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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements (IDS) submitted on 06/14/2023, 10/24/2024, 10/01/2025, and 10/15/2025 were filed. The submissions are in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statements are being considered by the examiner.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claim(s) 1, 18-19, 21, 23, 25-28, 32-33, 36, 38, 40-43, and 47 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784).
Regarding claim 1, Nomaru discloses an optical processing apparatus comprising:
a split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) configured to split a first light beam, which enters thereto, into a second light beam including a plurality of light beams;
a magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #s 14 and 15 variable magnification optical system) that is disposed on at least one of an optical path of the first light beam entering the split optical system and an optical path of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system;
a condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) configured to condenses the second light beam, wherein an object is processed by the second light beam from the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) (Page 4 para. 1).
However, Nomaru does not disclose a reflection apparatus that is disposed on an optical path of the second light beam between the split optical system and the condensing optical system and that includes a swingable reflective surface that reflects the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam.
Nonetheless, Kim in the same field of endeavor being laser optical systems teaches a reflection apparatus (Fig. 1A #s 140a-140b galvanometer scanner) that is disposed on an optical path of the second light beam between the split optical system and the condensing optical system and that includes a swingable reflective surface that reflects the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru by incorporating the reflection apparatus as taught by Kim for the benefit controlling an irradiation position of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 18, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Kim teaches wherein the reflective surface of the reflection apparatus (Fig. 1A #s 140a-140b galvanometer scanner) swings so that respective condensing parts move along a second direction that intersects with a first direction, the respective condensing parts of the plurality of light beams, which are included in the second light beam condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system, are arranged along the first direction ([0058] ---"The first galvanometer scanner 140a may control an irradiation position of the laser beam Lr of an infrared ray area band and the second galvanometer scanner 140b may control an irradiation position of the laser beam Lv of the visible ray area band.”; (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru by incorporating the reflection apparatus as taught by Kim for the benefit controlling an irradiation position of the laser beam.
Regarding claim 19, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) splits the first light beam so that the respective condensing parts are arranged along the first direction (Page 3 para. 5 ---"The elliptical beam vertically incident on the diffractive optical element 12 is branched into a plurality of lights having different angles in the same axial direction at the respective incident points.”).
Regarding claim 21, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #s 14 and 15 variable magnification optical system) includes:
a first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 first variable magnification optical system) disposed on the optical path of the first light beam entering the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element);
and a second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 second variable magnification optical system) disposed on the optical path of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam between the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) and the reflection apparatus,
and changes an opening angle of each light beam of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) and an interval between respective condensing parts of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) independently from each other by changing magnifications of the first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 first variable magnification optical system) and the second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 second variable magnification optical system) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 23, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #s 14 and 15 variable magnification optical system) is disposed on the optical path of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam between the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) and the reflection apparatus, and changes an opening angle of each light beam of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) and changes an interval between respective condensing parts of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) by changing a magnification thereof (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 25, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #s 14 and 15 variable magnification optical system) is disposed on the optical path of the first light beam entering the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element), and changes a diameter of the first light beam entering the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) by changing a magnification thereof (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 26, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) includes a diffractive optical element. Regarding claim 27, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system includes a reflective member (Fig. 7 an optical system using a reflective diffractive optical element).
Regarding claim 28, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a light source apparatus (Fig. 1 #11 laser light source) configured to emit the first light beam entering the split optical system.
Regarding claim 32, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a sample table (Fig. 8 #60 chuck table) configured to support the object so that the object is irradiated with the second light beam from the condensing optical system.
Regarding claim 33, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam are three or more light beams (Shown in the figure below), the condensing optical system condenses each of the three or more light beams from the split optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
PNG
media_image1.png
560
401
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 34, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) splits the first light beam so that respective condensing parts of the three or more light beams, which are condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens), are arranged along a predetermined direction (Fig. 2 shows the three laser beams from the split optical system being arranged at a predetermined direction.).
