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 § 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(s) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2009/0185140) in view of Stewart et al. (US 10,239,155).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. discloses “a laser abstract and fig.1), comprising:
“a first solid-state laser generator” (104) “which generates a first solid-state laser having a first energy intensity” ([0026], i.e., As an example, those ratios do not match the example maximum achievable output intensity (power) capability ratios among the examples of first, second and third lasers 102, 104, 106, of 200:500:300);
“a second solid-state laser generator” (106) “which generates a second solid-state laser having a second energy intensity lower than the first energy intensity” ([0026], i.e., As an example, those ratios do not match the example maximum achievable output intensity (power) capability ratios among the examples of first, second and third lasers 102, 104, 106, of 200:500:300); and
“a third solid-state laser generator” (102) which generates “a third solid-state laser having a third energy intensity lower than the first energy intensity” ([0026], i.e., As an example, those ratios do not match the example maximum achievable output intensity (power) capability ratios among the examples of first, second and third lasers 102, 104, 106, of 200:500:300).
Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the laser, the second laser and the third laser are radiated with a time difference.
Stewart et al. teaches wherein “the first laser, the second laser and the third laser are radiated with a time difference” (col.5 at lines 64-67 and col.6 at lines 1-3, col.6 at lines 38-46 and 52-56). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chen et al. with Stewart et al., by modifying Chen et al.’s beams characteristic according to Stewart et al.’s temporally offset beams, to optimize laser material interaction allowing for better efficiency in cutting (col.1 at lines 55-61) as taught by Stewart et al.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen et al. discloses “the second energy intensity is in a range of about 48 percent to about 54 percent of the first energy intensity” (Chen et al., examiner noted that instant application has defined “about” to be “within one or more standard deviations, or within ± 30% of the stated value” on paragraph 0046 of instant application. In this case, the ratio of first energy intensity of 104 to ratio of second energy intensity 106 is 500: 200. So (300/500) *100 = 60 precent. Instant claim required 48 precent ± 30% and 54 precent ± 30% which is between a range of 33.6 < x < 70.2. Thus, 60 precent which is within the range of 33.6 < x < 70.2).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. discloses “the third energy intensity is in a range of about 54 percent to about 60 percent of the first energy intensity” (Chen et al., As explained above in claim 2, Instant claim required 48 precent ± 30% and 54 precent ± 30% which is between a range of 33.6 < x < 70.2. In this case, the ratio of first energy intensity of 104 to ratio of third energy intensity 102 is 500: 200. So (200/500) *100 = 40 precent which is between a range of 33.6 < x < 70.2. Thus, 60 precent which is within the range of 33.6 < x < 70.2).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. discloses “the second energy intensity is in a range of about 48 percent to about 54 percent of the first energy intensity” (Chen et al., as explained in claim 2 above, the second energy intensity is 60 which is between 33.6 < x < 70.2), and wherein “the third energy intensity is in a range of about 54 percent to about 60 percent of the first energy intensity” (Chen et al., as explained in claim 3 above, the third energy intensity is 40 which is between a range of 33.6 < x < 70.2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2009/0185140) in view of Stewart et al. (US 10,239,155) and Tanaka et al. (US 8,835,800).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen et al. discloses each of the first to third solid-state laser generators.
Modified Chen et al. is silent regarding a solid-state laser medium for each of the first to third solid state laser generator.
Tanaka et al. teaches “a solid-state laser medium” (col.2 at lines 12-27, i.e., a solid-state laser medium used in a CW laser is usually in red to near-infrared ranges). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chen et al. with Tanaka et al., by adding Tanaka et al.’s a solid-state laser medium to Chen et al.’s laser generators, to process different type of workpiece such as semiconductor film (col.2 at lines 12-27) as taught by Tanaka et al.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2009/0185140) in view of Stewart et al. (US 10,239,155) and Kleinert et al. (US 2014/0110384).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen et al. discloses each of the first to third solid-state laser generators.
Modified Chen et al. is silent regarding a full width at half maximum of is in a range of about 12 nanoseconds to about 17 nanoseconds.
Kleinert et al. teaches “a full width at half maximum of is in a range of about 12 nanoseconds to about 17 nanoseconds” ([0022], i.e., the pulse duration (e.g., based on full width at half-maximum, or FWHM) can be in a range from 0.1 picosecond (ps) to 1000 nanoseconds (ns)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chen et al. with Tanaka et al., by modifying Chen et al.’s laser characteristic according to Kleinert et al.’s characteristic of laser pulse duration, to provide desired appearance on the workpiece (para.0022) as taught by Kleinert et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 12/03/2025 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “35 USC 102 … 35 USC 103 …” on pages 8-12 of remark.
In response, the amendment to claims changed the scope of invention and overcome prior rejections. However, examiner has introduced Stewart et al. (US 10,239,155) to teach the amended portion of claim 1.
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 JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761