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 .
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.
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: “a laser device, a beam controlling device, a measuring device, a positioning device” in claim 22.
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.
The laser device may be “e.g. a mode locked fiber laser in combination with one or more optical amplification stages, which emits pulsed laser radiation with given properties in terms of spatial and temporal distribution, polarization, energy, spectrum, repetition rate, etc. (p. 10 lines 6-9).
The beam controlling device “may comprise a number of sub-modules. A sub-module used for focusing the laser radiation may comprise objective lenses, spherical lenses, aspherical lenses, F-Theta lenses, cylindrical lenses, and/or parabolic mirrors. Moreover, a further sub-module of the beam controlling device may comprise an optical parametric amplifier, an optical parametric oscillator, a frequency converting crystal for controlling the wavelength of the laser radiation. Yet another sub- module may comprise a stretcher based on a combination of dispersive elements such as gratings or prisms for controlling the pulse duration. A sub-module comprising a spatial light modulator may be employed for controlling the spatial distribution of the laser beam, a Keplerian or a Galilean telescope made of a combination of lenses and/or parabolic mirrors may be used as a further sub- module for controlling the beam size. A sub-module comprising a combination of polarizers and/or waveplates may be employed for controlling the polarization of the laser beam, and/or a combination of waveplates, polarizers and/or neutral density filters may constitute a sub-module for controlling the pulse energy. The pulse energy, polarization and repetition rate may be controlled using an acousto- optic modulator (AOM) or an electro-optic modulator (EOM).” (p. 7 line 32 – p. 8 line 19).
The measuring device comprises “a microscope”, objective lense and a camera” (p. 7 lines 21 and 26), The positioning device “may comprise galvanometer mirrors, scanning mirrors, a beam steering phased array, a translation stage, a rotation stage and/or a piezoelectric stage” (p. 7 lines 18-20)
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 Objections
Claim 22 is objected to because of the following informalities: The claim should properly begin “A system for welding…”. Appropriate correction 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 (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
[Examiner’s Note: Strikethrough indicates that the reference does not disclose this limitation.]
Claim(s) 14-21 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hѐlie (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0344302).
Regarding claim 14, Helie discloses a method for welding a first workpiece to a second workpiece by means of a laser (Helie, fig. 1C, laser source 31), comprising the steps of:
- irradiating the first workpiece with a beam of pulsed laser radiation, wherein the first workpiece consists of a semiconductor material (¶0052, semiconductor) which is transparent at the wavelength of the laser radiation, so that the beam enters the first workpiece through an entrance surface and leaves it through an exit surface, the geometric focus of the beam being positioned in the plane of the exit surface (¶0069);
- determining a delocalization of the focus caused by nonlinear interaction of the laser radiation with the semiconductor material (¶0068, “non-linear optical phenomena”);
- again irradiating the first workpiece with the laser beam of pulsed laser radiation, the focus of the laser radiation being positioned along the beam direction taking into account the determined delocalization so that the intensity maximum is located in the plane of the exit surface forming the interface of the two workpieces, whereby the first workpiece is welded to the second workpiece (¶0069, maximum moves to interface).
However, Helie does not disclose “placing the second workpiece against the first workpiece” after the “determining a delocalization of the focus caused by non-linear interaction of the laser radiation with the semiconductor material” .
As it is Helie teaches having the first workpiece and the second workpiece already against each other before the first laser is initiated. However, Helie teaches that the second component below the first component may be made of material “either substantially transparent or opaque (or anywhere in between) to the wavelength of the laser pulses (Helie, ¶0069) and the examples of the materials of the components given are “glasses, crystals, metals, semiconductors, polymers and organic polymeric compounds such as polycarbonate, polytetrafluoroethylene (known under the trademark Teflon), and the like” (Helie, ¶0112). Helie asserts that the components “ may be made up of any solid, non-plastically deformed material, provided that at least the first optical component is substantially transparent to the wavelength of the laser” (Helie, ¶112).
Given the broad range of materials, and the desire to weld the components at their interface affectively, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Helie, and place the second workpiece against the first workpiece after determining the non-linear interaction affects, determining the controlled peak power as to generate the focusing, in order to affect a weld as desired, with another varied workpiece of certain material properties (¶¶0068-0069), and it would be obvious, through routine experimentation to employ such a method in order to get the most desirable weld for given workpieces (either opaque or transparent or metal, etc.), in order to not affect the workpieces in a detrimental way as to affect the weld. It is also or alternatively noted that the claim does not describe the criticality of having the order of the steps in precisely as the order presented, thus, it may also alternatively be understood that the placement of the materials together may be before the “determining” step, see MPEP §2111.01(II). In this case, the claims would still be rendered obvious over Helie, as Helie has the placing together shown in Figs. 1A and 1B, before Figs. 1C through 1F.
Regarding claim 15, Helie teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the pulse duration of the laser radiation is in the range of 1 fs to 100 ns (Helie, ¶125, 50 “fs”).
Regarding claim 16, Helie teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the parameters of the laser radiation, including the spectrum, the pulse duration, the beam size, as well as the pulse energy, are identical during the determination of the delocalization and during welding the first workpiece to the second workpiece (¶0068, it moves up and parameters are the same, figs. 4A-4C).
Regarding claim 17, Helie teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the material of the second workpiece is opaque at the wavelength of the laser radiation (¶0069).
Regarding claim 18, Helie teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the material of the second workpiece is a metal, or a semiconductor which is opaque at the wavelength of the laser radiation (¶0112, “metals, semiconductors, etc.”), or a semiconductor which is transparent at the wavelength of the laser radiation.
Regarding claim 19, Helie teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the assembly formed by the two workpieces is moved in a plane perpendicular to the laser beam to create a welding pattern (Helie, fig. 1E, for instance).
Regarding claim 20, Helie teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the focus of the laser radiation is moved along the interface between the two workpieces to create a welding pattern (Helie, Fig. 1E, for instance).
Regarding claim 21, Helie teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the intensity of the laser radiation is varied across the welding pattern (Helie, ¶¶0079-80, intensity of the light changes as focus changes).
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 22, 24-26 are allowed.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 22 March 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Although it seemed like the method steps of claim 14 would overcome the art of record, as argued (Remarks, p. 4) upon further consideration and consultation, it was determined that the method order may be interpreted as within the teachings of Helie, as the precise order of the method is not explicit, and thus the claim anticipated. Please see further explanation in the rejection above. And also, regarding the determining, as noted above, as applicant argues would not be obvious (Remarks, p. 9), it would be obvious to only to effect the method but determine the delocalization in order to affect similar and further process on future work-pieces.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see attached Form PTO-892.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights