Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see remarks, filed 11/28/2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1-2 and 5-7 under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of US 6489589 B1 - Alexander.
Furthermore, the examiner relies on Moffitt for the structure of the device and for the use of two lasers being used in the process of the instant application. The combination of Alexander was relied on for the use of laser in the ranges of femtosecond laser pulses, and the electromagnetic wave comprises terahertz waves, megahertz waves, micron waves, or microwaves, which are well known in the art.
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 1-2 and 5-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140076863 A1 – Moffitt in view of US 6489589 B1 - Alexander.
Regarding claim 1, Moffitt is directed towards a pulse width controller. Moffitt does teach irradiating a processing area of a workpiece with an electromagnetic wave (Figure 4, element 424 and [0002] Embodiments described herein relate to apparatus and methods of laser thermal processing.), and after irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with the electromagnetic wave, irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with a processing pulse ([0021] By varying the settings of the two rotatable wave plates 102 and 112, a pulse of electromagnetic radiation incident on the pulse width controller may be divided into two or more pulses propagating along the reflecting axis 126.).
Moffitt does teach the electromagnetic wave comprises terahertz waves, megahertz waves, micron waves, or microwaves ([0021] The pulse width of the incident pulse may be effectively controlled by the pulse width controller 100 if the transit time of the optical circuit 136 is substantially less than the time duration of the incident pulse.)
Moffitt does not expressly teach the processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses.
Alexander is directed towards an Femtosecond laser utilization methods and apparatus. Alexander does teach the processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses ([Col. 2 Ln. 15-18] FIG. 1 is a diagrammatic illustration of a preferred embodiment of a femtosecond laser machining apparatus which may be utilized to perform the various machining processes of the instant invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses by Alexander in the system of Moffitt, 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 processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses of Alexander could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Moffitt in a manner which would have predictably to utilized to perform the various machining processes. 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 processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses of Alexander with the well-known system of Moffitt.
Regarding claim 2, Moffitt does teach the limitations of claim 1. Moffitt does teach a variation period of an electric field of the electromagnetic wave is longer than a pulse width of the processing pulse ([0008] The energy that has been routed through the pulse width controller is directed to an optical system for adjusting the spatial or temporal profile of the energy, such as a homogenizer, etalon, or fiber bundle. The energy may then be directed to an aperture to trim non-uniform edges, and then to a substrate to thermally process the substrate.).
Regarding claim 5, Moffitt does teach a laser configured to generate a processing pulse and an electromagnetic-wave source configured to generate an electromagnetic wave ([0040] A train of energy pulses having complex periodicity and amplitude patterns, produced for example using a plurality of energy sources such as switched lasers under the control of electronic timers, may be folded into a pulse train having a wide variety of characteristics from very regular to extremely irregular depending on architecture and tuning of the optical circuitry used to subdivide and recombine the pulses.).
Moffitt does teach the electromagnetic wave comprises terahertz waves, megahertz waves, micron waves, or microwaves ([0021] The pulse width of the incident pulse may be effectively controlled by the pulse width controller 100 if the transit time of the optical circuit 136 is substantially less than the time duration of the incident pulse.)
Moffitt does not expressly teach the processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses.
Alexander is directed towards an Femtosecond laser utilization methods and apparatus. Alexander does teach the processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses ([Col. 2 Ln. 15-18] FIG. 1 is a diagrammatic illustration of a preferred embodiment of a femtosecond laser machining apparatus which may be utilized to perform the various machining processes of the instant invention).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to the processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses by Alexander in the system of Moffitt, 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 processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses of Alexander could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Moffitt in a manner which would have predictably to utilized to perform the various machining processes. 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 processing pulse comprises femtosecond laser pulses of Alexander with the well-known system of Moffitt.
Regarding claim 6, Moffitt does teach the limitations of claim 5. Moffitt does teach a delay optical path disposed on a transmission path of the processing pulse ([0007] Multiple optical circuits may be nested in and/or pendant from a first optical circuit, each with its input and output optical gates. Optical delay legs may also be used in some embodiments to add further delay components.).
Regarding claim 7, Moffitt does teach the limitations of claim 5. Moffitt does teach a first beam splitter disposed on a transmission path of a laser pulse emitted from the laser (Figure 2 element 104), and configured to split the laser pulse into the processing pulse and an excitation pulse (Figure 2 element 106), a delay optical path disposed on a transmission path of the processing pulse from the first beam splitter (Figure 2 element 112), and a second beam splitter disposed on a transmission path of the excitation pulse from the first beam splitter and a transmission path of the processing pulse from the delay optical path (figure 2 element 206), and configured to combine transmission paths of the excitation pulse and a transmission path of the processing pulse ([0029] The delay legs 304 introduce transit time and counter-circulation to the optical circuit 302 that is not present in the optical circuits 136, 202, and 208, but at the expense of some energy loss. The various reflective and refractive surfaces scatter a small amount of incident radiation, so the combined effect of many delay legs may result in power losses that are more than desired.).
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 20140076863 A1 – Moffitt and US 6489589 B1 - Alexander as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of US 20070230517 A1 - Matsuda.
Regarding claim 4, Moffitt does teach the limitations of claim 1. Moffitt does not expressly teach before irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with the electromagnetic wave, irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with an excitation light.
Matsuda is directed towards an fiber laser oscillator. Matsuda does teach irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with the electromagnetic wave, irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with an excitation light ([0015] the numerical aperture to the excitation light can be considerably increased in the end surface excitation mode, and the excitation light can be supplied to the oscillation optical fiber through highly efficient coupling to easily and simply realize higher power of the fiber laser beam.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before effective filing date of the invention to irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with the electromagnetic wave, irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with an excitation light by Matsuda in the system of Moffitt, 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 irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with the electromagnetic wave, irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with an excitation light of Matsuda could be predictably used in a variety of systems, including the well-known system of Moffitt in a manner which would have predictably to start a physical or chemical process to occur. 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 irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with the electromagnetic wave, irradiating the processing area of the workpiece with an excitation light of Matsuda with the well-known system of Moffitt.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-10 objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not expressly teach the structure of the instant application. Specifically, a beam splitter disposed on a transmission path of a laser pulse emitted from the laser and configured to split the laser pulse into a first laser pulse and a second laser pulse, wherein the electromagnetic-wave source is disposed on a transmission path of the first laser pulse, and the electromagnetic-wave source is irradiated by the first laser pulse to generate the electromagnetic wave, and the first beam splitter is disposed on a transmission path from the second laser pulse to split the second laser pulse into the processing pulse and the excitation pulse. Furthermore, claims 9-10 depend on claim 8 therefore is allowable.
Conclusion
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 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
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761