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 .
Election/Restrictions
Claims 17 – 20 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected species, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/21/2026.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 2/13/2023 and 8/25/2023 have been considered by the examiner.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: elements 132a, 132b, 132c, 132d in Fig. 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) 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. 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 Objections
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 10 recites, “within a bulk of the substrate an oblique angle.” It appears this should recite, “within a bulk of the substrate at an oblique angle.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
(f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked.
As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function;
(B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and
(C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function.
Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function.
Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “phase modification device” in claims 3, 4, 7, 10, 11, and 14.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Applicant’s disclosure describes the phase modification device as a “phase mask” (paras [0086], [0093] of Applicant’s filed specification), “spatial light modulator” or “SLM” ([0080], [0086], [0093], claim 6, claim 13), “diffractive optical element (DOE)” ([0080], claim 6, claim 13), or “deformable mirror” ([0080], claim 6, claim 13).
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 § 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.
Claims 1 – 4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 2016/0016257) in view of Mishchik et al. (US 2019/0283178) and Chen et al. (US 2017/0203994).
Regarding claim 1, Hosseini discloses a method of separating a substrate (“the present disclosure is related to systems and methods for the singulation and/or cleaving of wafers, substrates, and plates” [0003]), the method comprising:
directing a focused laser beam (Fig. 4A, focused laser beam 405; the beam in “beam path 403” [0136] has been focused by “aberrated focusing element 102” [0136]) into the substrate (Fig. 4A, substrate / “sample 406” [0136]) such that a focal line is formed by filamentation within a bulk of the substrate (Fig. 4A, focal line 407 within substrate 406; paras. [0134]-[0137] are under the heading “Curved Filamentation” (heading above [0134]); additionally, the title is “Method and apparatus for performing laser curved filamentation within transparent materials”) at an oblique angle with respect to a laser-incident surface of the substrate (while Fig. 4A shows the laser entering the substrate at a normal angle, para. [0079] states, “This modification can occur at normal and non-normal angles of incidence relative to the top of the substrate”; a "non-normal" angle of incidence relative to the top of the substrate corresponds to directing a laser beam at an oblique angle with respect to a laser-incident surface of the substrate), wherein the laser beam focal line is formed by a pulsed laser beam (“ultrafast laser pulses of the incident beam 403” [0137]),
wherein the laser beam focal line generates an induced multi-photon absorption within the substrate that produces a damage track within the bulk of the substrate along the laser beam focal line (“The main objective of the present invention is to provide fast, reliable and economical non-ablative laser machining to initiate orifices (stopped/blind or through orifices) in the target material that may be initiated below or above a single or multiple stacked target material by curved filamentation by a burst(s) of ultrafast laser pulses. Ultra short lasers offer high intensity to micromachine, to modify and to process surfaces cleanly by aggressively driving multi-photon, tunnel ionization, and electron-avalanche processes” [0072]); and
providing relative motion between the pulsed laser beam and the substrate in a laser beam pass such that the pulsed laser beam forms a sequence of damage tracks within the substrate (“the control and processing unit is configured to control the relative position between the laser beam and the transparent material for the formation of an array of continuous laser filaments within the transparent material” [0036]).
Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the laser beam focal line is disposed along a beam propagation direction.
Mishchik is directed to a method for cutting material with a laser [Abstract]. Mishchik discloses wherein a laser beam focal line is disposed along a beam propagation direction (Fig. 3A shows “laser beam 100,” wherein “lens 4 focuses the laser beam 100 in an area 30 of the sample 3” [0078]; the area 30 is shown as being disposed along the beam propagation direction; Mishchik also discloses, “In a variant, an angle is introduced between the optical axis of the beam and the axis normal to the surface of the sample 3 in the plane XY and the displacement applied between the emission of successive pulses is adapted to produce a slightly conical cutting surface ” [0071]).
