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 .
Specification
Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure.
The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. The abstract should describe the disclosure sufficiently to assist readers in deciding whether there is a need for consulting the full patent text for details.
The language should be clear and concise and should not repeat information given in the title. It should avoid using phrases which can be implied, such as, “The disclosure concerns,” “The disclosure defined by this invention,” “The disclosure describes,” etc. In addition, the form and legal phraseology often used in patent claims, such as “means” and “said,” should be avoided.
The abstract of the disclosure is objected to because the abstract contains more than 150 words and begins with “The present invention relates to a method of laser processing a glass substrate” which is a phrase that can be implied from the rest of the abstract. A corrected abstract of the disclosure is required and must be presented on a separate sheet, apart from any other text. See MPEP § 608.01(b).
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: there should be a period between “206” and “The” in para. 0036, line 6.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. In this case:
Claim 9 and dependent claim 10 are both directed towards a beam block that is written on a surface (claim 9) and wherein the beam block is a standalone element (claim 10), and in view of the similar structure “aperture” (fig. 2B: 218) being similarly written on a surface (claim 7) or positioned before the SLM or diffractive optical element (claim 8), and in view of paras. 0058-59 [“This aperture may be placed just before or after a refractive axicon or SLM or it can be directly written to the phase mask on the SLM…The beam block can be written directly to the SLM or implemented as a standalone element.”], the “beam block” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Claim 12 recites wherein the optical arrangement further comprises a diffraction effect reducing filter positioned after a first focusing optical element, and although a PHOSITA would consider a filter for reducing diffraction effects as a known conventional optical element, in view of para. 0021 (para. 0021: “A twelfth embodiment of the present disclosure may include the sixth embodiment, wherein the optical arrangement further comprises a diffraction effect reducing filter positioned after a first focusing optical element.”), the “diffraction effect reducing filter” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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 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.
The following claim limitations are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
Claim 1 recites an optical arrangement forming a laser beam focal line by focusing a pulsed laser beam
the limitation “optical arrangement” is being interpreted as including a diffractive optical element (e.g., a spatial light modulator), focusing optical elements, a diffraction effect reducing filter, and equivalents thereof [para. 0015: “A sixth embodiment of the present disclosure may include the first embodiment, wherein the optical arrangement comprises: a spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element configured to generate the laser beam focal line, a first focusing optical element spaced apart from the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element, and a second focusing optical element spaced apart from the first focusing optical element, wherein a ratio of the focal length of the first focusing optical element to the focal length of the second focusing optical element is about 5: 1 to 50: 1.”; para. 0021: “A twelfth embodiment of the present disclosure may include the sixth embodiment, wherein the optical arrangement further comprises a diffraction effect reducing filter positioned after a first focusing optical element.”].
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(a)
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. It seems that claim 10 is requiring an embodiment of the beam block that contradicts the embodiment of the beam block in base claim 9. Specifically, the recitation of “wherein the beam block is a standalone element” in claim 10 implies that the beam block is positioned before the SLM or diffractive optical element (see similar structure aperture 218 in fig. 2B) and, simultaneously, written on a surface of the SLM or diffractive optical element (claim 9), while it seems that these are two distinct embodiments of a position of the beam block [see para. 0059: “The beam block can be written directly to the SLM or implemented as a standalone element”]. And although paras. 0018-19 recite “A ninth embodiment of the present disclosure may include the sixth embodiment, wherein a beam block is written on a surface of the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element at the approximate center of the input light source. A tenth embodiment of the present disclosure may include the ninth embodiment, wherein the beam block is a diffractive optical element or refractive optic”, since “is a standalone element” has been interpreted as corresponding to “is positioned before” (i.e., it is not disposed/written on a surface of the SLM, as suggested by para. 0059) and since a PHOSITA would recognize that it would have been obvious to write/position/dispose an element (e.g., a diffractive optical element or refractive optic) on a surface of an SLM, claim 10, which requires the beam block be written on a surface and be standalone, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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.
Claims 6, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 6, which recites wherein the optical arrangement comprises: a spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element configured to generate the laser beam focal line… wherein a ratio of the focal length of the first focusing optical element to the focal length of the second focusing optical element is about 5:1 to 50:1
The term “about” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term 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. In this case, it is unclear to what degree a ratio may deviate out of the range 5:1 to 50:1 while still satisfying the requirements of claim 1. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 6 as reciting wherein a ratio of the focal length of the first focusing optical element to the focal length of the second focusing optical element is [[about]] 5:1 to 50:1.
Regarding claims 16-19, which also use the relative term “about”
The claims are indefinite because it is unclear to what degree a duration (claim 16), a repetition rate (claim 17), a diameter (claim 18), or a thickness (claim 19) may deviate out of the claimed ranges while still satisfying the requirements of claims 16-19. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claims 16-19 as striking all recitations of the relative term.
Regarding claim 8, which recites wherein a physical aperture is positioned before the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term physical is used by the claim to mean that it is not written on a surface of the SLM, and/or is a standalone element that is positioned before the SLM [paras. 0016-17: “A seventh embodiment of the present disclosure may include the sixth embodiment, wherein an aperture is written on a surface of the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element. An eighth embodiment of the present disclosure may include the sixth embodiment, wherein a physical aperture is positioned before the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element.”] while Examiner has interpreted a “physical aperture” to be equivalent to an aperture 218 [fig. 2B; para. 0036]. The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. In order to avoid any misinterpretation, and since a PHOSITA would recognize that an aperture may be formed on a surface of an optical element, or, equivalently, be formed such that it is positioned before the optical element, formed as any of the known conventional apertures in the art, claim 8 should recite wherein [[a physical aperture]]an aperture is positioned before the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element.
Regarding claim 10, which recites The method of claim 9, wherein the beam block is a standalone element
Where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). The term “standalone element” in claim 10 is used by the claim to mean “a diffractive optical element or refractive optic” (see paras. 0018-19) while the accepted meaning is directed to a relative positioning thereof (e.g., a positioning of any conventional optical elements known in the art, before an SLM). The term is indefinite because the specification does not clearly redefine the term. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner has interpreted claim 10 as requiring wherein the beam block is positioned before the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element.
Regarding claim 12, which recites wherein the optical arrangement further comprises a diffraction effect reducing filter positioned after a first focusing optical element
The limitation “a first focusing optical element” renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear if this is intended to be distinct from the first focusing optical element of claim 6. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 12 as reciting “[[a]]the first focusing optical element”.
Regarding claim 13, which recites wherein the pulsed laser produces pulse bursts with 2 to 20 pulses per pulse burst, with pulse burst energy of 200 to 2000 micro-Joules per pulse burst
The limitation “the pulsed laser” lacks sufficient antecedent basis. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret claim 13 as indicating that the pulsed laser beam [[produces]]comprises pulse bursts.
Regarding claim 17, which recites wherein the bursts have a repetition rate in a range of about 1 kHz to about 200kHz
The limitation “the bursts” lacks sufficient antecedent bases. For the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret the bursts as being directed to the pulse bursts of claim 13.
Claims 7-12 are also rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) due to dependence on a rejected claim.
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.
Claims 1-6 and 12-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flamm (US 20230311245 A1) in view of Sakamoto (US 20170106476 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Flamm discloses:
A method of laser processing a glass substrate [para. 0089: “Aspects described herein are based in part on the discovery that if a workpiece made of a partly transparent material is intended to be processed using a quasi-nondiffractive beam, then the linear absorption affects the intensity present along the quasi-non-diffractive beam, which is to say in the elongate focal zone”; para. 0095: “For example, the workpiece 3 can be a partly transparent (e.g., stained) glass, for example a glass sheet...”], the method comprising:
focusing a pulsed laser beam into a laser beam focal line [i.e., the elongate focal zone of the beam; para. 0095: “FIG. 2 shows a schematic illustration of a laser processing apparatus 1 for processing a workpiece 3 using a quasi-non-diffractive (laser) beam 5. The concepts disclosed herein are directed specifically to the processing of workpieces from a material which is partly transparent to the laser beam 5 and which accordingly causes linear absorption of the laser beam 5.”; para. 0097: “The laser beam 5" is for example pulsed laser radiation.”], which is formed via
an optical arrangement and oriented along the beam propagation direction and directed into the glass substrate [see fig. 2, showing a diffractive optical element: SLM 15 (paras. 0100-101); focusing optical elements: imaging system 17B formed of lenses L1_B and L2_B (para. 0116) ]; and para. 0118, describing a diffraction effect reducing filter],
the laser beam focal line generating an induced absorption within the glass substrate [i.e., linear absorption along the elongate focal zone of the quasi-non-diffractive beam; para. 0089], and the induced absorption producing
a defect line along the laser beam focal line within the substrate [i.e., modifications along a Trajectory T; para. 0120: “Preferably, the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam 5 can be moved along the scanning trajectory such that strung-together modifications are written into the workpiece along the scanning trajectory T.”; fig. 2],
wherein [see fig. 3A, directed towards an exemplary workpiece that is transparent and fig. 3B, directed towards variably forming the focal zone along the beam propagation direction of a partly transparent workpiece; para. 0106, para. 0107, para. 0112]
a first portion of the laser beam focal line is focused at the first surface of the glass substrate [Flamm teaches, that when dealing with transparent workpiece, as opposed to a partly transparent workpiece, a first portion beam component 5A is focused at the first surface; fig. 3A] and
a second portion of the laser beam focal line is focused at a second surface of the glass substrate that is opposite the first surface [i.e., see a second portion 5C, focused at a second surface opposite the first surface],
wherein a first set of light rays exiting the optical arrangement at a first radius R1, as measured from a center of the optical arrangement forms the first portion of the laser beam focal line with a deflection angle of θ1 [see fig. 3A, showing a first set of light rays 5A, having exited 17B (of fig. 2), inherently having a radius measured from beam axis 9, also inherently having a deflection angle δ],
wherein a second set of light rays exiting the optical arrangement at a second radius R2, as measured from the center of the optical arrangement forms the second portion of the laser beam focal line with a deflection angle of θ2 [see fig. 3A, showing a second set of light rays 5C, having exited 17B (of fig. 2), inherently having a radius measured from beam axis 9, also inherently having a deflection angle δ],
wherein R1 is less than R2 [e.g., see fig. 3B, wherein, when varying light rays 5A_T to 5D_T, each would have a corresponding radius different (lesser/greater) from an adjacent light ray]; and
wherein θ1 is greater than θ2 [e.g., see fig. 3B, showing δ’_1 and δ’_2; and para. 0113, describing a plurality of varying entry angles for corresponding light rays], and
wherein θ1 decreases to θ2 from R1 to R2 in one of a step-wise decrease or a graded decrease [Flamm teaches, that by varying deflection angle in a step-wise/graded manner (para. 0112; para. 0167), it allows for compensating for the deviating linear absorption of a partly transparent material (para. 0124), wherein the inherent radius as measured from center/beam axis would also be varied]; and
translating the glass substrate and the laser beam relative to each other along a first contour, thereby laser forming a plurality of defect lines along the first contour within the substrate [para. 0120: “For the processing of the workpiece 3, a relative movement is performed between the optical beam shaping system 13 (the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam) and the workpiece 3, with the result that the quasi-non-diffractive beam 5/focal zone 7 can be formed at various positions along a predetermined (processing) trajectory T in the work piece 3.”].
However, Flamm does not disclose:
the glass substrate having a feature formed on a first surface of the glass substrate.
Sakamoto, in the same field of endeavor [para. 0001: “The present invention relates to a laser processing device and a laser processing method capable of converging laser light at an object to be processed so as to form a modified region within the object along a line to cut”], teaches forming a plurality of defect lines along a first contour [fig. 9(b): modified regions 7 along line 5; para. 0077: “…the modified region 7 is formed within the object 1 along each of the lines 5”] within a glass substrate [fig. 9(b): substrate 11; para. 0155: “The structure and material of the object 1 are not limited to those mentioned above. As an example, the substrate 11 may be a semiconductor substrate other than the silicon substrate, sapphire substrate, SiC substrate, glass substrate (tempered glass substrate), transparent insulation substrate, or the like.”], the glass substrate having a feature formed on a first surface [fig. 9(b): see sets of parallel features 15 on a surface 11a of substrate 11; para. 0076: “The object 1 to be subjected to the laser processing method to be performed in the laser processing device 300 constructed as in the foregoing, as illustrated in FIG. 9, includes a substrate 11 made of silicon and the like, a plurality of functional devices 15 formed on a front face 11a of the substrate 11, for example. The plurality of functional devices 15 is arranged in a matrix on the front face 11a of the substrate 11, and includes wiring 16. As described above, the object 1 is provided with the plurality of functional devices 15 including the wiring 16, on the front face (first surface) 3. Incidentally, the functional devices 15 are light-receiving devices such as photodiodes, light-emitting devices such as laser diodes, circuit devices formed as circuits, or the like”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to substitute the glass substrate of Flamm with the glass substrate of Sakamoto, such that the glass substrate had a feature formed on a first surface thereof, with a reasonable expectation of success, since Sakamoto teaches that the plurality of defect lines can be formed within a glass substrate with parallel features like diodes and circuits formed thereon, while inhibiting damages to the features [para. 0005: “Therefore, it is an object of the present invention to provide a laser processing device and laser processing method capable of inhibiting damages from occurring at a part deviated from the line in a surface as an opposite side to a laser light entrance side of an object to be processed”].
Regarding claim 2, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the first beam deflection angle θ1 is in a range from 5.5 degrees to 12 degrees.
In this case, in view of Flamm teaching that the entry angle of each light ray is determined [para. 0194: “The compensating phase distribution with the plurality of contributing cone angles leads to the laser beam being able to be considered as a plurality of component beams, with each of the component beams being able to have a different entry angle, at which it enters the workpiece and travels toward the optical axis. The entry angles determined according to the method depend on the position and the intensities in the respective beam cross-sectional regions of the raw laser beam.”], selecting a given deflection angle would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [e.g., so as to allow for compensating for the deviating linear absorption of a partly transparent material (para. 0124)]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a particular deflection angle.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a deflection angle in a range from 5.5 degrees to 12 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable [para. 0194: “The entry angles determined according to the method depend on the position and the intensities in the respective beam cross-sectional regions of the raw laser beam”] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the second beam deflection angle θ2 is in a range from 2 degrees to 5 degrees.
In this case, in view of Flamm teaching that the entry angle of each light ray is determined [para. 0194: “The compensating phase distribution with the plurality of contributing cone angles leads to the laser beam being able to be considered as a plurality of component beams, with each of the component beams being able to have a different entry angle, at which it enters the workpiece and travels toward the optical axis. The entry angles determined according to the method depend on the position and the intensities in the respective beam cross-sectional regions of the raw laser beam.”], selecting a given deflection angle would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [e.g., so as to allow for compensating for the deviating linear absorption of a partly transparent material (para. 0124)]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a particular deflection angle.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a deflection angle in a range from 2 degrees to 5 degrees, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable [para. 0194: “The entry angles determined according to the method depend on the position and the intensities in the respective beam cross-sectional regions of the raw laser beam”] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 4, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the first radius R1 is in a range from 100 μm to 1000 μm.
In this case, in view of Flamm teaching that the entry angle of each of the plurality of light rays is determined [para. 0194: “The compensating phase distribution with the plurality of contributing cone angles leads to the laser beam being able to be considered as a plurality of component beams, with each of the component beams being able to have a different entry angle, at which it enters the workpiece and travels toward the optical axis. The entry angles determined according to the method depend on the position and the intensities in the respective beam cross-sectional regions of the raw laser beam.”], wherein each of the light rays inherently has a corresponding radius, selecting a given number of light rays and their corresponding radii, would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [e.g., so as to allow for compensating for the deviating linear absorption of a partly transparent material (para. 0124)]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a radius.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a radius in a range from 100 μm to 1000 μm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 5, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the second radius R2 is larger than R1 by a range from 10 μm to 100 μm.
In this case, in view of Flamm teaching that the entry angle of each of the plurality of light rays is determined [para. 0194: “The compensating phase distribution with the plurality of contributing cone angles leads to the laser beam being able to be considered as a plurality of component beams, with each of the component beams being able to have a different entry angle, at which it enters the workpiece and travels toward the optical axis. The entry angles determined according to the method depend on the position and the intensities in the respective beam cross-sectional regions of the raw laser beam.”], wherein each of the light rays inherently has a corresponding radius, selecting a given number of light rays and their corresponding radii, would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [e.g., so as to allow for compensating for the deviating linear absorption of a partly transparent material (para. 0124)]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a radius.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a second radius larger than a first radius in a range from 10 μm to 100 μm, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 6, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the optical arrangement comprises:
a spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element configured to generate the laser beam focal line [i.e., SLM 15],
a first focusing optical element spaced apart from the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element [i.e., lens L1_B], and
a second focusing optical element spaced apart from the first focusing optical element [i.e., i.e., lens L2_B],
wherein a ratio of the focal length of the first focusing optical element to the focal length of the second focusing optical element is about 5:1 to 50:1.
In this case, in view of Flamm teaching setting the length of the beam in the workpiece by changing focal length [para. 0116: “The imaging system 17B can also be used to set the length of the quasi-non-diffractive beam in the workpiece 3, for example by changing the focal length of the imaging system 17B.”], selecting a given focal length for each of the lenses in 17B would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application [e.g., to set the length of the beam in the workpiece]. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a ratio of focal lengths of the first and second focusing optical elements.
Furthermore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to select a ratio of 5:1 to 50:1, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable [para. 0194: “The entry angles determined according to the method depend on the position and the intensities in the respective beam cross-sectional regions of the raw laser beam”] involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 12, Flamm teaches the method of claim 6.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the optical arrangement further comprises a diffraction effect reducing filter positioned after a first focusing optical element [para. 0118: “The optical beam shaping system 13 may comprise further beam-guiding component parts, for example deflection mirrors and filters”].
In this case, in view of Flamm disclosing the known practice of including filters in the optical beam shaping system 13 [see fig. 2, showing 13 comprising 15A and 17B], since it has been held by the courts that a change in configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous configurations that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device would perform equally well configured as disclosed by Flamm.
Regarding claim 13, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the pulsed laser produces pulse bursts with 2 to 20 pulses per pulse burst [para. 0130: “number of laser pulses in a burst: e.g. 2 to 4 pulses (or more) per burst with a temporal spacing in the burst of a few nanoseconds”], with pulse burst energy of 200 to 2000 micro-Joules per pulse burst [para. 0127: “laser pulse energies/energy of a laser pulse group (burst): for example in the ml range or more, for example in the range of between 20 μJ and 5 mJ (e.g., 1200 μJ), typically between 100 μJ and 1 mJ”].
Regarding claim 14, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
further comprising separating the substrate along the first contour [para. 0120: “For separating the workpiece 3 into two parts for example, the trajectory T then determines the profile of a subsequent separating line.”].
Regarding claim 15, Flamm teaches the method of claim 14.
Flamm teaches:
wherein separating the substrate along the first contour includes at least one of (i) applying a mechanical force to the substrate; (ii) directing a carbon dioxide (CO2) laser beam into the substrate along or near the first contour; or (iii) applying an etchant to the first contour.
In this case, Flamm teaches the conventional practice of inducing stress (i.e., a mechanical force) for separating a workpiece [see Background; para. 0003: “Modifications can have an effect on the structure of the material and can be used for example for drilling, for separating by way of induced stresses, for bringing about a modification of the refraction behavior or for selective laser etching.”].
Regarding claim 16, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the pulses have a duration of greater than about 2 picosecond [para. 0129: “pulse duration (FWHM): a few picoseconds (for example 3 ps) or shorter, for example a few hundred or a few (tens of) femtoseconds”].
Regarding claim 17, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the bursts have a repetition rate in a range of about 1 kHz to about 200kHz [para. 0132: “repetition rate: usually greater than 0.1 kHz, for example 10 kHz”].
Regarding claim 18, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the laser beam focal line has an average spot diameter in a range of about 0.5 micron to about 5 micron [para. 0134: “diameter of the focal zone in the material: greater than 1 μm, up to 20 μm or more”].
Specifically, in view of Flamm disclosing using a telescope arrangement 13A to increase or decrease a beam diameter of a raw laser beam 5’ (the laser beam incident to the SLM in fig. 2, which would be proportionally related to the spot diameter of the focal zone) for controlling intensity and beam cross-sectional regions [para. 0123: “By way of example, the controller 21 can control the telescope arrangement 13A to bring about an increase or reduction in the beam diameter D of the raw laser beam 5' at the beam shaping optical unit 15 for the purpose of setting the sizes of the intensity components I_A, I_B, I_C (and/or of the beam cross-sectional regions R_A, R_B, R_C).”], since Flamm teaches an exemplary overlapping range of 1 micron to 20 micron, Flamm teaches the claimed range of about 0.5 micron to about 5 micron with sufficient specificity.
Regarding claim 19, Flamm teaches the method of claim 1.
Flamm teaches:
wherein the substrate has a thickness in a range of about 0.5 mm to about 2 mm [para. 0147: “For example, FIG. 3E shows the damping behavior for a partly transparent material of thickness d=1 mm”].
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.
Claims 7-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Flamm (US 20230311245 A1) as applied to claim 6 above, and further in view of Li (US 20190129093 A1).
Regarding claim 7, Flamm teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Flamm does not disclose:
wherein an aperture is written on a surface of the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element.
Li, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., optical system 600], teaches the use of paint applied to a surface of an optical element, to form an aperture [para. 0309: “In embodiments, the portion of the Gaussian laser beam GLB maintained within the second central core region 335 may be blocked from exiting the outlet end 331 using paint to cover the second central core region 335 at the outlet end 331, forming an aperture in the second central core region 335 at the outlet end 331, etc.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include an aperture written on a surface of the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element since Li teaches the conventional use of an aperture to block portions of a beam that are not desired or needed [para. 0325: “Also, in embodiments where the Gaussian laser beam GLB is not desired or needed, the Gaussian laser beam GLB can be blocked by paint, an aperture, etc.”].
Regarding claim 8, Flamm teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Flamm does not disclose:
wherein a physical aperture is positioned before the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element.
Li, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., optical system 600], teaches the use of a physical aperture [para. 0325: “Also, in embodiments where the Gaussian laser beam GLB is not desired or needed, the Gaussian laser beam GLB can be blocked by paint, an aperture, etc.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include an aperture positioned before the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element since Li teaches the conventional use of an aperture to block portions of a beam that are not desired or needed [para. 0325].
Regarding claim 9, Flamm teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Flamm does not disclose:
wherein a beam block is written on a surface of the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element at the approximate center of the input light source.
Li, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., optical system 600], teaches the use of paint as a beam block, applied to a surface of an optical element [para. 0309: “In embodiments, the portion of the Gaussian laser beam GLB maintained within the second central core region 335 may be blocked from exiting the outlet end 331 using paint to cover the second central core region 335 at the outlet end 331, forming an aperture in the second central core region 335 at the outlet end 331, etc.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include a beam block written on a surface of the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element since Li teaches the conventional use of paint to block portions of a beam that are not desired or needed [para. 0325: “Also, in embodiments where the Gaussian laser beam GLB is not desired or needed, the Gaussian laser beam GLB can be blocked by paint, an aperture, etc.”].
Regarding claim 10, Flamm in view of Li discloses the method of claim 9.
Flamm as modified by Li, specifically Li further discloses:
wherein the beam block is a standalone element.
In this case, Li discloses the beam block as a standalone aperture [para. 0325: “Also, in embodiments where the Gaussian laser beam GLB is not desired or needed, the Gaussian laser beam GLB can be blocked by paint, an aperture, etc.”].
Regarding claim 11, Flamm teaches the method of claim 6.
However, Flamm does not disclose:
wherein an aperture is positioned between the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element and the first focusing optical element.
Li, in the same field of endeavor [i.e., optical system 600], teaches the use of an aperture [para. 0325: “Also, in embodiments where the Gaussian laser beam GLB is not desired or needed, the Gaussian laser beam GLB can be blocked by paint, an aperture, etc.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to include an aperture positioned between the spatial light modulator or diffractive optical element and the first focusing optical element since Li teaches the conventional use of an aperture to block portions of a beam that are not desired or needed [para. 0325].
In this case, in view of Li disclosing the known structure of an aperture to block a beam, and in view of the limited possible locations of the aperture to block the beam of Flamm, since it has been held by the courts that a change in configuration, without any criticality in operation of the device, is nothing more than one of numerous configurations that one of ordinary skill in the art will find obvious to provide based on the suitability for the intended final application. See In re Dailey, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1976). It appears that the disclosed device of Flamm and Li would perform equally well shaped as the claimed invention.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm 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, Edward F Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761