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
Applicant's arguments filed 02/03/2026 have been fully considered as follows.
With respect to the rejections under 35 USC §112 Applicant’s arguments/amendments are persuasive.
With respect to the prior art rejection of claims 62 and all newly presented claims Applicant’s arguments/amendments are persuasive.
With respect to the rejections of claims 47-50, 53, 54 and 58-61 Applicant’s arguments are not persuasive. The claim term “configured to separate a first space that includes the light reception part from a second space through which the energy beam passes before reaching the first space” is not considered narrow enough to preclude Riechel and Myoung which as modified show a sliding cover (420) that blocks at least a portion of the energy beam (¶ [0052-0054] and Figs. 4a/b). The terms “first” and “second space” are not specific enough to prevent one from under a broadest reasonable interpretation merely declaring that the first space is the space which includes the light reception part and the area below the light path with respect to cover (420) and declaring the “second space” an arbitrarily defined area on the opposite side of the cover (420).
The logic above cannot be extended to claim 62 which is adequately specific and not admit to such a broad interpretation.
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) 47-50, 53 and 58-61 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2021/0362277 to Riechel et al. in view of US 2014/0132751 to Myoung et al.
Regarding claims 47-50, 53, 58 and 59
Riechel teaches:
A processing system that is configured to process an object (workpiece, 102) by irradiating the object with an energy beam (laser, 118), wherein the processing system comprises: a placing apparatus (positioner, 110) on which the object is placed; an irradiation apparatus (104-108 and optics 112) that is configured to irradiate the object with the energy beam ( Fig. 1, see beam direction); a light reception apparatus (characterization, 128) that includes: a beam passing member (all fig. 4) having an attenuation area (406) through which the energy beam is allowed to pass; and a light reception part (402) that is configured to optically receive the energy bean that has passed through the passing area (Fig. 4 and ¶[0096]) wherein the beam passing member includes the attenuation area and a plurality of passing areas (see multiple passing areas shown in Fig. 4, between attenuation portions). Wherein a relative position of the energy beam with which the beam passing member is irradiated relative to the beam passing member changes along a direction along which the plurality of passing areas are arranged (the passing areas are arranged along the entire surface as shown in Fig. 4, thus any change in the laser position will change relatively with respect to these.
Riechel fails to teach a cover member for the passing area and thus fails to also teach wherein the cover member is movable between a first position at which the passing area is covered and a second position at which the passing area is not covered and wherein the cover member is located at the first position when the object is irradiated with the energy beam, the cover member is located at the second position when the light reception part optically receives the energy beam.
Myoung teaches a cover member (420) for the passing area (¶ [0052-0054]) that is movable between a first position at which the passing area is covered (“selectively covered”) and a second position at which the passing area is not covered (¶ [0052-0054] when positioned at “outer region”). Wherein the cover member is located at the first position when the object is irradiated with the energy beam (¶ [0052] when at “outer region”) the cover member is located at the second position to provide protection from the energy beam (¶ [0054])
As such it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riechel such that the passing area includes a cover member operated between a first open position and a second more closed position as disclosed by Myoung in order to protect the light reception apparatus from process damage when the cover is in second more closed position.
With respect to the newly added limitation about the cover member being configured to separate a first space that includes the light reception part from a second space through which the energy beam passes before reaching the first space. Reasons why these newly added limitations are met by the combination presented are provided in detail in the “Response to Arguments” section above.
Regarding claim 53
Riechel as modified teaches wherein the beam passing member is separated from a space through which the energy beam passes when the cover member is located at the first position. That is after the modification as made above is incorporated the cover member in the first position is the beam passing position, as explained above, and thus there must necessarily be a space for the beam to pass.
Regarding claim 60
Riechel as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to teach wherein a size of an area that is irradiated with the energy beam on the beam passing member by the irradiation apparatus is larger than a pitch of the passing areas in a direction along which the plurality of passing areas are arranged. However, Applicant has not stated that having the relative dimensions of the irradiated area and pitch be specifically as claimed is for any particular reason or provides any unexpected or synergestic result. Rather Applicant has only stated that the invention “may” embody these particular relative dimension characteristics. Further, Applicant has also stated that the invention may have the opposite characteristics and function equally as well (see claim 61). As such it would have been nothing more than an obvious change in the relative dimension of components to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riechel as claimed.
Regarding claim 61
Riechel as modified teaches all of the limitations as discussed above, but fails to specifically teach wherein a size of an area that is irradiated with the energy beam on the beam passing member by the irradiation apparatus is equal to or smaller than a pitch of the passing areas in a direction along which the plurality of passing areas are arranged. However, Applicant has not stated that having the relative dimensions of the irradiated area and pitch be specifically as claimed is for any particular reason or provides any unexpected or synergestic result. Rather Applicant has only stated that the invention “may” embody these particular relative dimension characteristics. Further, Applicant has also stated that the invention may have the opposite characteristics and function equally as well (see claim 60). As such it would have been nothing more than an obvious change in the relative dimension of components to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Riechel as claimed.
Claim(s) 54 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Riechel in view of Myoung and in further view of USPUB 20140209576 to Kazim et al.
Riechel as modified fails to teach specifically wherein there is a gas supply apparatus that is configured to supply a gas into a space at the irradiation apparatus side of the beam passing member.
Kazim teaches a gas supply apparatus (¶ [0014]) that is configured to supply a gas into all structures and workspaces of an irradiation apparatus and processing system (see Fig. 2 area 40).
Thus it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to further modify Riechel such that the entire processing system and irradiation apparatus are provided by a gas supply apparatus with gas - and thus necessarily providing gas to the space at the irradiation apparatus side of the beam passing member – as taught by Kazim in order to provide an inert environment for processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 51, 52, 55-57 and 62-64 are 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.
Claims 68-71 are allowed.
Conclusion
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 WOODY A LEE JR whose telephone number is (571)272-1051. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 0800-1630.
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 "Ned" 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.
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761