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 include wherein the laser beam focal line is disposed along a beam propagation direction. This is a known, alternative way of providing an angled / conical cut edge, applied to a known method, to achieve predictable results.
Hosseini does not expressly disclose applying the pulsed laser beam from a first edge of the substrate to a second edge of the substrate.
Chen is directed to systems and methods for processing glass substrates [Title]. Chen discloses applying a laser beam from a first edge of a substrate to a second edge of the substrate (Figs. 10A and 10B show wherein a laser beam is applied from a first edge (side 27 at top of figure) to a second edge (side 27 at bottom of figure) along “scan path SP” [0071]).
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 include applying the pulsed laser beam from a first edge of the substrate to a second edge of the substrate. This allows for creating a desired singulated product having a particular shape from a workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, Hosseini discloses further comprising applying a breaking force on the substrate to separate an article from the substrate at the sequence of damage tracks (“the filament zone functions as a cleavage plane, either immediately, after some programmable delay or via the application of a subsequent cleavage step” [0098]), wherein the article comprises an angled edge (Fig. 4B shows an angled edge / “C-cut 407” [0136]; Applicant’s filed specification at para [0045] indicates that a “chamfered edge” or a “C-chamfer” corresponds to an angled edge).
Regarding claim 3, Hosseini discloses wherein a phase modification device modifies a phase of the pulsed laser beam. (Fig. 4A, phase modification device includes “Phase modulator” 401 and “Aberrated focusing element” 402; 401 is described as “Cubic phase plate or mask 401” [0136]; 402 is described as “aberrated focusing element 402” [0136]).
Regarding claim 4, Hosseini discloses wherein the phase modification device is operable to correct aberrations in the pulsed laser beam as compared to the pulsed laser beam prior to passing through the phase modification device (Fig. 4A, phase modification device includes “Phase modulator” 401 and “Aberrated focusing element” 402; “An aberrated optical focusing element is employed to produce an external beam waist while producing distributed focusing of the incident beam within the material” [Abstract]; the claim language “to correct aberrations” is interpreted to mean adjusting aberrations to produce a desired distributed focusing of the beam).
Regarding claim 9, Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the pulsed laser beam has a wavelength of 1030 nm, a pulse energy within a range of 200 µJ to 1000 µJ, including endpoints, and a pulse width within a range of 0.25 ps to 10 ps, including endpoints.
However, Hosseini discloses an exemplary wavelength of “1064 nm” [0091, discloses a pulse energy as follows: “A suitable energy can be empirically determined for a given material by producing filaments at various beam energies, observing or measuring the filament depth, and selecting a beam energy that produces filaments of a suitable length. In one non-limiting example implementation, the energy in the incident beam (the energy of all pulses in a burst) may be between approximately 10 µJ and approximately 2000 µJ” [0098], and discloses a pulse width of “less than approximately 50 picoseconds” [0091].
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 include wherein the pulsed laser beam has a wavelength of 1030 nm, a pulse energy within a range of 200 µJ to 1000 µJ, including endpoints, and a pulse width within a range of 0.25 ps to 10 ps, including endpoints. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP § 2144.05-I. Furthermore, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Claims 5 and 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 2016/0016257) in view of Mishchik et al. (US 2019/0283178) and Chen et al. (US 2017/0203994), further in view of Steeves et al. (US 2020/0108443).
Regarding claim 5, Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the aberrations comprise one or more of Zernike polynomial 4-7 and Zernike polynomial 12-14.
Steeves is directed to adaptive optics for laser processing [Abstract]. Steeves discloses aberrations modeled by Zernike polynomials Z4-Z16, and utilizing a deformable mirror to compensate for the aberrations (“A wavefront error can be represented by a set of discrete orthogonal shape functions (Zernike polynomials), with a majority of wavefront errors contained within the first 16 Zernike polynomials. As shown in FIGS. 8A and 8B, the DM can produce low-order Zernike polynomials (i.e., Z4-Z16). In some embodiments, this provides a standard of requirements for the deformable mirror” [0054]; Fig. 11A shows an uncorrected beam profile, Fig. 11B shows a corrected beam profile with a Z4-Z6 correction, and Fig. 11C shows a corrected beam profile with a Z4-Z16 correction).
