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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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.
Claims 1, 2, and 8-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakada et al. JP 2003334683 A.
Regarding claim 1, Nakada discloses an optical device (Para. 1) for interference structuring (Para. 1) of a sample (fig. 1, Ref. 7), the optical device comprising: a laser to emit a laser beam (Fig. 1, Ref. 1); a beam splitter (1366Fig. 7b, Ref. 3) to split the laser beam into at least two partial beams (Fig. 7b); at least one first cylindrical lens (Fig. 7b, Ref. 4); at least one second cylindrical lens (Fig. 7b, Ref. 16) to refract the at least two partial beams in the direction of an interference region (Para. 78); and at least one third cylindrical lens provided as a converging lens (Fig. 7b, Ref. 5), wherein the beam splitter, the at least first cylindrical lens, and the at least one second cylindrical lens are arranged in a beam path of the laser beam such that the at least two partial beams of the laser beam interfere with one another in the interference region (Para. 20) such that a structure having linear structural elements is adapted to be formed in the structural region of the sample (Figs. 3a and 3 b; Para. 56), and wherein a cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens is aligned substantially parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one second cylindrical lens (Fig. 7b shows Refs. 4 and 5 with the same axis), and wherein the cylinder axis of the at least one third cylindrical lens is oriented substantially perpendicular to the cylinder axis of the at least one cylindrical lens and substantially perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 7b, Ref. 16 shows the lens positioned perpendicular to the axis of Refs. 4 and 5).
Regarding claim 2, Nakada discloses wherein the at least one third cylindrical lens is arranged upstream and/or downstream of the beam splitter (Fig. 7b wherein Ref. 16 is downstream of Ref. 3), and/or wherein the distance between the interference region and the at least one third cylindrical lens substantially corresponds to the focal length thereof.
Regarding claim 8, Nakada discloses wherein the beam splitter and/or at least one cylindrical lens and/or at least one prism are movable in translation parallel to the optical axis, and/or wherein at least one beam expander is provided for altering the beam cross section of the laser beam (Para. 34 wherein the beam is expanded) and/or for altering the structure periods, wherein the at least one beam expander is formed by three cylindrical lenses and/or by one cylindrical lens having a first prism and having at least one second prism.
Regarding claim 9, Nakada discloses wherein the interference region comprises an interference pattern having linear structure elements (Figs. 3a and 3b shows the linear pattern), wherein the interference pattern has a user-defined structure period that is changeable in at least one direction (Para. 14 wherein the periodic structure is controllable).
Regarding claim 10, Nakada discloses wherein a beam forming device is provided which is configured such that the cross-sectional profile of the laser beam is changeable in a user-defined manner, wherein the beam forming device is designed for forming an elliptical or polygonal cross-sectional profile of the laser beam (Para. 62).
Regarding claim 11, Nakada discloses a method (Para. 15) for interference structuring of a sample, the method comprising: providing the optical device according to claim 1; using the laser to emit a laser beam (Fig. 1, Ref. 1); splitting the laser beam into the at least two partial beams (Fig. 7b); arranging the at least one first cylindrical lens (Fig. 7b, Ref. 4); arranging at least one second cylindrical lens (Fig. 7b, Ref. 16) such that the at least two partial beams are refracted in a direction of an interference region (Para. 78) such that the at least two partial beams of the laser beam interfere with one another in the interference region (Para. 20) such that a structure having linear structural elements is adapted to be formed in a structural region of the sample (Figs. 3a and 3 b; Para. 56); and aligning a cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens substantially parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one second cylindrical lens (Fig. 7b shows Refs. 4 and 5 with the same axis).
Regarding claim 12, Nakada discloses wherein the optical device performs interference structuring of a sample or of a component (Para. 1).
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.
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 3 and 4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakada et al. JP 2003334683 A in view of Lasagni US 20130153553 A1.
Regarding claim 3, while Nakada discloses multiple lenses and configurations (Fig. 7b),
Nakada does not specifically disclose wherein at least one fourth cylindrical lens is provided as a diverging lens, wherein the cylinder axis of the at least one fourth cylindrical lens is arranged substantially parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens and/or wherein the at least one fourth cylindrical lens is arranged downstream of the at least one first cylindrical lens.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lasagni teaches wherein at least one fourth cylindrical lens is provided as a diverging lens (Para. 19 wherein the beam is defocused downstream of the first lens to expand the beam), wherein the cylinder axis of the at least one fourth cylindrical lens is arranged substantially parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens and/or wherein the at least one fourth cylindrical lens is arranged downstream of the at least one first cylindrical lens (Para. 19 wherein the beam is defocused downstream of the first lens to expand the beam) vary the interference angle and period of the applied structure (Para. 73).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the lenses of Nakada with the diverging lens of Lasagni to vary the interference angle and period of the applied structure (Lasagni Para. 73) which would allow greater control over the spacing between interference structures (Lasagni Para. 81).