Regarding claim 36, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #s 14 and 15 variable magnification optical system) includes:
a first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 first variable magnification optical system) disposed on the optical path of the first light beam entering the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element);
and a second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 second variable magnification optical system) disposed on the optical path of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam between the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) and the reflection apparatus,
and changes an opening angle of each light beam of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) and an interval between respective condensing parts of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) independently from each other by changing magnifications of the first magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #14 first variable magnification optical system) and the second magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #15 second variable magnification optical system) (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 38, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #s 14 and 15 variable magnification optical system) is disposed on the optical path of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element), and changes an opening angle of each light beam of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) and changes an interval between respective condensing parts of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam condensed on a condensing plane by the condensing optical system (Fig. 1 #13 condenser lens) by changing a magnification thereof (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 40, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the magnification varying optical system (Fig. 1 #s 14 and 15 variable magnification optical system) is disposed on the optical path of the first light beam entering the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element), and changes a diameter of the first light beam entering the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) by changing a magnification thereof (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
Regarding claim 41, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system (Fig. 1 #12 diffraction optical element) includes a diffractive optical element. Regarding claim 42, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the split optical system includes a reflective member (Fig. 7 an optical system using a reflective diffractive optical element).
Regarding claim 43, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a light source apparatus (Fig. 1 #11 laser light source) configured to emit the first light beam entering the split optical system.
Regarding claim 47, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), and Nomaru teaches wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a sample table (Fig. 8 #60 chuck table) configured to support the object so that the object is irradiated with the second light beam from the condensing optical system.
Claim(s) 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 18, further in view of Dyck et al (US 2022/0258280).
Regarding claim 20, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 18), but does not teach wherein an angle between axes along propagating directions of two adjacent light beams of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system is an acute angle.
Nonetheless, Dyck in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein an angle between axes along propagating directions of two adjacent light beams of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system is an acute angle ([0113] ---" According to an embodiment, the diffractive optical element is configured such that the at least two partial beams 104, 204 leaving therefrom enclose an acute angle, for example as shown in FIG. 4.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the angle between at two adjacent light beams as taught by Dyck for the benefit controlling an irradiation position of the laser beam. (Dyck [0007])
Claim(s) 22 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 21, further in view of Maurice et al (US 2016/0207249).
Regarding claim 22, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 21), but does not teach wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system.
Nonetheless, Maurice in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system ([0150] lines 1-2 ---" The afocal system 6 is an optical system allowing the radiation beam that is delivered thereto to be enlarged.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the afocal system as taught by Maurice for the benefit variably enlarging the laser beam.
Claim(s) 24 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 23, further in view of Maurice et al (US 2016/0207249).
Regarding claim 24, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 23), but does not teach wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system.
Nonetheless, Maurice in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system ([0150] lines 1-2 ---" The afocal system 6 is an optical system allowing the radiation beam that is delivered thereto to be enlarged.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the afocal system as taught by Maurice for the benefit variably enlarging the laser beam.
Claim(s) 29-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Odagiri et al (US 2016/0151857).
Regarding claim 29, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 1), but does not teach wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a combining optical system configured to combine the second light beam from the split optical system with a third light beam different from the second light beam, the condensing optical system condenses each of third light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam from the combining optical system.
Nonetheless, Odagiri in the same field of endeavor being laser optical systems teaches wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a combining optical system (Fig. 2 #53 dichroic mirror) configured to combine the second light beam from the split optical system with a third light beam (Light from Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) different from the second light beam, the condensing optical system condenses each of third light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam from the combining optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the dichroic mirror as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Regarding claim 30, Nomaru in vies of Kim and Odagiri teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 29), and Odagiri teaches wherein the second light beam and the third light beam are light beams having different wavelengths ([0028] lines 20-26 ---"The dichroic mirror 53 disposed between the pulse laser beam oscillation means 51 and the condenser 52 has a function for reflecting and introducing the pulse laser beam LB oscillated from the pulse laser beam oscillation means 51 to the condenser 52 and allowing light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the pulse laser beam LB (in the present embodiment, 355 nm) to pass therethrough.”; Since the dichroic mirror allows light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the pulse laser beam LB to pass therethrough, the second and third light beams must have different wavelengths.), the combining optical system (Fig. 2 #53 dichroic mirror) includes a dichroic mirror or a dichroic prism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the second and third light beams at different wavelengths and the dichroic mirror as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Regarding claim 31, Nomaru in vies of Kim and Odagiri teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 29), and Odagiri teaches wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a position detection unit (Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) configured to irradiate an object with the third light beam (Light from Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) through the combining optical system and the condensing optical system and to detect a position of the object based on a fourth light beam that is a returned light of the third light beam from the object and that is detected through the condensing optical system and the combining optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the irradiation means as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Claim(s) 35 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 33, further in view of Dyck et al (US 2022/0258280).
Regarding claim 35, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), but does not teach wherein an angle between axes along propagating directions of two adjacent light beams of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system is an acute angle.
Nonetheless, Dyck in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein an angle between axes along propagating directions of two adjacent light beams of the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam emitted from the split optical system is an acute angle ([0113] ---" According to an embodiment, the diffractive optical element is configured such that the at least two partial beams 104, 204 leaving therefrom enclose an acute angle, for example as shown in FIG. 4.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the angle between at two adjacent light beams as taught by Dyck for the benefit controlling an irradiation position of the laser beam. (Dyck [0007])
Claim(s) 37 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 36, further in view of Maurice et al (US 2016/0207249).
Regarding claim 37, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 36), but does not teach wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system.
Nonetheless, Maurice in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system ([0150] lines 1-2 ---" The afocal system 6 is an optical system allowing the radiation beam that is delivered thereto to be enlarged.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the afocal system as taught by Maurice for the benefit variably enlarging the laser beam.
Claim(s) 39 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 38, further in view of Maurice et al (US 2016/0207249).
Regarding claim 39, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 38), but does not teach wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system.
Nonetheless, Maurice in the same field of endeavor being laser optical arrangements teaches wherein the second magnification varying optical system is an afocal system ([0150] lines 1-2 ---" The afocal system 6 is an optical system allowing the radiation beam that is delivered thereto to be enlarged.”).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the afocal system as taught by Maurice for the benefit variably enlarging the laser beam.
Claim(s) 44-46 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru et al (JP 2010214431 A) in view of Kim et al (US 2015/0017784) as applied to claim 33, further in view of Odagiri et al (US 2016/0151857).
Regarding claim 44, Nomaru in vies of Kim teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 33), but does not teach wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a combining optical system configured to combine the second light beam from the split optical system with a third light beam different from the second light beam, the condensing optical system condenses each of third light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam from the combining optical system.
Nonetheless, Odagiri in the same field of endeavor being laser optical systems teaches wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a combining optical system (Fig. 2 #53 dichroic mirror) configured to combine the second light beam from the split optical system with a third light beam (Light from Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) different from the second light beam, the condensing optical system condenses each of third light beam and the plurality of light beams included in the second light beam from the combining optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the dichroic mirror as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Regarding claim 45, Nomaru in vies of Kim and Odagiri teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 44), and Odagiri teaches wherein the second light beam and the third light beam are light beams having different wavelengths ([0028] lines 20-26 ---"The dichroic mirror 53 disposed between the pulse laser beam oscillation means 51 and the condenser 52 has a function for reflecting and introducing the pulse laser beam LB oscillated from the pulse laser beam oscillation means 51 to the condenser 52 and allowing light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the pulse laser beam LB (in the present embodiment, 355 nm) to pass therethrough.”; Since the dichroic mirror allows light of wavelengths other than the wavelength of the pulse laser beam LB to pass therethrough, the second and third light beams must have different wavelengths.), the combining optical system (Fig. 2 #53 dichroic mirror) includes a dichroic mirror or a dichroic prism.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the second and third light beams at different wavelengths and the dichroic mirror as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Regarding claim 46, Nomaru in vies of Kim and Odagiri teaches the apparatus as appears above (see the rejection of claim 44), and Odagiri teaches wherein the optical processing apparatus further comprises a position detection unit (Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) configured to irradiate an object with the third light beam (Light from Fig. 2 #54 irradiation means) through the combining optical system and the condensing optical system and to detect a position of the object based on a fourth light beam that is a returned light of the third light beam from the object and that is detected through the condensing optical system and the combining optical system (If a prior art apparatus teaches all of the structural limitations of an apparatus claim, then, a recitation with respect to the manner in which the claimed apparatus is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed apparatus from the prior art apparatus. See MPEP 2114.).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the optical processing apparatus of Nomaru in view of Kim by incorporating the irradiation means as taught by Odagiri for the benefit of detecting a processed state on the basis of an image signal. (Odagiri Abstract)
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOE E MILLS JR. whose telephone number is (571)272-8449. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8-5.
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.
/JOE E MILLS JR./Examiner, Art Unit 3761