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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/15/2022, 04/16/2024, 05/02/2024, 10/21/2024, 01/17/2025 and 03/12/2026 is being considered by the examiner.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“a holding apparatus that is configured to hold an object” in claim 105.
Prong 1: a holding apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to hold (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a rotation apparatus that is configured to rotate” in claim 105
Prong 1: a rotation apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to rotate (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a beam irradiation apparatus that is configured to irradiate” in claim 105
Prong 1: a beam irradiation apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to irradiate (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“an object measurement apparatus that is configured to measure” in claim 105
Prong 1: an object measurement (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to measure (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a beam measurement apparatus that is configured to measure” in claim 116
Prong 1: a beam measurement apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to measure (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“open angle change apparatus that is configured to change an open angle” in claim 121
Prong 1: open angle change apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to change an open angle (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a second open angle change apparatus that is configured to change at least one of a first open angle” in claim 122
Prong 1: a second open angle change apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to change at least one of a first open angle (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a condensing optical system that is configured to condenses the energy beam” in claim 123
Prong 1: a condensing optical system (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to condenses the energy beam (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a beam measurement apparatus that is configured to measure the energy beam” in claim 136
Prong 1: a beam measurement apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to measure (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a movement apparatus that is configured to move at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus” in claim 136
Prong 1: a movement apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to move (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a beam measurement apparatus that is configured to measure the energy beam” in claim 137
Prong 1: a beam measurement apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to measure (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a movement apparatus that is configured to move at least one of a position of the beam irradiation apparatus” in claim 137
Prong 1: a movement apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to move (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“an obtaining apparatus that is configured to obtain an information” in claim 137
Prong 1: an obtaining apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to obtain (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a holding apparatus that is configured to hold an object” in claim 143
Prong 1: a holding apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to hold (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a rotation apparatus that is configured to rotate” in claim 143
Prong 1: a rotation apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to rotate (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“an object measurement apparatus that is configured to measure” in claim 143
Prong 1: object measurement apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to measure (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“a control apparatus that is configured to control” in claim 143
Prong 1: a control apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: to control (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“holding an object to be rotatable by using a holding apparatus” in claim 144
Prong 1: a holding apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: holding an object (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“rotating the holding apparatus by using a rotating apparatus” in claim 144
Prong 1: a rotating apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: rotating the holding apparatus (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
“irradiating the object held by the holding apparatus with an energy beam by using a beam irradiation apparatus” in claim 144
Prong 1: a beam irradiation apparatus (generic placeholder),
Prong 2: irradiating the object (function),
Prong 3: no structure.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 123 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
The term “which a diameter of a beam cross section at an entrance pupil of the condensing optical system is maximum” in claim 123 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “which a diameter of a beam cross section at an entrance pupil of the condensing optical system is maximum” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. It is unclear what is meant by maximum, maximum needs to be defined by a range or a specific measurement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 105-114, 116-121, 130, 132-144 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by JP 2014223672 A - Kubo.
Regarding claim 105, Kubo is directed towards an laser processing device. Kubo does teach a holding apparatus that is configured to hold an object to be rotatable ([0020] workpiece holding means 3), a rotation apparatus that is configured to rotate the holding apparatus ([0020] a rotating mechanism 22 for rotating the chuck 21), a beam irradiation apparatus that is configured to irradiate the object held by the holding apparatus with an energy beam ([0018] As shown in Figure 1, the laser processing apparatus 1 of this embodiment is a device that processes an object w to be processed by irradiating it with processing laser light L1.), an object measurement apparatus that is configured to measure the object ([0005] processing apparatus that can measure and correct the axial runout of a workpiece with high precision, thereby improving processing accuracy.), and a control apparatus that is configured to control at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2 … a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and the rotation apparatus based on an information related to the object measured by the object measurement apparatus ([0018]workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) … a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and an information of a rotational axis of the rotation apparatus, the object being processed by irradiating the object held by the holding apparatus with the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus ([0018] an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
Regarding claim 106, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the control apparatus is configured to control at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the rotation apparatus based on a misalignment between the rotational axis and the object ([0018] correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value).
Regarding claim 107, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the control apparatus is configured to control at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the rotation apparatus based on an angle relationship between the rotational axis and a central axis of the object ([0032] In response to this change in reflection position and incident angle, the diameter and reflection direction of the reflected light R1 change, and the size and projection position of the projected light S1 on the screen 33 also change.).
Regarding claim 108, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the control apparatus is configured to control at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the rotation apparatus based on a positional relationship between the rotational axis and a central axis of the object ([0018] the change in the reflected light is measured to calculate the magnitude of the axial runout caused by the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece and the rotation center, and the irradiation position of the processing laser beam is adjusted based on the calculated value.).
Regarding claim 109, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the control apparatus is configured to control an irradiation position of the energy beam by the beam irradiation apparatus based on a misalignment between the rotational axis and the object ([0018] the change in the reflected light is measured to calculate the magnitude of the axial runout caused by the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece and the rotation center, and the irradiation position of the processing laser beam is adjusted based on the calculated value.).
Regarding claim 110, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the control apparatus is configured to control the irradiation position of the energy beam by the beam irradiation apparatus in a direction intersecting with the rotational axis based on the misalignment between the rotational axis and the object ([0018] the change in the reflected light is measured to calculate the magnitude of the axial runout caused by the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece and the rotation center, and the irradiation position of the processing laser beam is adjusted based on the calculated value.).
Regarding claim 111, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 109. Kubo does teach the beam irradiation apparatus includes a beam irradiation position change apparatus that is configured to change an irradiation position of the energy beam relative to the beam irradiation apparatus ([0019] a focusing lens 14 that focuses the laser light into a spot shape, and a plurality of mirrors m1, m2 that bend the optical path.).
Regarding claim 112, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 109. Kubo does teach the beam irradiation apparatus is configured to irradiate an irradiation position on a surface of the object with the energy beam from a direction intersecting with a normal line of the surface at the irradiation position (Figures 1 and 2, it can be seen in the figures that the processing beam (L1) is normal to the surface of the workpiece (w)).
Regarding claim 113, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 112. Kubo does teach an angle between the normal line and an irradiation axis that is along a propagating direction of the energy beam with which the irradiation position is irradiated is equal to or larger than 60 degree (Figures 4-6, [0032] As the processing of the workpiece w progresses with the processing laser beam L1, its diameter decreases, and the position of its surface changes in accordance with this reduction in diameter. Therefore, as the processing progresses, the reflection position of the processing laser light L1 on the surface of the workpiece w changes in the z-axis direction, and as the radius of curvature of the surface decreases, the angle of incidence to the workpiece w (the angle it makes with the normal to the surface of the workpiece) also gradually increases. In response to this change in reflection position and incident angle, the diameter and reflection direction of the reflected light R1 change, and the size and projection position of the projected light S1 on the screen 33 also change.).
Regarding claim 114, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 112. Kubo does teach the irradiation position of the energy beam is changeable in a direction intersecting with the rotational axis ([0019] a focusing lens 14 that focuses the laser light into a spot shape, and a plurality of mirrors m1, m2 that bend the optical path.).
Regarding claim 116, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a beam measurement apparatus that is configured to measure the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.).
Regarding claim 117, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure an intensity distribution in an angular direction relative to an irradiation axis that is along a propagating direction of the energy beam ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.).
Regarding claim 118, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 117. Kubo does teach the control apparatus is configured to control an irradiation position of the energy beam based on a measured result by the beam measurement apparatus ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11,).
Regarding claim 119, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 117. Kubo does teach the control apparatus is configured to control a direction along which the energy beam propagates based on a measured result by the beam measurement apparatus ([0010] For example, changes in beam diameter and irradiation position on the surface of the workpiece, measured in microns, can be amplified to millimeters in reflected light, and the end point of the machining process can be determined with high precision from these amplified changes in reflected light. Furthermore, the direction and dimension of the misalignment between the irradiation direction of the processing laser beam and the rotation center may differ from those of the measurement laser beam.).