Regarding claim 4, Nakada discloses wherein the at least one fourth cylindrical lens is movable in translation in at least one axis and/or in rotation about its cylinder axis, and/or wherein exactly one fourth cylinder axis is assigned to each partial beam, and/or wherein at least two cylindrical lenses are movable independently of one another or synchronously with one another (Para. 67 wherein the lens positions are adjusted relative to one another).
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakada et al. JP 2003334683 A in view of Fukuda et al. JP 2006122927 A.
Regarding claim 5, while Nakada discloses multiple lenses and configurations (Fig. 7b),
Nakada does not specifically disclose wherein at least one fifth cylindrical lens is provided as a converging lens, the cylinder axis of which is aligned parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens, and which, together with the at least one first cylindrical lens, forms a lens system, and/or wherein at least one sixth cylindrical lens is provided as a converging lens, the cylinder axis of which is aligned parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens, and which is arranged upstream of the at least one second cylindrical lens, and/or wherein at least one seventh cylindrical lens is provided as a diverging lens, the cylinder axis of which is aligned parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens, and which is arranged upstream of the at least one second cylindrical lens, wherein the at least one first cylindrical lens, together with the at least one second cylindrical lens and with the at least one fourth cylindrical lens and/or the at least one seventh cylindrical lens, together with the at least one second cylindrical lens and the at least one sixth cylindrical lens, in each case form a lens system.
However in the same field of endeavor, Fukuda teaches wherein at least one fifth cylindrical lens is provided as a converging lens (Fig. 4, Ref. 22), the cylinder axis of which is aligned parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens (Fig. 4 shows the alignment between lenses 21 and 22), and which, together with the at least one first cylindrical lens, forms a lens system (Fig. 4 shows the lens system), and/or wherein at least one sixth cylindrical lens is provided as a converging lens, the cylinder axis of which is aligned parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens, and which is arranged upstream of the at least one second cylindrical lens, and/or wherein at least one seventh cylindrical lens is provided as a diverging lens, the cylinder axis of which is aligned parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens, and which is arranged upstream of the at least one second cylindrical lens, wherein the at least one first cylindrical lens, together with the at least one second cylindrical lens and with the at least one fourth cylindrical lens and/or the at least one seventh cylindrical lens, together with the at least one second cylindrical lens and the at least one sixth cylindrical lens, in each case form a lens system to use a lens with a longer focal length (Para. 30).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the lenses of Nakada with the diverging lens of Fukuda to use a lens with a longer focal length to obtain a longer depth of focus (Para. 30) allowing maximum sharpness.
Claims 6 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakada et al. JP 2003334683 A in view of Lasagni US 2014/0291308 A1.
Regarding claim 6, Nakada does not disclose further comprising at least one first prism, a prism axis of which is aligned substantially parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens, wherein a surface of the at least one first prism is aligned normal to the optical axis and/or further comprising at least one second prism, a prism axis of which is aligned substantially parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens, wherein a base surface of the at least one second prism together with a base surface of the at least one first prism corresponds to a rectangle.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lasagni teaches further comprising at least one first prism (Fig. 10, Ref. 4), a prism axis of which is aligned substantially parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens (Para. 9), wherein a surface of the at least one first prism is aligned normal to the optical axis (Fig. 10 shows prism Ref. 4 bottom surface aligned normal to the optical axis) and/or further comprising at least one second prism, a prism axis of which is aligned substantially parallel to the cylinder axis of the at least one first cylindrical lens, wherein a base surface of the at least one second prism together with a base surface of the at least one first prism corresponds to a rectangle to produce multiple parts of the laser beam (Para. 8).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the lenses of Nakada with the prism of Lasagni to produce multiple parts of the laser beam (Lasagni Para. 8) to move the laser radiation in a first and second direction to structure a predefined surface section of the sample to be processed (Lasagni Para. 9).
Regarding claim 7, Nakada does not disclose wherein at least two second prisms are movable independently of one another, and/or in wherein the at least one first prism and/or the at least one second prism are arranged between the at least one first cylindrical lens and the at least one second cylindrical lens.
However in the same field of endeavor, Lasagni teaches wherein at least two second prisms are movable independently of one another, and/or in wherein the at least one first prism and/or the at least one second prism are arranged between the at least one first cylindrical lens and the at least one second cylindrical lens (Fig. 10 wherein prism Ref. 4 is between lenses 11b and 3a).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify one of the lenses of Nakada with the prism of Lasagni to produce multiple parts of the laser beam (Para. 8).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761