to a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kenji teaches wherein the longitudinal direction is along a direction perpendicular to a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region (Para. 18 wherein the table is positioned in the x and y direction, allowing the longitudinal direction to change).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Kenji to perform multi-axis processing using simple and inexpensive equipment, requiring little equipment installation space, and reducing product costs.
Regarding claim 4, Hadano does not specifically disclose wherein the part of the focusing region is of a shape with an ellipticity of 0.88 to 0.95.
However in the same field of endeavor, Ortner teaches wherein the part of the focusing region is of a shape with an ellipticity of 0.88 to 0.95 (Figs. 3 and 4 show the elliptical beam shape and Para. 69 teaches it’s created by combining circular lenses. A person of ordinary skill would combine circular lenses to make an elliptical beam for their use case).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Ortner to establish exact control over the substrate to reduce additional stresses.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadano et al US 20190122907 A1 in view of Kenji et al. JP H1158055 A and Ortner et al. US 20160031745 A1, and in further view of Shigeyuki et al. JP2016215231 (A).
Regarding claim 5, Hadano does not specifically disclose wherein the controller moves the part of the focusing region relatively along a processing line extending spirally inward from a peripheral edge in the object to form the modified region inside the object.
However in the same field of endeavor, Shigeyuki teaches wherein the controller moves the part of the focusing region relatively along a processing line extending spirally inward from a peripheral edge in the object to form the modified region inside the object (Para. 53).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Shigeyuki to improve the yield rate on processing brittle substrates.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hadano et al US 20190122907 A1 in view of Kenji et al. JP H1158055 A and Ortner et al. US 20160031745 A1, and in further view of Chard et al. WO 2020008398 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Hadano does not specifically disclose an input portion configured to receive at least one piece of information out of information on a shape of the part of the focusing region, information on a tilt against a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region, and information on setting of the shaping portion, the information being inputted by a user, wherein the controller controls the support portion, the emission portion, and the moving mechanism, based on information input to the input portion.
However in the same field of endeavor, Kenji teaches an input portion configured to receive at least one piece of information out of information on a shape of the part of the focusing region (Para. 24), information on a tilt against a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region (Para. 24), wherein the controller controls the support portion, the emission portion, and the moving mechanism, based on information input to the input portion (Para. 11).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Kenji to perform multi-axis processing using simple and inexpensive equipment, requiring little equipment installation space, and reducing product costs.
Also in the same field of endeavor, Ortner teaches information on setting of the shaping portion (Para. 18).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Ortner to establish exact control over the substrate to reduce additional stresses.
Also in the same field, Chard teaches the information being inputted by a user (Para. 23).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Chard to provide a versatile and effective laser surface treatment apparatus.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kenji et al. JP H1158055 A in view of Hadano et al US 20190122907 A1 and Chard et al. WO 2020008398 A1.
Regarding claim 7, Kenji discloses a laser processing method of emitting a laser light (Para. 1) with a part of a focusing region being on an object to form a modified region (Para. 3); an emission step of emitting the laser light onto the object (Para. 3); and a moving step of moving at least one of a support portion and an emission portion (Para. 30), the support portion configured to support the object (Para. 18) and the emission portion emitting the laser light onto the object (Para. 8).
Kenji does not specifically disclose a virtual plane inside an object; the emission step includes a shaping step of shaping the laser light such that a shape of the part of the focusing region in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser light has a longitudinal direction, and wherein the longitudinal direction is a direction intersecting a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region.
However in the same field of endeavor, Hadano teaches a virtual plane inside the object (Para. 6).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Kenji with Hadano reduce debris during processing.
Also in the same field of endeavor, Ortner teaches wherein the emission step includes a shaping step of shaping the laser light (Para. 46) such that a shape of the part of the focusing region in a plane perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser light has a longitudinal direction (Fig. 3), and wherein the longitudinal direction is a direction intersecting a direction of movement of the part of the focusing region (Fig. 3).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Hadano with Ortner to establish exact control over the substrate to reduce additional stresses.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Tanaka US 2005/0139582 A1 - Laser irradiation apparatus, laser irradiation method, and method for manufacturing crystalline semiconductor film
Jang US 20190314935 A1 - Laser cutting apparatus and method and method of manufacturing display panel by using laser cutting method
Koga et al US 20060092990 A1 - Laser processing apparatus and laser processing method
Hirano et al. US 11498156 B2 - Laser processing apparatus
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761