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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/22/2022 and 7/25/2024 in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1. 97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement has 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: element 24 found in figure 2; element 34 found in figure 3; elements 40-45 found in figure 4 and elements 50 and 53 found in figure 5. 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. 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 Limitation
Claim Interpretations - 35 USC § 112
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.
Claim limitation “diffractive optical elements” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “element” coupled with functional language “diffractive” and without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, Claims 9 and 17 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation: Under Spec. [0007], a diffractive optical element 55, as illustrated in Fig. 5.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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 9-24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
Claim 9 recites the limitation “substantially” twice in last line. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. (MPEP 2173.05(B) III. E.). Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 12 recites the limitation “a beam” in line 3 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a beam” and a plurality of laser light beams mentioned in line 5 of claim 9 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 13 recites the limitation “beams of the diffracted light” in line 3 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “beams of the diffracted light” and a beam mentioned in line 3 of claim 12 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 17 recites the limitation “substantially” in line 4 and 5 respectively. The term “substantially” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” 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. (MPEP 2173.05(B) III. E.).
Claim 17 recites the limitation “a plurality of laser light beams” in line 9 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a plurality of laser light beams” and a plurality of laser light beams mentioned in line 2 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 20 recites the limitation “a beam” in line 3 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “a beam” and a plurality of laser light beams mentioned in line 2 of claim 17 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
Claim 21 recites the limitation “beams of the diffracted light” in line 2 rendering the claim indefinite. It is unclear what the relation between this “beams of the diffracted light” and a beam mentioned in line 3 of claim 20 are? Appropriate correction/ clarification is required.
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 for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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 9, 15-17 and 23-24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNICK et al. (US 2019/0039175 A1) in view of KYOTO et al. (US 2022/0080525 A1).
Regarding Independent Claim 9, SCHNICK et al. disclose a laser processing apparatus, comprising:
a plurality of laser sources (each radiation source 5, [0105], Figs 21-22);
a plurality of optical fibers (optical fiber 18 is disposed downstream of each radiation source 5, [0105], Figs 21-22), a respective optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers being connected to each of the plurality of laser sources (see Figs 21-22); and
diffractive optical elements (an element 13 in the form of a convex lens, [0105], Figs 21-22) on which a plurality of laser light beams are incident (laser beam 6, [0081], see Figs 21-22), the plurality of laser light beams being emitted from the plurality of optical fibers (see Figs 21-22), wherein diffracted light forms an image on an object (a workpiece surface 2, [0081], Figs 21-22) at a substantially identical intensity distribution and at a substantially identical focal position (radiation sources 5 are controlled or regulated in terms of their intensity by the computing unit 14 via further cables 22, [0104], Figs 21-22).
SCHNICK et al. disclose the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose; diffractive optical elements, wherein diffracted light (Note: “diffractive optical elements” and “diffracted light” taught by SCHNICK et al. already) reflected by each of the diffractive optical elements forms an image on an object (Note: “forms an image on an object” taught by SCHNICK et al. already).
KYOTO et al. teach a laser processing apparatus (laser device 100, [0017], Fig 1), comprising: diffractive optical elements (A wavelength dispersion element 11 is a diffraction grating that diffracts each of a plurality of laser beams, [0018], Fig 1. Note: “diffractive optical elements” taught by SCHNICK et al. already) wherein diffracted light reflected by each of the diffractive optical elements (the wavelength dispersion element 11 may be a reflective diffraction grating, [0019], Fig 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify SCHNICK et al. with KYOTO et al.’s further teaching of a diffractive optical elements, wherein diffracted light reflected by each of the diffractive optical elements forms an image on an object; because KYOTO et al. teach, in Para. [0006], of providing an excellent laser device in which the traveling direction of each laser beam that is emitted from a plurality of laser diodes can be easily adjusted.
Claim 15, wherein the diffractive optical elements are of a reflective type (the wavelength dispersion element 11 may be a reflective diffraction grating, [0019], Fig 1, Fig 6 KYOTO et al.).
Claim 16, wherein the diffractive optical elements are integrated on a single substrate (A wavelength dispersion element 11 is a diffraction grating that diffracts each of a plurality of laser beams, [0018], Fig 6 KYOTO et al.).
Regarding Independent Claim 17, SCHNICK et al. disclose a method of operating a laser processing apparatus, the method comprising:
emitting, by a plurality of optical fibers (optical fiber 18 is disposed downstream of each radiation source 5, [0105], Figs 21-22), a plurality of laser light beams (laser beam 6, [0081], see Figs 21-22); and
reflecting, by a plurality of diffractive optical elements (an element 13 in the form of a convex lens, [0105], Figs 21-22), the plurality of laser light beams as diffracted light to form an image on an object (a workpiece surface 2, [0081], Figs 21-22) at a substantially identical intensity distribution and at a substantially identical focal position (radiation sources 5 are controlled or regulated in terms of their intensity by the computing unit 14 via further cables 22, [0104], Figs 21-22), wherein the laser processing apparatus comprises:
a plurality of laser sources (each radiation source 5, [0105], Figs 21-22);
the plurality of optical fibers, a respective optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers being connected to each of the plurality of laser sources (optical fiber 18 is disposed downstream of each radiation source 5, [0105], Figs 21-22); and
the plurality of diffractive optical elements on which a plurality of laser light beams are incident (see Figs 21-22).
Claim 23, wherein the diffractive optical elements are of a reflective type (the wavelength dispersion element 11 may be a reflective diffraction grating, [0019], Fig 1, Fig 6 KYOTO et al.).
Claim 24, wherein the diffractive optical elements are integrated on a single substrate (A wavelength dispersion element 11 is a diffraction grating that diffracts each of a plurality of laser beams, [0018], Fig 6 KYOTO et al.).
Claims 10-11 and 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNICK et al. in view of KYOTO et al. applied to claim 9, further in view of Lee et al. (US 2014/0160442 A1).
Regarding Claims 10-11, SCHNICK et al. in view of KYOTO et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 10-11.
Lee et al. teach a laser processing apparatus (an optical apparatus that includes an optical fiber and a continuous-wave laser light source, [0002], Fig 3), and Claim 10, wherein an output of each of the plurality of laser sources is in a range from 0.5 kW to 5 kW (The PPPA may be in the range of 1 to 5 kW per micrometer, [0050]).
Claim 11, wherein a length of each optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers is in a range from 50 m to 300 m (a multimode optical fiber… that is 50 meters long, [0068]).
Regarding Claims 18-19, SCHNICK et al. in view of KYOTO et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 18-19.
Lee et al. teach a method of operating a laser processing apparatus (an optical apparatus that includes an optical fiber and a continuous-wave laser light source, [0002], Fig 3), and Claim 18, wherein an output of each of the plurality of laser sources is in a range from 0.5 kW to 5 kW (The PPPA may be in the range of 1 to 5 kW per micrometer, [0050]).
Claim 19, wherein a length of each optical fiber of the plurality of optical fibers is in a range from 50 m to 300 m (a multimode optical fiber… that is 50 meters long, [0068]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify SCHNICK et al. in view of KYOTO et al. with Lee et al.’s further teaching of Claims 10-11 and 18-19; because Lee et al. teach, in Para. [0002], of providing an excellent laser device with continuous-wave laser light source illuminates the optical fiber and stimulated Raman scattering in the optical fiber enhances an aspect of the light output from the optical fiber.
Claims 12-14 and 20-22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over SCHNICK et al. in view of KYOTO et al. applied to claim 9, further in view of Tayebati et al. (CN 109791303 A).
Regarding Claims 12-14, SCHNICK et al. in view of KYOTO et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 12-14.
Tayebati et al. teach a laser processing apparatus (laser processing systems, [0006]), and Claim 12, wherein a concavo-convex structure on a surface of each of the diffractive optical elements (a concave-convex lens, [0019]. Note: “the diffractive optical elements” taught by SCHNICK et al. already) is configured so that an intensity distribution within a beam (rays from the beam transmission fiber… to redistribute the beam intensity, [0019]) is uniform when the diffracted light forms the image on the object (“the diffracted light forms the image on the object” taught by SCHNICK et al. already).
Claim 13, wherein the concavo-convex structure on the surface of each of the diffractive optical elements (a concave-convex lens, [0019]. Note: “the diffractive optical elements” taught by SCHNICK et al. already) is configured so that beams of the diffracted light each have a focus located across a predetermined depth of the object (controller can use this depth or thickness information to control the shape of the output beam, [0148]).
Claim 14, further comprising: a movable stage (a lens operating system, which may include… mechanical or motorized translation stages 535, [0133]), wherein the concavo-convex structure on the surface of each of the diffractive optical elements is configured so that the diffracted light forms the image in a predetermined pattern on the object (manipulating and shaping the laser spot such that any shape of the laser spot… is adjustable, [0105], SCHNICK et al.).
Regarding Claims 20-22, SCHNICK et al. in view of KYOTO et al. teach the invention as claimed and as discussed above; except does not disclose Claims 20-22.
Tayebati et al. teach a method of operating a laser processing apparatus (an optical apparatus that includes an optical fiber and a continuous-wave laser light source, [0002], Fig 3), and Claim 20, wherein a concavo-convex structure on a surface of each of the diffractive optical elements (a concave-convex lens, [0019]. Note: “the diffractive optical elements” taught by SCHNICK et al. already) is configured so that an intensity distribution within a beam (rays from the beam transmission fiber… to redistribute the beam intensity, [0019]) is uniform when the diffracted light forms the image on the object (“the diffracted light forms the image on the object” taught by SCHNICK et al. already).
Claim 21, wherein the concavo-convex structure on the surface of each of the diffractive optical elements (a concave-convex lens, [0019]. Note: “the diffractive optical elements” taught by SCHNICK et al. already) is configured so that beams of the diffracted light each have a focus located across a predetermined depth of the object (controller can use this depth or thickness information to control the shape of the output beam, [0148]).
Claim 22, further comprising: a movable stage (a lens operating system, which may include… mechanical or motorized translation stages 535, [0133]), wherein the concavo-convex structure on the surface of each of the diffractive optical elements is configured so that the diffracted light forms the image in a predetermined pattern on the object (manipulating and shaping the laser spot such that any shape of the laser spot… is adjustable, [0105], SCHNICK et al.).
Therefore, it would have been obvious before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify SCHNICK et al. in view of KYOTO et al. with Tayebati et al.’s further teaching of Claims 12-14 and 20-22; because Tayebati et al. teach, in Para. [0012], of providing an excellent laser system with a shapeable output beam is used to optimize and simplify material processing tasks, such as cutting and welding of metal materials.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Applicant is advised to refer to the Notice of References Cited for pertinent prior art.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KUANGYUE CHEN whose telephone number is 571/272-8224. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 9:00-5:00 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, supervisor Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571/270-5569, supervisor Kosanovic Helena can be reached on 571/272-9059, supervisor Steven Crabb can be reached on 571/270-5095, or supervisor Edward Landrum can be reached on 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866/217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800/786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571/272-1000.
/KUANGYUE CHEN/
Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761