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 include wherein the aberrations comprise one or more of Zernike polynomial 4-7 and Zernike polynomial 12-14. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to correct / adjust an aberration such that a desired laser beam profile is achieved, and would be able to given the teachings of Steeves.
Regarding claim 6, Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the phase modification device is one of a diffractive optical element, deformable mirror, and a spatial light modulator.
Steeves discloses a phase modification device that is a “deformable mirror” [0054].
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 include wherein the phase modification device is one of a diffractive optical element, deformable mirror, and a spatial light modulator. This is a known type of phase modulator, applied in a known method, to achieve predictable results.
Claims 7 and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 2016/0016257) in view of Mishchik et al. (US 2019/0283178) and Chen et al. (US 2017/0203994), further in view of Christodoulides et al. (US 8,101,929).
Regarding claim 7, Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the phase modification device provides a phase pattern comprising a plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands.
Christodoulides is directed to generating wave transmission for material processing [Col. 1, lines 9-15]. Christodoulides discloses wherein a phase modification device provides a phase pattern comprising a plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands (Fig. 7b shows parabolic phase-shifting bands formed by a phase mask [Col. 8, lines 31-37]).
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 include wherein the phase modification device provides a phase pattern comprising a plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands. This allows for forming a beam with a desired profile.
Regarding claim 8, Hosseini / Christodoulides does not expressly disclose wherein: the plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands comprises a first pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and a second pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands; and the first pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and the second pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands are radially arranged such that vertices of the sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands of the first pair oppose one another and vertices of the sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands of the second pair oppose one another.
However, Christodoulides discloses wherein the plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands comprises a first set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands (upper right in Fig. 7b) and a second set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands (lower left in Fig. 7b); and the first set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and the second set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands are arranged such that vertices of the first set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands oppose vertices of the second set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands.
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 include wherein: the plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands comprises a first pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and a second pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands; and the first pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and the second pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands are radially arranged such that vertices of the sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands of the first pair oppose one another and vertices of the sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands of the second pair oppose one another. This is merely an alternative phase pattern with respect to that of Christodoulides. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a phase pattern that results in a desired laser beam, and would be able to develop a phase mask resulting in the desired phase pattern using the teachings of Christodoulides.
Claims 10, 11, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 2016/0016257) in view of Mishchik et al. (US 2019/0283178).
Regarding claim 10, Hosseini discloses a method of separating an article from a substrate (“the present disclosure is related to systems and methods for the singulation and/or cleaving of wafers, substrates, and plates” [0003]), the method comprising:
directing a focused laser beam (Fig. 4A, focused laser beam 405; the beam in “beam path 403” [0136] has been focused by “aberrated focusing element 102” [0136]) into the substrate (Fig. 4A, substrate / “sample 406” [0136]) such that a laser beam focal line is formed by filamentation within a bulk of the substrate (Fig. 4A, focal line 407 within substrate 406; paras. [0134]-[0137] are under the heading “Curved Filamentation” (heading above [0134]); additionally, the title is “Method and apparatus for performing laser curved filamentation within transparent materials”) at an oblique angle with respect to a laser-incident surface of the substrate (while Fig. 4A shows the laser entering the substrate at a normal angle, para. [0079] states, “This modification can occur at normal and non-normal angles of incidence relative to the top of the substrate”; a "non-normal" angle of incidence relative to the top of the substrate corresponds to directing a laser beam at an oblique angle with respect to a laser-incident surface of the substrate), wherein:
the laser beam focal line is formed by a pulsed laser beam (“ultrafast laser pulses of the incident beam 403” [0137]); and
a phase modification device applies a phase mask pattern to the pulsed laser beam (Fig. 4A, phase modification device includes “Phase modulator” 401 and “Aberrated focusing element” 402; 401 is described as “Cubic phase plate or mask 401” [0136]; 402 is described as “aberrated focusing element 402” [0136]);
pulsing the pulsed laser beam, wherein the laser beam focal line generates an induced multi-photon absorption within the substrate that produces a damage track within the bulk of the substrate along the laser beam focal line (“The main objective of the present invention is to provide fast, reliable and economical non-ablative laser machining to initiate orifices (stopped/blind or through orifices) in the target material that may be initiated below or above a single or multiple stacked target material by curved filamentation by a burst(s) of ultrafast laser pulses. Ultra short lasers offer high intensity to micromachine, to modify and to process surfaces cleanly by aggressively driving multi-photon, tunnel ionization, and electron-avalanche processes” [0072]);
providing relative motion between the pulsed laser beam and the substrate in a laser beam pass such that the pulsed laser beam forms a sequence of damage tracks within the substrate (“the control and processing unit is configured to control the relative position between the laser beam and the transparent material for the formation of an array of continuous laser filaments within the transparent material” [0036]); and
applying a breaking force on the substrate to separate the article from the substrate at the sequence of damage tracks (“the filament zone functions as a cleavage plane, either immediately, after some programmable delay or via the application of a subsequent cleavage step” [0098]), wherein the article comprises an angled edge (Fig. 4B shows an angled edge / “C-cut 407” [0136]; Applicant’s filed specification at para [0045] indicates that a “chamfered edge” or a “C-chamfer” corresponds to an angled edge).
Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the laser beam focal line is disposed along a beam propagation direction.
Mishchik is directed to a method for cutting material with a laser [Abstract]. Mishchik discloses wherein a laser beam focal line is disposed along a beam propagation direction (Fig. 3A shows “laser beam 100,” wherein “lens 4 focuses the laser beam 100 in an area 30 of the sample 3” [0078]; the area 30 is shown as being disposed along the beam propagation direction; Mishchik also discloses, “In a variant, an angle is introduced between the optical axis of the beam and the axis normal to the surface of the sample 3 in the plane XY and the displacement applied between the emission of successive pulses is adapted to produce a slightly conical cutting surface ” [0071]).
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 include wherein the laser beam focal line is disposed along a beam propagation direction. This is a known, alternative way of providing an angled / conical cut edge, applied to a known method, to achieve predictable results.
Regarding claim 11, Hosseini discloses wherein the phase modification device is operable to correct aberrations in the pulsed laser beam as compared to the pulsed laser beam prior to passing through the phase modification device (Fig. 4A, phase modification device includes “Phase modulator” 401 and “Aberrated focusing element” 402; “An aberrated optical focusing element is employed to produce an external beam waist while producing distributed focusing of the incident beam within the material” [Abstract]; the claim language “to correct aberrations” is interpreted to mean adjusting aberrations to produce a desired distributed focusing of the beam).
Regarding claim 16, Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the pulsed laser beam has a wavelength of 1030 nm, a pulse energy within a range of 200 µJ to 1000 µJ, including endpoints, and a pulse width within a range of 0.25 ps to 10 ps, including endpoints.
However, Hosseini discloses an exemplary wavelength of “1064 nm” [0091, discloses a pulse energy as follows: “A suitable energy can be empirically determined for a given material by producing filaments at various beam energies, observing or measuring the filament depth, and selecting a beam energy that produces filaments of a suitable length. In one non-limiting example implementation, the energy in the incident beam (the energy of all pulses in a burst) may be between approximately 10 µJ and approximately 2000 µJ” [0098], and discloses a pulse width of “less than approximately 50 picoseconds” [0091].
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 include wherein the pulsed laser beam has a wavelength of 1030 nm, a pulse energy within a range of 200 µJ to 1000 µJ, including endpoints, and a pulse width within a range of 0.25 ps to 10 ps, including endpoints. In the case where the claimed ranges “overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art” a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976). Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close. MPEP § 2144.05-I. Furthermore, the courts have held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. MPEP § 2144.05-II-A.
Claims 12 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 2016/0016257) in view of Mishchik et al. (US 2019/0283178), further in view of Steeves et al. (US 2020/0108443).
Regarding claim 12, Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the aberrations comprise one or more of Zernike polynomial 4-7 and Zernike polynomial 12-14.
Steeves is directed to adaptive optics for laser processing [Abstract]. Steeves discloses aberrations modeled by Zernike polynomials Z4-Z16, and utilizing a deformable mirror to compensate for the aberrations (“A wavefront error can be represented by a set of discrete orthogonal shape functions (Zernike polynomials), with a majority of wavefront errors contained within the first 16 Zernike polynomials. As shown in FIGS. 8A and 8B, the DM can produce low-order Zernike polynomials (i.e., Z4-Z16). In some embodiments, this provides a standard of requirements for the deformable mirror” [0054]; Fig. 11A shows an uncorrected beam profile, Fig. 11B shows a corrected beam profile with a Z4-Z6 correction, and Fig. 11C shows a corrected beam profile with a Z4-Z16 correction).
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 include wherein the aberrations comprise one or more of Zernike polynomial 4-7 and Zernike polynomial 12-14. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to correct / adjust an aberration such that a desired laser beam profile is achieved, and would be able to given the teachings of Steeves.
Regarding claim 13, Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the phase modification device is one of a diffractive optical element, deformable mirror, and a spatial light modulator.
Steeves discloses a phase modification device that is a “deformable mirror” [0054].
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 include wherein the phase modification device is one of a diffractive optical element, deformable mirror, and a spatial light modulator. This is a known type of phase modulator, applied in a known method, to achieve predictable results.
Claims 14 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini (US 2016/0016257) in view of Mishchik et al. (US 2019/0283178), further in view of Christodoulides et al. (US 8,101,929).
Regarding claim 14, Hosseini does not expressly disclose wherein the phase modification device provides a phase pattern comprising a plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands.
Christodoulides is directed to generating wave transmission for material processing [Col. 1, lines 9-15]. Christodoulides discloses wherein a phase modification device provides a phase pattern comprising a plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands (Fig. 7b shows parabolic phase-shifting bands formed by a phase mask [Col. 8, lines 31-37]).
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 include wherein the phase modification device provides a phase pattern comprising a plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands. This allows for forming a beam with a desired profile.
Regarding claim 15, Hosseini / Christodoulides does not expressly disclose wherein: the plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands comprises a first pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and a second pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands; and the first pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and the second pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands are radially arranged such that vertices of the sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands of the first pair oppose one another and vertices of the sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands of the second pair oppose one another.
However, Christodoulides discloses wherein the plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands comprises a first set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands (upper right in Fig. 7b) and a second set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands (lower left in Fig. 7b); and the first set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and the second set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands are arranged such that vertices of the first set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands oppose vertices of the second set of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands.
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 include wherein: the plurality of parabolic phase-shifting bands comprises a first pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and a second pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands; and the first pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands and the second pair of sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands are radially arranged such that vertices of the sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands of the first pair oppose one another and vertices of the sets of nested parabolic phase-shifting bands of the second pair oppose one another. This is merely an alternative phase pattern with respect to that of Christodoulides. One of ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to utilize a phase pattern that results in a desired laser beam, and would be able to develop a phase mask resulting in the desired phase pattern using the teachings of Christodoulides.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nomura et al. (US 2021/0146482) discloses adjusting a phase pattern in a laser processing apparatus by approximating wavefront data by a Zernike polynomial.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ELIZABETH KERR whose telephone number is (571)272-3073. The examiner can normally be reached M - F, 8:30 AM - 4:30 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, Steven 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.
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights