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 .
Claim Objections
Claim 6 is objected to because of the following informalities:
the limitation “the diffractive optical element in an axicon, hologram or homogenizer” in claim 6 should read “the diffractive optical element is an axicon, hologram or homogenizer”.
Appropriate correction is required.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation
“a robotic arm supporting the laser head, the fiber delivering the MM beam from a fiber laser or YAG laser source operating in a CW, QCW or pulsed regime” in claim 12
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-12) in the reply filed on 05/26/2026 is acknowledged. The traversal is on the ground(s) that “According to MPEP 803, the restriction requirement is correctly issued if the following two conditions are met: 1. The claims describer two or more invention that are independent or distinct; AND 2. A serious burden will result if restriction is not required. The independent claims of respective groups I and II, as currently presented, are practically identical. Each element of claim 1 of Group I is recited in amended claim 13 of Group II making the scope of these claims uniform. Thus, both inventions as recited by respective claims 1 and 13 stand or fall together. No additional effort is needed searching for a relevant prior art in the context of, for example, claim 13, if the search is made for claim 1, and conversely.”
This is not found persuasive because applicant’s argument directs to U.S. restriction practice under 37 CFR 1.141-1.146. However, this application complies the national stage applications submitted under 35 U.S.C. 371. Therefore, unity of invention analysis is applied for restriction practice of this application. Therefore the argument is improper and not persuasive.
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
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:
“a diffractive optical element spaced downstream from the end block and configured so that the beam waist includes the beam regions with respective Gaussian and non-Gaussian intensity profiles” in claim 1.
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.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 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 applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “end block” is indefinite, because the structure and the function of the term “end block” are not disclosed. The metes and bounds of the term “end block” is unclear
For the purpose of examination, the term “end block” is interpreted to a portion of the fiber.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(d):
(d) REFERENCE IN DEPENDENT FORMS.—Subject to subsection (e), a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, fourth paragraph:
Subject to the following paragraph [i.e., the fifth paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112], a claim in dependent form shall contain a reference to a claim previously set forth and then specify a further limitation of the subject matter claimed. A claim in dependent form shall be construed to incorporate by reference all the limitations of the claim to which it refers.
Claims 7 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(d) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, 4th paragraph, as being of improper dependent form for failing to further limit the subject matter of the claim upon which it depends, or for failing to include all the limitations of the claim upon which it depends.
Regarding claims 7 and 9, the limitations are merely related to the location of the beam shaper, and do not relate to the structure or function of the beam shaper. Therefore the limitation in claims 7 and 9 do not further limit the beam shaper.
Applicant may cancel the claim(s), amend the claim(s) to place the claim(s) in proper dependent form, rewrite the claim(s) in independent form, or present a sufficient showing that the dependent claim(s) complies with the statutory requirements.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1-2, 5, and 7-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Zhou (US 2016/0377874).
PNG
media_image1.png
361
545
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Zhou teaches a beam-shaper for transforming a MM beam containing sequential beam regions which are characterized by respective Gaussian and non-Gaussian intensity distribution profiles, comprising:
an end block (fiber end cap 105) fused to a downstream end of a fiber which guides the MM beam (beam; see the annotation of fig.1) along a path (see fig.1);
a collimator (collimating lens 110) receiving and collimating the MM beam downstream from the end block (fiber end cap 105) (See fig.1)
a focusing lens (focusing lens 115) located in a fixed position and forming a beam waist (waist; see the annotation of fig.1) in a focal plane of the focusing lens on a workpiece to be laser processed (See fig.1); and
a diffractive optical element (Optical elements 120, 125) spaced downstream from the end block (fiber end cap 105) and configured so that the beam waist includes the beam regions with respective Gaussian and non-Gaussian intensity profiles (See para.[0058] “optical element 200 may be utilized as optical element 120 and/or optical element 125 in delivery system 100. The parameters D, d, θ, and H are geometrical design parameters for outside diameter, inside diameter (which may correspond to the beam size of the beam when it strikes the optical element), slope angle which defines the maximum sagitta (or “sag,” h) and the separation of outer ring of the beam from the spot center of the beam, and the thickness of the optical element 200, respectively… The lens design and its surface profiles may, for example, transform the beam profile from a Gaussian into a Bessel laser beam with a desired intensity distribution.” Hence Optical elements 120, 125 are capable to form the beam to be Bessel–Gauss beam.)
Regarding claim 2, Zhou teaches the collimator (collimating lens 110) is spaced from in interface between the downstream end of the fiber and the end block (fiber end cap 105) at a distance equal to a focal length of the collimator (See fig.1), the MM beam having a flattop intensity distribution profile [Examiner’s note: This is an intended function beam-shaper is capable to form a flat top intensity distribution profile.].
Regarding claim 5, Zhou teaches the diffractive element (Optical element 125) is located downstream from the collimating lens (focusing lens 115).
Regarding claim 7, Zhou teaches the end block, collimator, diffractive optical element and focusing lens are mounted to a housing of a laser head of a high power fiber laser welding system [Examiner’s note: The housing of a laser head of a high power fiber laser welding system is not a part of the beam-shaper according to the claim disclosure. Therefore they are not further limiting the invention. Operator is capable to mount the end block, collimator, diffractive optical element and focusing lens to a housing of a laser head of a high power fiber laser welding system.]
Regarding claim 8, Zhou teaches the collimator (collimating lens 110) is spaced downstream from the end block (fiber end cap 105) such that a focal plane of the collimator (collimating lens 110) is located within the end block (fiber end cap 105) and coincides with the beam region having the Gaussian density distribution (see fig.1), wherein the Gaussian region is focused in the focal plane of the focusing lens (focusing lens 115) on the workpiece (workpiece 130) to be laser treated.
Regarding claim 9, Zhou teaches the end block (fiber end cap 105), which is fused to the downstream end of the fiber, collimator and focusing lens are mounted to a housing of a laser head of a high power fiber laser welding system [Examiner’s note: The housing of a laser head of a high power fiber laser welding system is not a part of the beam-shaper according to the claim disclosure. Therefore they are not further limiting the invention. Operator is capable to mount the end block, collimator, diffractive optical element and focusing lens to a housing of a laser head of a high power fiber laser welding system.]
Regarding claim 10, Zhou teaches the fiber is a step-index fiber or graded index fiber [Examiner’s note: The fiber is not a part of the beam-shaper according to the claim disclosure. Therefore the fiber does not further limit the invention. Operator can attach the fiber end cap 105 to a step-index fiber or graded index fiber.]
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2016/0377874).
Regarding claim 4, Zhou does not explicitly teach the diffractive optical element is located between the collimator and focusing lens.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the location of the diffractive optical element of Zhou to locate between the collimator and focusing lens, in order to provide a desired components arrangement, since the rearrangement of the handle only involve routine skill in the art (MPEP 2144.04).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2016/0377874) in view of Lai (US 6,210,401).
Regarding claim 6, Zhou does not explicitly teach the diffractive optical element in an axicon, hologram or homogenizer.
However, Lai teaches in the same field of endeavor of a beam shaping system, comprising diffractive optical element in an axicon (see col.28, line 36 “axicon first and second prism pair 808, 810”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify diffractive optical element of Zhou by replacing the diffractive optical element with an axicon as taught by Lai, in order to adjust the beam profile.
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Zhou (US 2016/0377874) in view of Sbetti (US 2018/0009062).
Regarding claim 11, Zhou does not explicitly teach a plurality of movable mirrors located upstream from the focusing lens and mounted along with the collimator and focusing lens to a laser head.
However, Sbetti teaches in the same field of endeavor of a beam shaping system, comprising a plurality of movable mirrors (reflective mirrors 12 a, 12 b, and 12 c) located upstream from the focusing lens (focusing system 16) and mounted along with the collimator and focusing lens to a laser head (head 14).
PNG
media_image2.png
708
534
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify beam shaping system of Zhou by adding a plurality of movable mirrors as taught by Sbetti, in order to guide the laser beam to a desired location.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modification of Zhou and Sbetti in view of Yang (US 2020/0316713).
Regarding claim 12, the modification of Zhou and Sbetti does not expliclity teach a robotic arm supporting the laser head, the fiber delivering the MM beam from a fiber laer or YAG laser source operating in a CW, QCW or pulsed regime [Examiner’s note: The fiber laser system is not a part of the beam-shaper according to the claim disclosure. Therefore they are not further limiting the invention.]
However, Yang teaches in the same field of endeavor of a beam shaping system, comprising a robotic arm (robot arm 70) supporting the laser head (laser optic welding head 42)
PNG
media_image3.png
330
484
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify beam shaping system of the modification of Zhou and Sbetti by adding a robotic arm as taught by Yang, in order to provide automatic and reliable device to hold the laser device for processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights