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 .
Claims Status:
Claims 1-4 are pending.
Claims 1-4 are amended.
Claims 1-4 are examined as follow:
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1 and 3 are rejected under AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Hoekstra (US6420678B1 previously cited) herein set forth as Hoekstra, in view of Choo et al (US6407360B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Choo.
Regarding claim 1, Hoekstra discloses equipment (#20, fig.3) for cutting a ceramic (refer to Col 4 line 28-32 cited: “…this apparatus and method may be useful for dividing other types of non-metallic brittle substrates such as quartz, quartz glass, ceramics, silicon, sapphire, and various other electronic and optical materials…”) having a pattern1 (Examiner note: a pattern of texture is inherently disclosed on any ceramic surfaces, also refer to foot note for evidence), the equipment (#20, fig.3) comprising:
a beam irradiation unit (the beam producing and quench device #26, fig.3) for irradiating a beam (#42, fig.3) of a wavelength (Examiner note: a wavelength is inherently disclosed in the beam) absorbed by the pattern (Examiner note: a pattern of texture is inherently disclosed on the ceramic) disposed on an upper surface of the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) and partially absorbed by the ceramic (refer to Col 4 line 28-32 cited: “…this apparatus and method may be useful for dividing other types of non-metallic brittle substrates such as quartz, quartz glass, ceramics, silicon, sapphire, and various other electronic and optical materials…”);
a coolant spraying unit (the beam producing and quench device #26, fig.3) including an injection nozzle (#102, fig.3) for spraying a coolant (refer to Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited: “…As an alternative to using pressurized gas only, a mixture of pressurized gas and water may be supplied to a valve from separate sources and discharged together through the nozzle 102…”) to the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) irradiated with the beam (#42, fig.3); a flow regulator (#106, fig.15) for adjusting an amount of the coolant (refer to Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited: “…As an alternative to using pressurized gas only, a mixture of pressurized gas and water may be supplied to a valve from separate sources and discharged together through the nozzle 102…”) sprayed in proportion to the output of the beam (#42, fig.3) irradiated from the beam (#42, fig.3) irradiation unit (the beam producing and quench device #26, fig.3), wherein the flow regulator (#106, fig.15) adjusts a flow rate of the coolant (refer to “a mixture of pressurized gas and water” in Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited above) injected through the injection nozzle (#102, fig.3); and
a separation unit (#110, fig.3) for cutting the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) by applying force or shock (refer to Col 10 Line 58-64 cited: “…The device 28 preferably includes a rotatable wheel 110 laterally offset from the separation line 45 which is mounted for rotation about an axis perpendicular to the cut line 45. The wheel 110 is preferably made from or covered by a soft material, such as nylon, so that it can apply a force without scratching the substrate 4…”) to a stress line (#45 in fig.3 and refer to the opening crack in fig. 3) formed in the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) due to heating and cooling by the beam (#42, fig.3) and the coolant (refer to “a mixture of pressurized gas and water” in Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited above),
wherein a cooling area (#44, fig.3) to which the coolant (refer to “a mixture of pressurized gas and water” in Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited above) is sprayed transmits the beam (#42, fig.3) toward the pattern (Examiner note: a pattern of texture is inherently disclosed on the ceramic) and the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) and cool at least a portion of an irradiation area (refer to #42 and #44 are overlapping) to which the beam (#42, fig.3) is irradiated,
the stress line (Examiner note: a thermal stress is inherently disclosed when #42 is overlapping with #44 in fig.5) is from by a stress is caused by thermal expansion (refer to #46 and #48, fig.3) and contraction of an upper layer or all of the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above), and
the force or shock (refer to Col 10 Line 58-64 cited: “…The device 28 preferably includes a rotatable wheel 110 laterally offset from the separation line 45 which is mounted for rotation about an axis perpendicular to the cut line 45. The wheel 110 is preferably made from or covered by a soft material, such as nylon, so that it can apply a force without scratching the substrate 4…”) is applied onto the stress line (#45, fig.3), thereby cutting the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) while reducing thermal damage.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
429
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
348
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hoekstra does not explicitly disclose the beam irradiation unit being configured to generate the beam having an output for heating the ceramic until the ceramic is recrystallized or melted; at least a portion of the pattern is removed by simultaneously heating and cooling the ceramic.
In the similar field of cutting brittle object, Choo discloses the beam irradiation unit being configured to generate the beam having an output for heating the workpiece (substrate #100, fig.5 and 13) until the workpiece (substrate #100, fig.5 and 13) is melted (refer to Col 11 Line 64-67 cited: “…along the upper edge of the cut face cut by the laser cutter 200 previously mentioned, the laser beam 228 is irradiated such that intensity thereof is over the melting point of the mother glass); at least a portion of the pattern (refer to the evident cited in the foot note that a pattern is inherently existed on the surface of any matter) is removed (Examiner note: the melting and cooling, would remove the pattern or at least changed to a different pattern) by simultaneously heating and cooling (refer to the UV scribing laser, IR heating laser and the water cooling nozzle on fig.10) the workpiece (substrate #100, fig.5 and 13).
PNG
media_image4.png
419
513
media_image4.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image5.png
346
389
media_image5.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoekstra’s invention with t the beam irradiation unit being configured to generate the beam having an output for heating the ceramic until the ceramic is recrystallized or melted; at least a portion of the pattern is removed by simultaneously heating and cooling the ceramic, as taught by Choo, in order to create a deeper and better controlled stress line to create crack line, the melting would prevent generation of surface crack line and the water cooling would further generate crack line for a smoother and better crack, such that would reduce undesired crack line and a better end product.
Regarding claim 3, Hoekstra discloses a method (refer to fig.3) for cutting a ceramic (refer to Col 4 line 28-32 cited: “…this apparatus and method may be useful for dividing other types of non-metallic brittle substrates such as quartz, quartz glass, ceramics, silicon, sapphire, and various other electronic and optical materials…”) having a pattern2 (Examiner note: a pattern of texture is inherently disclosed on the ceramic), the method (refer to fig.3) comprising:
irradiating, by a beam irradiation unit (the beam producing and quench device #26, fig.3), a beam (#42, fig.3) of a wavelength (Examiner note: a wavelength is inherently disclosed in the beam) absorbed by the pattern (Examiner note: a pattern of texture is inherently disclosed on the ceramic) disposed on an upper surface of the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) and partially absorbed by the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above);
spraying, by a coolant spraying unit (the beam producing and quench device #26, fig.3), a coolant (refer to Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited: “…As an alternative to using pressurized gas only, a mixture of pressurized gas and water may be supplied to a valve from separate sources and discharged together through the nozzle 102…”) onto the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) irradiated with the beam (#42, fig.3);
adjusting, by a flow regulator (#106, fig.15), an amount of the coolant (refer to Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited: “…As an alternative to using pressurized gas only, a mixture of pressurized gas and water may be supplied to a valve from separate sources and discharged together through the nozzle 102…”) sprayed in proportion to the output of the beam (#42, fig.3) irradiated from the beam irradiation unit, wherein the flow regulator adjusts a flow rate of the coolant (refer to Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited: “…As an alternative to using pressurized gas only, a mixture of pressurized gas and water may be supplied to a valve from separate sources and discharged together through the nozzle 102…”) injected through an injection nozzle (#102, fig.3); and
cutting, by a separation unit (#110, fig.3), the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) by applying force or shock (refer to Col 10 Line 58-64 cited: “…The device 28 preferably includes a rotatable wheel 110 laterally offset from the separation line 45 which is mounted for rotation about an axis perpendicular to the cut line 45. The wheel 110 is preferably made from or covered by a soft material, such as nylon, so that it can apply a force without scratching the substrate 4…”) to a stress line (#45, fig.3) formed in the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) due to heating and cooling by the beam (#42, fig.3) and the coolant (refer to Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited: “…As an alternative to using pressurized gas only, a mixture of pressurized gas and water may be supplied to a valve from separate sources and discharged together through the nozzle 102…”); and
a cooling area (#44, fig.3) to which the coolant (refer to Col 10 line 16 – 19 cited: “…As an alternative to using pressurized gas only, a mixture of pressurized gas and water may be supplied to a valve from separate sources and discharged together through the nozzle 102…”) is sprayed transmits the beam (#42, fig.3) toward the pattern and the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above) and cool at least a portion an irradiation area (refer to #42 and #44 are overlapping) to which the beam (#42, fig.3) is irradiated,
the stress line is form by a stress (Examiner note: a thermal stress is inherently disclosed when #42 is overlapping with #44 in fig.5) is caused by thermal expansion (refer to #46 and #48, fig.3) and contraction of an upper layer or all of the ceramic (refer to “ceramics” in Col 4 line 28-32 cited above), and
additional force or shock (refer to Col 10 Line 58-64 cited: “…The device 28 preferably includes a rotatable wheel 110 laterally offset from the separation line 45 which is mounted for rotation about an axis perpendicular to the cut line 45. The wheel 110 is preferably made from or covered by a soft material, such as nylon, so that it can apply a force without scratching the substrate 4…”) is applied onto the stress line (#45, fig.3), thereby cutting the ceramic (refer to Col 4 line 28-32 cited: “…this apparatus and method may be useful for dividing other types of non-metallic brittle substrates such as quartz, quartz glass, ceramics, silicon, sapphire, and various other electronic and optical materials…”) while reducing thermal damage.
PNG
media_image1.png
526
503
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
429
731
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
348
330
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Hoekstra does not explicitly disclose the beam irradiation unit being configured to generate the beam having an output for heating the ceramic until the ceramic is recrystallized or melted; at least a portion of the pattern is removed by simultaneously heating and cooling the ceramic,
In the similar field of cutting brittle object, Choo discloses the beam irradiation unit being configured to generate the beam having an output for heating the workpiece (substrate #100, fig.5 and 13) until the workpiece (substrate #100, fig.5 and 13) is melted (refer to Col 11 Line 64-67 cited: “…along the upper edge of the cut face cut by the laser cutter 200 previously mentioned, the laser beam 228 is irradiated such that intensity thereof is over the melting point of the mother glass); at least a portion of the pattern (refer to the evident cited in the foot note that a pattern is inherently existed on the surface of any matter) is removed (Examiner note: the melting and cooling, would remove the pattern or at least changed to a different pattern) by simultaneously heating and cooling (refer to the UV scribing laser, IR heating laser and the water cooling nozzle on fig.10) the workpiece (substrate #100, fig.5 and 13).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoekstra’s invention with t the beam irradiation unit being configured to generate the beam having an output for heating the ceramic until the ceramic is recrystallized or melted; at least a portion of the pattern is removed by simultaneously heating and cooling the ceramic, as taught by Choo, in order to create a deeper and better controlled stress line to create crack line, the melting would prevent generation of surface crack line and the water cooling would further generate crack line for a smoother and better crack, such that would reduce undesired crack line and a better end product.
Claims 2 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hoekstra (US6420678B1 previously cited) herein set forth as Hoekstra, in view of Choo et al (US6407360B1 newly cited) herein set forth as Choo, and further in view of CN102165562A (previously cited) herein set forth as CN5562A.
Regarding claim 2, the modification of Hoekstra and Choo discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 1, Hoekstra further disclose the beam has a wavelength of 0.1 µm or 10.6 µm (refer to Col 6 line 24-26 cited: “…it is preferably to use a wavelength of 1.06 .mu.m and a pulse width in the range of 100 picoseconds to 40 nanoseconds, preferably 1 nanosecond…” and Col 6 line 59-61 cited: “…laser 54, preferably a 200 watt or greater C0.sub.2 laser having an approximate wavelength of 10.6 .mu.m, is used to provide the initial beam of energy…”).
The modification Hoekstra and Choo does not explicitly disclose the beam has a power density (refer to claim objection) of 1X101 mW/mm2 or more.
In the similar field of laser processing workpiece, CN5562A discloses the beam is set to have power density of 0.1 mW/mm2 or more (refer to the abstract: “…an output end surface (15) of the core section (10) has a rectangular shape with one side length of 1 micron to 20 microns and the other side length of 1 mm to 60 mm, and the laser source is set to make the power density of the laser spot output from the core section (10) to be 0.1 mW/square micron or more.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoekstra’s equipment with the beam is set to have power density of 0.1 mW/mm2 or more, as taught by CN5562A, in order to provide the minimum range of energy density required to effectively process the ceramic.
However, CN5562A does not specifically discloses the beam is set to have power density of 1X101 mW/mm2 or more.
However, since CN5562A disclosed range is included the range disclosed by the present application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam to have power density of 1X101 mW/mm2 or more, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness/anticipation exists. Refer to MPEP 2131.03, such that it would be able to allow fast laser processing and able to speed up the work.
Regarding claim 4, the modification of Hoekstra and Choo discloses substantially all features set forth in claim 3, Hoekstra further disclose the beam has a wavelength of 0.1 µm or 10.6 µm (refer to Col 6 line 24-26 cited: “…it is preferably to use a wavelength of 1.06 .mu.m and a pulse width in the range of 100 picoseconds to 40 nanoseconds, preferably 1 nanosecond…” and Col 6 line 59-61 cited: “…laser 54, preferably a 200 watt or greater C0.sub.2 laser having an approximate wavelength of 10.6 .mu.m, is used to provide the initial beam of energy…”).
The modification Hoekstra and Frederik does not explicitly disclose the beam has a power density (refer to claim objection) of 1X101 mW/mm2 or more.
In the similar field of laser processing workpiece, CN5562A discloses the beam has a power density of 0.1 mW/mm2 or more (refer to the abstract: “…an output end surface (15) of the core section (10) has a rectangular shape with one side length of 1 micron to 20 microns and the other side length of 1 mm to 60 mm, and the laser source is set to make the power density of the laser spot output from the core section (10) to be 0.1 mW/square micron or more.…”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Hoekstra’s equipment with the beam is set to have power density of 0.1 mW/mm2 or more, as taught by CN5562A, in order to provide the minimum range of energy density required to effectively process the ceramic.
However, CN5562A does not specifically discloses the beam is set to have power density of 1X101 mW/mm2 or more.
However, since CN5562A disclosed range is included the range disclosed by the present application, It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the beam is set to have power density of 1X101 mW/mm2 or more, in this case where the claimed ranges "overlap and/or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness/anticipation exists. Refer to MPEP 2131.03, such that it would be able to allow fast laser processing and able to sleep up the work.
Response to Amendment
With respect to the Claim Objection: the applicant’s amendment/argument filed on March 29th 2026 that overcame the Claim Objection in the previous office action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed March 29th 2026 have been fully considered.
Regarding to the argument of the newly amended Hoekstra teaches away from recrystallized or melted, it is found to be persuasive, but moot in view of the new grounds of rejection with the newly cited secondary Prior art Choo et al (US6407360B1), Choo teaches melting the surface of a brittle substrate would prevent the generation of unwanted micro crack on the surface of the workpiece and cooling the surface with coolant to generate controlled crack line, and since Choo are in the similar field of cutting brittle material, it would be obvious to combine Choo’s teaching with Hoekstra too.
Regarding to the argument of a surface pattern is not formed on an upper surface, it is found to be unpersuasive. It is noted that every material even as smooth as glass or metal, the surface had some sort of pattern or surface texture under the microscope or even human’s vision, the limitation “a pattern on surface” is very board and can be interpretated just as explained.
Regarding to the argument of newly amended Hoekstra does not discloses removing at least a portion of the pattern by simultaneous heating and cooling, it is moot in view of the new grounds of rejection with the newly cited secondary Prior art Choo et al (US6407360B1).
Regarding to the argument of Hoekstra does not discloses the claimed cutting process which force or shock is applied to a stress line, it is found to be unpersuasive. It is noted that Hoekstra clearly discloses a wheel that apply a force to a stress line on the substrate (refer to Col 10, line 47-50 cited: “Mechanical Force Applicator, If desired, a mechanical force applicator can be used to apply a bending moment to the substrate 4 about an axis defined by the separation line 45…”, which the wheel #110 applied the bending moment), a bending force would be well within boardiest reasonable interpretation of “apply a force to a stress line”.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
LU et al (US20180065210A1 newly cited) discloses a similar laser cutting brittle material that may read on a lot of the limitation in the independent claims.
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 YEONG JUEN THONG whose telephone number is (571)272-6930. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - 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, Steven W. Crabb can be reached at 5712705095. 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.
/YEONG JUEN THONG/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 May 16th 2026
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
1 NPL Frederik et al “Selective delamination upon femtosecond laser ablation of ceramic surface” (previously cited) herein set forth as Frederik, Frederik discloses ceramic surface, fig.1 a-c in page 5, showing pattern on the ceramic material
2 NPL Frederik et al “Selective delamination upon femtosecond laser ablation of ceramic surface” (previously cited) herein set forth as Frederik, Frederik discloses ceramic surface, fig.1 a-c in page 5, showing pattern on the ceramic material
Prosecution Insights