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 .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 17, and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Gross et al. US 20030168434 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Gross discloses a laser processing device (Para. 7) comprising: a. a laser radiation source (Fig. 2, Ref. 120) configured to generate a laser beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 122) and emit the laser beam along an optical path (Fig. 2, Ref. 122) in a direction of a workpiece (Fig. 2, Ref. 14); b. a beam splitting unit (Fig. 2, Ref. 130), located downstream of the laser radiation source in said beam direction and configured to split the laser beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 150) into a bundle of partial beams (Fig. 2, Ref. 150); and c. an optical control unit, located downstream of the beam splitting unit in the beam direction (Para. 33) and comprising a reflective optical functional unit (Fig. 2, Ref. 152) including an array of reflective microscanners (Fig. 2, Ref. 154), the optical control unit configured to select from the bundle of partial beams an arbitrary number of partial beams in an arbitrary spatial combination and direct them towards the workpiece (Para. 46), and to position and/or move, within a predetermined partial beam scanning region of a respective partial beam (Para. 24), at least one, of the partial beams directed towards the workpiece using a microscanner of the array of microscanners assigned to the respective partial beam (Para. 42).
Regarding claim 17, Gross discloses wherein each respective partial beam is reflected by a respective microscanner (Para. 42; Fig. 2, Ref. 154).
Regarding claim 32, Gross discloses a method comprising: laser-processing a workpiece at predetermined processing sites (Fig. 2, Ref. 56) using a laser processing device (Para. 7), wherein the laser processing device comprises a. a laser radiation source (Fig. 2, Ref. 120) configured to generate a laser beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 122) and emit the laser beam along an optical path (Fig. 2, Ref. 122) in a direction of the workpiece (Fig. 2; Ref. 12); b. a beam splitting unit (Fig. 2, Ref. 130) located downstream of the laser radiation source in said beam direction and configured to split the laser beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 150) into a bundle of partial beams (Fig. 2, Ref. 150); and c. an optical control unit located downstream of the beam splitting unit in the beam direction (Para. 33) and comprising a reflective optical functional unit (Fig. 2, Ref. 152) including an array of reflective microscanners (Fig. 2, Ref. 154), the optical control unit configured to select from the bundle of partial beams an arbitrary number of partial beams in an arbitrary spatial combination and direct them towards the workpiece (Para. 46), and to position and/or move, within a predetermined partial beam scanning region of a respective partial beam (Para. 24), at least one, of the partial beams directed towards the workpiece using a microscanner of the array of microscanners assigned to the respective partial beam (Para. 42) wherein the method further comprises generating a laser beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 122) with the laser radiation source, and subsequent thereto, beam splitting the laser beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 130) into a bundle of partial beams, directing a predetermined number of partial beams of the bundle of partial beams in an arbitrary spatial combination towards the workpiece (Para. 46) at a predetermined number of sites (Fig. 2, Ref. 56) using the optical control unit (Para. 33), and positioning and/or moving the predetermined number of partial beams directed towards the workpiece within a predetermined partial beam scanning region (Para. 24).
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 3, 4, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. US 20030168434 A1 in view of Igasaki et al. US 2003/0010889 A1.
Regarding claim 3, Gross teaches an optical functional unit (Fig. 2, Ref. 128), located between the beam splitting unit, but does not disclose the reflective optical functional unit and comprising a group of optical functional elements located one behind the other (Para. 37; Fig. 4A, Refs. 24 and 26).
However in the same field of endeavor, Igasaki teaches the reflective optical functional unit and comprising a group of optical functional elements located one behind the other (Para. 37; Fig. 4A, Refs. 24 and 26).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Igasaki to improve the electrical/optical efficiency and simplify the configuration.
Regarding claim 4, Gross does not disclose wherein the group of optical functional elements located one behind the other comprises: a. a focusing unit comprising one or several lenses, lens systems, mirrors located one behind the other, and/or any combination thereof, b. a lens array of lenses spaced apart from the focusing unit.
However in the same field of endeavor, Igasaki teaches wherein the group of optical functional elements located one behind the other comprises: a. a focusing unit comprising one or several lenses (Fig. 4A, Refs. 24 and 26), lens systems, mirrors located one behind the other, and/or any combination thereof, b. a lens array of lenses spaced apart from the focusing unit (Fig. 4A, Ref. 32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Igasaki to improve the electrical/optical efficiency and simplify the configuration.
Regarding claim 16, Gross does not disclose wherein the lens array comprises a lateral assembly of lenses or lens systems.
However in the same field of endeavor, Igasaki teaches wherein the lens array comprises a lateral assembly of lenses (Fig. 4A, Ref. 24 and 26) or lens systems.
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Igasaki to improve the electrical/optical efficiency and simplify the configuration.
Claims 5, 6, 8, 21, 25, 26, and 28 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. US 20030168434 A1 in view of Igasaki et al. US 2003/0010889 A1 and Subkhangulov et al. US 2019/0151993 A1.
Regarding claim 5, Gross discloses the laser processing device is configured so that the partial beams defining the bundle of partial beams (Fig. 2, Ref. 150) pass along a first beam track until being reflected at the reflective optical functional unit and, subsequent to being reflected at the reflective optical functional unit (Fig. 2, Ref. 152).
Gross does not disclose the bundle of partial beams pass through the focusing unit and the lens array, and at least some of the partial beams reflected thereby pass, along a second beam track, through the optical functional unit (Fig. 2, Ref. 152), namely the lens array and the focusing unit (Fig. 1).
However in the same field of endeavor, Igasaki teaches the bundle of partial beams pass through the focusing unit (Fig. 4A, Refs. 24 and 26) and the lens array (Fig. 4A, Ref. 32).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Igasaki to improve the electrical/optical efficiency and simplify the configuration.
Additionally in the same field of endeavor, Subkhangulov teaches at least some of the partial beams reflected thereby pass, along a second beam track (Fig. 6, Ref. 28), through the optical functional unit namely the lens array and the focusing unit (Fig. 6, Ref 33; Para. 47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Subkhangulov to create a laser process with a great versatility in coping with small and delicate workpieces.
Regarding claim 6, Gross discloses a laser configured so that each partial beam defining the bundle of partial beams (Fig. 2, Ref. 150) passes along the first beam track through a lens of the lens array assigned to the respective partial beam (Fig. 2, Ref. 154).
Gross does not disclose at least some of the partial beams reflected at the reflective optical functional unit pass along the second beam track through a lens of the lens array assigned to the respective partial beam.
However in the same field of endeavor, Sudkhangulov teaches at least some of the partial beams reflected at the reflective optical functional unit (Fig. 6, Ref. 28) pass along the second beam track through a lens of the lens array assigned to the respective partial beam (Fig. 6, Ref 33; Para. 47).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Subkhangulov to create a laser process with a great versatility in coping with small and delicate workpieces.
Regarding claim 8, Gross discloses a beam selecting unit (Para. 24), configured to deflect or absorb predetermined number of partial beams, so that the deflected or absorbed partial beams do not hit the workpiece (Para. 46).
Regarding claim 21, Gross does not disclose a laser processing device configured so that the partial beams reflected at the microscanners pass through the lens array along the second beam track, wherein a respective partial beam, along the first beam track, passes through a lens of the lens array located adjacent to a lens of the lens array through which the partial beam passes along the second beam track.
However in the same field of endeavor, Subkhangulov teaches configured so that the partial beams reflected at the microscanners pass through the lens array along the second beam track, wherein a respective partial beam, along the first beam track, passes through a lens of the lens array located adjacent to a lens of the lens array through which the partial beam passes along the second beam track (Fig. 6 shows the beam tracks with partial beams passing through separate lenses (Ref. 33)).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Subkhangulov to create a laser process with a great versatility in coping with small and delicate workpieces.
Regarding claim 25, Gross discloses a mirror device (Fig. 2, Ref. 158), located between the lens array and the microscanners, and configured to deflect respective partial beams (Fig. 2, Ref. 158) passing through the lens array (11) along the first beam track in a direction of one of the microscanners (Fig. 2, Ref. 150 after passing through Ref. 158).
Gross does not disclose to direct the respective partial beams reflected at the microscanners in a direction of the lens array along the second beam track.
However in the same field of endeavor, Subkhangulov teaches to direct the respective partial beams reflected at the microscanners in a direction of the lens array along the second beam track (Fig. 6, Ref. 28 and 33 show the beams reflected in multiple beam paths).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Subkhangulov to create a laser process with a great versatility in coping with small and delicate workpieces.
Regarding claim 26, Gross discloses wherein the mirror device (Fig. 2, Ref. 158) has a plurality of mirror surfaces (Fig. 2, Refs. 160), wherein each mirror surface is configured to deflect a partial beam passing through the lens array along the first beam track in a direction of one of the microscanners (Fig. 2, Ref. 158).
Gross does not disclose to deflect a partial beam reflected at one of the microscanners in a direction of the lens array along the second beam track.
However in the same field of endeavor, Subkhangulov teaches to deflect a partial beam reflected at one of the microscanners in a direction of the lens array along the second beam track (Fig. 6, Ref. 28 and 33 show the beams reflected in multiple beam paths).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Subkhangulov to create a laser process with a great versatility in coping with small and delicate workpieces.
Regarding claim 28, Gross discloses wherein the lateral assembly of lenses (Fig. 2 wherein lenses 128 and 156 are located on a lens plane) or lens systems are located in a common lens plane and the microscanners are located among a plurality of different planes (Fig. 2, Ref. 152), wherein the different planes are each situated at an angle, to the lens plane.
Claims 29, 30, and 31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. US 20030168434 A1 in view of Igasaki et al. US 2003/0010889 A1, Subkhangulov et al. US 2019/0151993 A1, and Varriano-Marston US 20190224936 A1.
Regarding claim 29, Gross discloses wherein the mirror device comprises a plurality of mirrors (Fig. 2, Refs. 160).
Gross does not disclose wherein a first number of the mirrors is located in a first mirror plane and a second number of the mirrors in a second mirror plane (Fig. 7, Ref. 700 with the mirrors in multiple planes).
However in the same field of endeavor, Varriano-Marston teaches wherein a first number of the mirrors is located in a first mirror plane and a second number of the mirrors in a second mirror plane (Fig. 7, Ref. 700 with the mirrors in multiple planes).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Varriano-Marston to add flexibility in manufacturing by having a beam that is translatable.
Regarding claim 30, Gross does not disclose wherein the mirrors located in the mirror planes are oriented at an angle to the mirror planes.
However in the same field of endeavor, Varriano-Marston teaches wherein the mirrors located in the mirror planes are oriented at an angle to the mirror planes (Fig. 7, Ref. 700).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Varriano-Marston to add flexibility in manufacturing by having a beam that is translatable.
Regarding claim 31, Gross discloses wherein each mirror of the mirror device is configured to deflect a partial beam passing through the lens array along the first beam track in a direction of one of the microscanners, and to deflect a partial beam reflected at one of the microscanners in a direction of the lens array along the second beam track (Para. 46 wherein the mapping assembly directs the mapped beams).
Claims 33-36 and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. US 20030168434 A1 in view of Bi US 7227618 B1.
Regarding claim 33, Gross discloses prior to the positioning and/or moving step, rough positioning the predetermined number of partial beams directed towards the workpiece at the predetermined number of sites by placing the workpiece (Para. 24) and a. positioning the workpiece relative to the laser processing device, or b. positioning the partial beams, which are directed towards the workpiece (Para. 56) and located within a master scanning region (Fig. 2, Ref. 56), relative to the workpiece using a beam positioning unit (Para. 56), or c. positioning the workpiece relative to the laser processing device and the partial beam directed towards the workpiece and located within a master scanning region with a beam positioning unit.
Gross does not specifically disclose the workpiece is in a holder.
However in the same field of endeavor, Bi teaches a workpiece in a holder (Fig. 5, Ref. 228).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Bi for simplified system design with improved performance and reliability, and improved positioning accuracy.
Regarding claim 34, Gross discloses subsequent to the rough positioning and the positioning and/or moving steps performing an individual scanning movement of at least some of the predetermined number of the partial beams using the optical control unit (Para. 42; Fig. 4 wherein the beams are steered).
Regarding claim 35, Gross discloses using the beam positioning unit (Para. 24; Fig. 1, Ref. 54), a simultaneous and synchronous scanning movement for the predetermined number of partial beams directed towards the workpiece subsequent to the rough positioning and the positioning and/or moving steps (Fig. 4; Para. 24).
Regarding claim 36, Gross does not disclose using the optical control unit and/or the beam positioning unit, a positioning correction of positioning errors, for the predetermined number of the partial beams directed towards the workpiece, subsequent to the rough positioning step and, when necessary, subsequent to the positioning and/or moving step.
However in the same field of endeavor, Bi teaches using the optical control unit and/or the beam positioning unit, a positioning correction of positioning errors (Col. 16, Lines 16-23), for the predetermined number of the partial beams directed towards the workpiece, subsequent to the rough positioning step and, when necessary, subsequent to the positioning and/or moving step (Col. 16, Lines 23-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Bi for simplified system design with improved performance and reliability, and improved positioning accuracy.
Regarding claim 38, Gross discloses subsequent to the rough positioning and the positioning and/or moving steps, performing (i) an individual scanning movement of at least some of the predetermined number of the partial beams using the optical control unit (Para. 42; Fig. 4 wherein the beams are steered), and (ii) using the beam positioning unit (Para. 24; Fig. 1, Ref. 54), a simultaneous and synchronous scanning movement along a predetermined scanning track for the predetermined number of partial beams (T) directed towards the workpiece (Fig. 4; Para. 24).
Gross does not disclose when carrying out the individual scanning movement using the optical control unit, performing a dynamic positioning correction of positioning errors for the predetermined number of the partial beams directed towards the workpiece.
However in the same field of endeavor, Bi teaches when carrying out the individual scanning movement using the optical control unit, performing a dynamic positioning correction of positioning errors for the predetermined number of the partial beams directed towards the workpiece (Col. 16, Lines 16-23).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Bi for simplified system design with improved performance and reliability, and improved positioning accuracy.
Claim 37 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gross et al. US 20030168434 A1 in view of Bi US 7227618 B1 and Hokodate et al. US 6353203 B1.
Regarding claim 37, Gross does not disclose determining a correction matrix using an optical measuring system, and performing the positioning correction step using the correction matrix.
However in the same field of endeavor, Hokodate teaches determining a correction matrix using an optical measuring system, and performing the positioning correction step using the correction matrix (Col. 3, Lines 22-30).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Gross with Hokodate to continue operations which reduces the need to stop operations lower productivity.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
a. Schweizer et al. US 6011654 A - Optical arrangement for several individual beams with a segmented mirror field
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, Wednesday, and Thursday 7:00 am-11:00 am and Tuesday 8:00 am-3:30 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.J.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761