Regarding claim 120, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 118. Kubo does teach the beam irradiation apparatus includes a beam irradiation state change apparatus that is configured to change at least one of an irradiation position of the energy beam relative to the beam irradiation apparatus and a propagating direction of the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus ([0018] a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
Regarding claim 121, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 117. Kubo does teach the beam irradiation apparatus includes an open angle change apparatus that is configured to change an open angle of the energy beam, the control apparatus is configured to control the open angle based on a measured result by the beam measurement apparatus ([0032] In response to this change in reflection position and incident angle, the diameter and reflection direction of the reflected light R1 change, and the size and projection position of the projected light S1 on the screen 33 also change.).
Regarding claim 130, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus propagates is not coincident with a measurement axis of the object measurement apparatus (Figure 2, it shows that the laser (L1) and measurement reflection (R1) are in different area of the workpiece).
Regarding claim 132, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the object measurement apparatus is configured to measure a surface of the object three-dimensionally ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2, a workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2)).
Regarding claim 133, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the control apparatus is configured to control the rotation apparatus to rotate the object after the object measurement apparatus measures the object, the object measurement apparatus measures the object that has been rotated by the rotation apparatus ([0023] The magnitude of the axial runout is calculated by irradiating the workpiece w with a measuring laser beam L2 at a fixed point, rotating the workpiece w using the rotation mechanism 22,).
Regarding claim 134, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 133. Kubo does teach a measurement range on the object that has been rotated by the rotation apparatus is partially overlapped with a measurement range on the object that is not yet rotated by the rotation apparatus ([0018] a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
Regarding claim 135, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the object measurement apparatus measures the object that is being rotated by the rotation apparatus ([0023] The magnitude of the axial runout is calculated by irradiating the workpiece w with a measuring laser beam L2 at a fixed point, rotating the workpiece w using the rotation mechanism 22,).
Regarding claim 136, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a beam measurement apparatus that is configured to measure the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.), and a movement apparatus that is configured to move at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the beam measurement apparatus, the control apparatus being configured to: move at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the beam measurement apparatus so that the beam measurement apparatus measures the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus and move at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the beam measurement apparatus so that the object measurement apparatus measures at least a part of the beam measurement apparatus ([0019] a galvanometer scanner 13 that scans the laser light to be irradiated, a focusing lens 14 that focuses the laser light into a spot shape, and a plurality of mirrors m1, m2 that bend the optical path...embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.).
Regarding claim 137, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a beam measurement apparatus that is configured to measure the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.), a movement apparatus that is configured to move at least one of a position of the beam irradiation apparatus and a position of the beam measurement apparatus ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2, a workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected
from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial
misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the
reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w
and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that
controls these.), and an obtaining apparatus that is configured to obtain an information related to at least one of the position of the beam irradiation apparatus and the position of the beam measurement apparatus, the control apparatus being configured to: ([0022] The determination unit 32 has the coordinates of the endpoint position on the screen 33 stored in advance, and determines that the processing has ended when the projected light S1 reaches that endpoint position on the screen 33, as will be described later.), and move at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the beam measurement apparatus to an irradiation allowable position at which the beam irradiation apparatus irradiates at least a part of the beam measurement apparatus with the energy beam, obtain, by using the obtaining apparatus, an irradiation position information related to at least one of the position of the beam irradiation apparatus and the position of the beam measurement apparatus that has moved to the irradiation allowable position and control at least one of the position of the beam irradiation apparatus and the position of the beam measurement apparatus based on the irradiation position information ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2, a workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
Regarding claim 138, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a beam measurement apparatus that is configured to measure the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus ([0019] Furthermore, in this embodiment, the energy density of the laser light is adjusted by adjusting the output of the laser light source 11, thereby irradiating the processing laser light L1 and the measurement laser light L2 with different energy densities.), a movement apparatus that is configured to move at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the beam measurement apparatus ([0022] In this embodiment, the moving mechanism 36 is configured to move the imaging device 35 up and down on a rail 36a that is aligned vertically, since the projected light S1 and S2 move in the vertical direction.), and an obtaining apparatus that is configured to obtain an information related to at least one of a position of the beam irradiation apparatus and a position of the beam measurement apparatus, the control apparatus being configured to: ([0022] The determination unit 32 has the coordinates of the endpoint position on the screen 33 stored in advance, and determines that the processing has ended when the projected light S1 reaches that endpoint position on the screen 33, as will be described later.), move at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the beam measurement apparatus to a measurement allowable position at which the object measurement apparatus measures at least a part of the beam measurement apparatus; obtain, by using the obtaining apparatus, a measurement position information related to at least one of the position of the beam irradiation apparatus and the position of the beam measurement apparatus that has moved to the measurement allowable position; and control at least one of the position of the beam irradiation apparatus and the position of the beam measurement apparatus based on the measurement position information ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2, a workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
Regarding claim 139, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the beam irradiation apparatus is configured to emit from a direction that intersects with a rotational axis of the rotation apparatus (Figure 3, shows the beam emitting from a direction that intersects with a rotational axis of the rotation apparatus.).
Regarding claim 140, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the beam irradiation apparatus is configured to emit from a direction that is skew relative to a rotational axis of the rotation apparatus ([0032]the angle of incidence to the workpiece w (the angle it makes with the normal to the surface of the workpiece) also gradually increases.).
Regarding claim 141, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach a movement apparatus that is configured to move at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the rotation apparatus ([0020] a rotating mechanism 22 for rotating the chuck 21).
Regarding claim 142, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does teach the beam irradiation apparatus includes a beam irradiation position change apparatus that is configured to change an irradiation position of the energy beam relative to the beam irradiation apparatus ([0041] Beam adjustment unit 13).
Regarding claim 143, Kubo does teach a holding apparatus that is configured to hold an object to be rotatable ([0020] workpiece holding means 3), a rotation apparatus that is configured to rotate the holding apparatus ([0020] a rotating mechanism 22 for rotating the chuck 21), a beam irradiation apparatus that is configured to irradiate the object held by the holding apparatus with an energy beam ([0018] As shown in Figure 1, the laser processing apparatus 1 of this embodiment is a device that processes an object w to be processed by irradiating it with processing laser light L1.), an object measurement apparatus that is configured to measure the object ([0005] processing apparatus that can measure and correct the axial runout of a workpiece with high precision, thereby improving processing accuracy.), and a control apparatus that is configured to control at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus ([0018] The laser processing apparatus 1 comprises a laser irradiation means 2 that irradiates a workpiece w with processing laser light L1 and a measuring laser L2 … a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and the rotation apparatus based on a misalignment between the object measured by the object measurement apparatus and a rotational axis of the rotation apparatus ([0018]workpiece holding means 3 having a stage that can rotate and move in the x, y, and z axes while holding the workpiece w, an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) … a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), the object being processed by irradiating the object held by the holding apparatus with the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus ([0018] an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
Regarding claim 144, Kubo does teach holding an object to be rotatable by using a holding apparatus ([0020] workpiece holding means 3), rotating the holding apparatus by using a rotating apparatus ([0020] a rotating mechanism 22 for rotating the chuck 21), irradiating the object held by the holding apparatus with an energy beam by using a beam irradiation apparatus ([0018] As shown in Figure 1, the laser processing apparatus 1 of this embodiment is a device that processes an object w to be processed by irradiating it with processing laser light L1.), measuring the object ([0005] processing apparatus that can measure and correct the axial runout of a workpiece with high precision, thereby improving processing accuracy.), and controlling at least one of the beam irradiation apparatus and the rotation apparatus based on an information related to the object measured by measuring the object ([0018] (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.), and an information of a rotational axis of the rotation apparatus, the object being processed by irradiating the held object with the energy beam ([0018] an endpoint determination means 4 (see Figure 2) that can determine the end point of processing by changing the reflected light R1 of the processing laser light L1 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w, a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
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.
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 115 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014223672 A – Kubo as applied to claim 105 above, and further in view of US 20150192434 A1 - Fukuhara.
Regarding claim 115, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does not expressly teach an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the beam irradiation apparatus irradiates the object with the energy beam is.
Fukuhara is directed towards an measuring apparatus. Fukuhara does teach an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the beam irradiation apparatus irradiates the object with the energy beam is ([0037] Next, a case of forming, in the second region, a mark row in the second period P2 that converges to the first period P1 at its boundary with the first region will be described. The convergence means that the second period P2 is closer to the first period P1 at a position closer to the boundary between the first region and the second region.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the beam irradiation apparatus irradiates the object with the energy beam is by Fukuhara in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the beam irradiation apparatus irradiates the object with the energy beam is of Fukuhara could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably allow the unit to mark different sections of the workpiece at different periods. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using an irradiation position of the energy beam at a second period that is after a first period is closer to the rotational axis than the irradiation position at the first period during which the beam irradiation apparatus irradiates the object with the energy beam is of Fukuhara with the well-known system of Kubo.
Claims 122-123 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014223672 A – Kubo as applied to claims 121 and 116, respectfully above, and further in view of US 20080037596 A1 - Kobayashi.
Regarding claim 122, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 121. Kubo does not expressly teach when the open angle change apparatus is a first open angle change apparatus, the beam irradiation apparatus includes a second open angle change apparatus that is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, the control apparatus is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the beam measurement apparatus.
Kobayashi is directed towards an laser beam irradiation device. Kobayashi does teach when the open angle change apparatus is a first open angle change apparatus, the beam irradiation apparatus includes a second open angle change apparatus that is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, the control apparatus is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the beam measurement apparatus (Figure 2 and [0043] - [0046] the first deflection angle adjustment means 814 and the first output adjustment means 815 of the first acousto-optic deflection means 81 and the second deflection angle adjustment means 824 and the second output adjustment means 825 of the second acousto-optic deflection means 82).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to when the open angle change apparatus is a first open angle change apparatus, the beam irradiation apparatus includes a second open angle change apparatus that is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, the control apparatus is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the beam measurement apparatus by Kobayashi in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the when the open angle change apparatus is a first open angle change apparatus, the beam irradiation apparatus includes a second open angle change apparatus that is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, the control apparatus is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the beam measurement apparatus of Kobayashi could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably adjust the angles of the processing beam to achieve the results wanted by the user. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the when the open angle change apparatus is a first open angle change apparatus, the beam irradiation apparatus includes a second open angle change apparatus that is configured to change at least one of a first open angle of the energy beam in a first plane that includes an irradiation axis along a propagating direction of the energy beam and a second open angle of the energy beam in a second plane that includes the irradiation axis and that intersects with the first plane, the control apparatus is configured to control at least one of the first open angle and the second open angle based on a measured result by the beam measurement apparatus of Kobayashi with the well-known system of Kubo.
Regarding claim 123, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does not expressly teach a condensing optical system that is configured to condenses the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the condensing optical system.
Kobayashi does teach a condensing optical system that is configured to condenses the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the condensing optical system ([0050] Description of the embodiment is continued referring back to FIG. 2. The condenser 10 is mounted at the tip end of the casing 521 and includes a direction changing mirror 101 for changing the direction of the pulse laser beam deflected by the first and second acousto-optic deflection means 81 and 82 toward a downward direction and a condensing lens 102 for condensing the laser beam whose direction is changed by the direction changing mirror 101.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to a condensing optical system that is configured to condenses the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the condensing optical system by Kobayashi in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that a condensing optical system that is configured to condenses the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the condensing optical system of Kobayashi could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably allow the unit to change the angle of the beam being deflected off the changing mirror. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using a condensing optical system that is configured to condenses the energy beam and a beam rotation member that is configured to change, around an optical axis of the condensing optical system of Kobayashi with the well-known system of Kubo.
Claims 124-125 and 127-129 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014223672 A – Kubo as applied to claims 125, 116, and 105, respectfully above, and further in view of US 20070284785 A1 - Hoekstra.
Regarding claim 124, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does not expressly teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction.
Hoekstra is directed towards an laser cutting device. Hoekstra does teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably correct the processing beam to make sure it is in the correct position. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo.
Regarding claim 125, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does not expressly teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates.
Hoekstra does teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates. (Figure 9B, it can be seen that the measurement device (630) goes in the direction with the laser).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably allow the unit to measure the surface of the workpiece to maintain proper processing. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a direction along which the energy beam propagates of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo.
Regarding claim 127, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 125. Kubo does teach controlling an irradiation position of the energy beam based on the direction along which the energy beam propagates measured by the beam measurement apparatus ([0018] a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
Regarding claim 128, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 125. Kubo does teach controlling the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the direction along which the energy beam propagates measured by the beam measurement apparatus ([0018] a correction means 5 (see Figure 3) that detects the axial misalignment between the axis of the workpiece w and the center of rotation by changing the reflected light R2 of the measuring laser light L2 reflected from the surface of the workpiece w and calculates a correction value, and a control means 6 consisting of a computer that controls these.).
Regarding claim 129, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 116. Kubo does not expressly teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates.
Hoekstra does teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates ([0106] If the desired position and the measured position are the same, then the energy level is maintained at its current setting. However if the measured position of the crack propagation is ahead of the desired position than the energy to the laser is decreased. Alternatively, if the measured position of the crack propagation is a behind the desired position then energy to the laser is increased.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably detect if the power is correct for the processing of the workpiece. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure a position through which the energy beam passes in a plane intersecting with a direction along which the energy beam propagates of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo.
Regarding claim 131, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does not expressly teach an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the object measurement apparatus.
Hoekstra does teach an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the object measurement apparatus (Figure 9B, it can be seen in the figure that the laser and measurement device are on the same axis.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the object measurement apparatus by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the object measurement apparatus of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably measure the work piece to keep the processing beam on course and at the correct energy. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using an irradiation axis that is along a direction along which the energy beam from the beam irradiation apparatus propagates is coincident with a measurement axis of the object measurement apparatus of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo.
Claim 126 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over JP 2014223672 A – Kubo and US 20070284785 A1 - Hoekstra as applied to claims 125 and further in view of US 20160356595 A1 - Lessmueller.
Regarding claim 126, Kubo does teach the limitations of claim 105. Kubo does not expressly teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction and measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates.
Hoekstra does teach the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction ([0106] If the desired position and the measured position are the same, then the energy level is maintained at its current setting. However if the measured position of the crack propagation is ahead of the desired position than the energy to the laser is decreased. Alternatively, if the measured position of the crack propagation is a behind the desired position then energy to the laser is increased.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction by Hoekstra in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction of Hoekstra could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably measure the energy beam to make sure the position and amount of energy is correct. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using the beam measurement apparatus is configured to measure the energy beam at a first position in a direction along which the energy beam propagates and measure the energy beam at a second position that is different from the first position in the propagating direction of Hoekstra with the well-known system of Kubo.
Lessmueller is directed towards a measurement device for a laser. Lessmueller does teach measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates (Figure 2 shows the measurement beam (16) and the processing beam (18) intersecting. And figure 3 shows at least three measurement points.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates by Lessmueller in the system of Kubo, since the claimed invention is merely a combination of old elements, and in the combination each element merely would have performed the same function as it did separately, and one of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that the results of the combination were predictable.
Person having ordinary skill in the art (PHOSITA) would have understood that measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates of Lessmueller could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Kubo in a manner which would have predictably measure and ensure the processing beam is in the proper position. Moreover, there is no indication in the instant application that any special steps or devices were devised or that any surprising results were derived from simply using measures the direction along which the energy beam propagates based on the first position and the second position in a direction that intersects with the direction along which the energy beam propagates of Lessmueller with the well-known system of Kubo.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
US 20230079144 A1 – MATSUDA teaches a laser device with holding chuck that has a measurement device.
US 6664499 B1 – Brink teaches a laser device with holding chuck that has a measurement device.
US 20040118821 A1 – Han teaches a chip scale marker.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE whose telephone number is (571)272-5853. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30 am - 4:30 pm EST.
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, Steven W Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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.
/KEITH BRIAN ASSANTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights