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 .
The amendments filed on 10/23/2025 have been fully considered and made of record in this application.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to claims 1-20 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 1-4, 6, 9, 11-14, 16, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Daisuke et al. (JP 2018-060927).
With respect to Claims 1 and 11, Daisuke teaches an optical module configured to irradiate an object M1 (i.e. substrate) with laser light. L1. A beam damper 61 configured to absorb reflected light having been reflected by the object M1. The reflected light being the laser light L1 which has been reflected by the object M1. The beam damper 61 includes a first member 63a and a second member 63b fixed so as to oppose the first member 63a. The first member 63a includes an eaves portion to which the reflected light R1-R3 are incident. The eaves portion has a reflection surface configured to reflect toward an internal space enclosed by the first member 63a and the second member 63b. The reflected light R1-R3 having been reflected by the object M1 (see English abstract; Figs. 9, 12, and 13).
With respect to Claims 2 and 12, Daisuke teaches the reflection surface provided in the eaves portion is a concave surface (see Fig. 13).
With respect to Claims 3 and 13, Daisuke teaches the beam damper 61 is provided with a top surface of the light absorbing element 63d which is arranged facing the internal space and which is configured to absorb the reflected light (see Figs. 12 and 13).
With respect to Claims 4 and 14, Daisuke teaches the beam damper 61 further includes a terminal portion (i.e. horizontal portion) provided with the light absorbing element. An opposing portion arranged between the eaves portion and the terminal portion. The opposing portion is provided with an upper reflection surface and a lower reflection surface which opposes the upper reflection surface. At least a part of reflected light R1-R3 having been reflected by the reflection surface of the eaves portion is reflected by the upper reflection surface and the lower reflection surface and is incident to the light absorbing element (see Figs. 12 and 13).
With respect to Claims 6 and 16, Daisuke teaches comprising a blocking plate in which a slit 54 through which the laser light passes is formed (see paragraph 21).
With respect to Claims 9 and 19, Daisuke teaches surfaces of the first member 63a and the second member 63b which face the internal space are configured to absorb a part of the incident reflected light (see Figs. 9, 12, and 13).
With respect to Claim 9, Daisuke teaches the blocking plate and the beam damper are housed in a sealing enclosure 31 (see Figs. 9 and 12).
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.
Claims 7 and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Daisuke et al. (JP 2018-060927) as applied to claims 1 and 17 above, and further in view of Shinohara et al. (JP 2005-140964).
With respect to Claims 7 and 17, Daisuke discloses the claimed invention except for the eaves portion includes an opening portion through which the reflected light passes and reflected light from the blocking plate is incident to the internal space of the beam damper via the opening portion.
However, Shinohara discloses the eaves portion includes an opening portion 1 through which the reflected light passes and reflected light (i.e. L) from the blocking plate 2 is incident to the internal space of the beam damper via the opening portion 1 (see Figs. 1a, 1b, 3a, and 3b). Thus, Daisuke and Shinohara have substantially the same environment of beam damper for absorb reflected light having been reflected by an object. Therefore, one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to incorporate an opening portion into the beam damper of Daisuke, since the beam absorber can be miniaturize in size while absorbing high energy as taught by Shinohara.
Allowable Subject Matter
9. Claims 5, 8, 15, and 20 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
10. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowance subject
matter: none of the prior art of record teaches or suggest the combination of the terminal portion includes a recessed portion which is further depressed toward a side of the object than the lower reflection surface in an orthogonal direction which is orthogonal to a main surface of the object. The light absorbing element is arranged in the recessed portion in claims 5 and 15.
The first member and the second member are provided with a cooling tube in claim 20.
Any inquiry concerning the communication or earlier communications from the
examiner should be directed to Alonzo Chambliss whose telephone number is (571)
272-1927.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later
than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably
accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled "Comments on
Statement of Reasons for Allowance."
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner's
supervisor, Jacob Y. Choi can be reached on (469) 295-9060. 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 PMR or Public PMR.
Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PMR
only. For more information about the PMR system see hitp://pair-dkect.uspto.gov.
Should you have questions on access to the Private PMR system contact the
Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free).
AC/July 20, 2025 /Alonzo Chambliss/
Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897