DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on or after March 11, 2026 has been entered. Claims 1-7 remain pending in the application. In response to the applicant’s arguments and amendments, a more detailed action and references are provided.
Response to Arguments
The arguments filed March 11, 2026 have been fully considered, and they are mostly persuasive. Regarding the applicant’s arguments that:
The Amendments to the Claims overcome the previously set forth 112f interpretation: This argument is persuasive. The previously set forth 112f interpretation is subsequently withdrawn.
The Amendments to the Claims Overcome the previously set forth Prior art reference in view of Ishigaki as modified by Hooper: The examiner agrees that the amendments to Claims 1, 2, 5, and 7 overcome the previously set forth rejection. The amendments, therefore, merit new grounds of rejection which is provided in view of Hooper which anticipates the limitations of the amended independent claims as set forth in the section Regarding Claim 1 below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
(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, and 3-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Hooper (US 2011/0298156 A1):
PNG
media_image1.png
282
612
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
436
684
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 1: Hooper teaches a laser processing apparatus (“system for laser processing” Title) comprising: a laser diode (laser source (Figure 19 “Laser Source” may be a “diode laser” [0154]);
at least one computer (Figure 19 “processor” may be a “computer” [0127]) configured to output input waveform data (“temporal pulse profile data” [0128]);
a driver circuit (“driver circuitry” [0221]) configured to generate a drive current (“current” [0154]) having a time waveform according to the input waveform data and supply the drive current to the laser diode (“output signals of driver circuitry are applied to contribute to shaping of incident laser pulses” [0221]); and
a lens (optics Figure 19 Element 1916 may include “focusing lenses”[0130]))configured to irradiate a processing object (“workpiece” Abstract) with laser light output from the laser diode (laser source (Figure 19 “Laser Source” may be a “diode laser” [0154])and focused by the lens (optics Figure 19 Element 1916 may include “focusing lenses”[0130]), wherein the laser diode is configured to output, based on the drive current supplied by the driver circuit (“driver circuitry” [0221]), the laser light in which two or more light pulse groups (“at least two laser pulse” groups Abstract) each including one or a plurality of light pulses are provided with a time interval therebetween (shown in Figure 5), time waveforms of at least two light pulse groups out of the two or more light pulse groups are different from each other, (Figure 5B further shows that the time wave forms of the groups are “different” Abstract and that each of the time waveforms of the plurality of light pulses have a time width, interval, and waveform (embodied by each respective peak)) and the time waveform includes at least one of a time waveform of each of the one or plurality of light pulses, a time width of each of the one or plurality of light pulses, and a time interval of the plurality of light pulses (Shown in Figure 5B).
Regarding Claim 3: Hooper further teaches that the time width of each of the one or plurality of light pulses in each light pulse group is 1 microsecond or less (Figure 33B of Hooper shows two pulse groups wherein the first pulse time width is approximately 2.5 nano seconds and the second pulse time width is approximately 5 nanoseconds which reads on the limitation of the claims as both 2.5 nano seconds and 5 nanoseconds are less than 1 microsecond)
Regarding Claim 4: Hooper further teaches that the time interval between the two or more light pulse groups is 200 microseconds or less. (Figure 33B of Hooper shows that the time interval between two exemplary light pulses is approximately 15 nano seconds which is less than 200 microseconds and reads on the limitation of the claims)
Regarding Claim 5: Hooper further teaches that the at least one computer is configured to change the time waveform of at least one light pulse group out of the two or more light pulse groups a (as previously identified in the section regarding claim 1, the computer serves as a waveform output unit and “laser light source controller for controlling the laser, light source, pulse width, pulse waveform…” that actively changes the waveforms of the light pulse groups during operation[0047]) during processing of the processing object (the prior art further teaches that the operation of the invention entails “processing” [0048] of the processing object which reads on the limitation of the claim).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper (US 2011/0298156 A1) in view of Ueda (US 2015/0116681 A1):
PNG
media_image3.png
696
624
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 2: Hooper teaches the laser processing apparatus wherein “a continuous wave (CW) output that is then modulated by the first pulse modulator to produce a suitable first laser pulse profile as commanded by the laser controller” [0152] (As such, the drive signal is modulated and converted while providing a time difference of the controller)
Hooper does not teach the laser processing apparatus, wherein the driver circuit includes: a digital to analog (D/A) converter configured to convert the digital input waveform data into an analog drive signal; and a current converter configured to convert the drive signal into the drive current
However, Ueda does teach a laser processing apparatus (“laser processing apparatus” [0021]), wherein the driver circuit (“control device” [0024] Figure 1 Element 30) includes a D/A conversion unit (“D/A conversion unit” [0024] Figure 1 Element 304) configured to convert the digital input waveform data into an analog drive signal (the prior art further teaches that the D/A unit is configured to “convert a digital electric current profile into an analog electric current profile” [0026]) and a current conversion unit (“Processing Unit” Figure 1 Element 302) configured to convert the drive signal into the drive current (the prior art further teaches that the processing unit generates “electric current profiles” or drive current from the signals inputted as drive signals) wherein the D/A conversion unit is configured to sequentially convert a plurality of continuous section waveform data obtained by dividing the time waveform of the input waveform data into the drive signal while providing a time difference.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Hooper to include the D/A conversion unit and current conversion unit as taught by Ueda in order to increase the ease of operability of the invention and convert “digital signal” to analog, thus allowing the appropriate current to be transferred into the laser processing apparatus.
Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper (US 2011/0298156 A1):
Regarding Claim 6: Hooper does not explicitly teach that a pulse width of the one or plurality of light pulses in one light pulse group out of the at least two light pulse groups is 10 times or more of a pulse width of the one or plurality of light pulses in another light pulse group.
However, Hooper does teach that the pulse width may be “selectively adjusted” [0070-0073] and Figure 33B shows an example of pulse width variability. As such, it is recognized in the art that the pulse width is a result effective variable.
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the invention of Hooper such that the pulse width of the one or plurality of light pulses in one light pulse group out of the at least two light pulse groups is 10 times or more of a pulse width of the one or plurality of light pulses in another light pulse group as it has been held that routine optimization of a result effective variable requires only routine skill in the art. MPEP 2144.05 IIB.
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hooper (US 2011/0298156 A1) in view of Ishigaki (US 2019/0126393 A1):
PNG
media_image4.png
559
733
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Regarding Claim 7: Hooper does not teach the laser processing apparatus, further comprising a spatial light modulator disposed on an optical path between the laser diode and the lens, wherein the spatial light modulator is configured to sequentially present a hologram for irradiating a first irradiation position with the laser light corresponding to a first light pulse group included in the two or more light pulse groups and a hologram for irradiating a second irradiation position different from the first irradiation position with the laser light corresponding to a second light pulse group.
However, Ishigaki does teach a the laser processing apparatus (“laser light irradiating device” Abstract) further comprises a spatial light modulator (“special light moderator” [0104] Figure 27 Element 410) disposed on an optical path between the laser diode (“laser output unit” Figure 26 Element 300) and the lens (“Lens Unit” [0079] Figure 27 Element 5), wherein the spatial light modulator is configured to sequentially present a hologram (“hologram” [0104]) for irradiating a first irradiation position with the laser light corresponding to a first light pulse group (“position of the phase pattern” [0113]) and a hologram (“hologram” [0104]) for irradiating a second irradiation position different from the first irradiation position with the laser light corresponding to a second light pulse group(“reference position” [0113]).
Therefore, it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the invention of Hooper by adding the special light moderator and hologram capacity of Ishigaki in order to provide a “light irradiation device…capable of grasping a shift between the center position of an image of laser light transferred onto the entrance pupil of plane of an objective lens by an image-transfer optical system [0005]”
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SOLAN OLIVA whose telephone number is (571-)272-2518. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:00-3:00.
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) 270-8241. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-270-5569.
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.
/SOLAN OLIVA/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights