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 .
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered.
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on 03/05/2026 has been entered. Claims 1-5 remain pending in the application. Applicant’s amendments to the Specification, Drawings, and Claims have overcome each and every objection and 112(b) rejections previously set forth in the Office Action mailed on 12/05/2025.
Drawings
Figure 10 should be designated by a legend such as --Prior Art-- because only that which is old is illustrated. See MPEP § 608.02(g). Corrected drawings in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. The replacement sheet(s) should be labeled “Replacement Sheet” in the page header (as per 37 CFR 1.84(c)) so as not to obstruct any portion of the drawing figures. 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.
Specification
The title of the invention is not descriptive. A new title is required that is clearly indicative of the invention to which the claims are directed.
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.
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.
Claim(s) 1 and 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori et al., US 20160209646 (hereafter Hattori) , and further in view of Okuma, US 20200139484 (hereafter Okuma).
Regarding claim 1,
An optical system(Fig. 18) that relays light to a machining lens(Lo) …
the optical system comprising: a spatial light modulator(6); and a second lens(L2) arranged between the spatial light modulator and the machining lens (Lo),
…and the spatial light modulator has a conjugate relation with the machining lens pupil of the machining lens (Fig. 18),
PNG
media_image1.png
400
730
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 18 in Hattori
wherein the second lens is positioned at a distance D from a machining lens pupil
where D = f2 - Mf2, and the spatial light modulator is positioned at a distance D1 from the second lens where D1 = f2 - f2/M, …. where f2 is a focal length of the second lens, and M is a projection magnification from the spatial light modulator to the machining lens pupil of the machining lens. (The claim is interpreted as the distances between modulator and lens, and between lens and pupil are adjustable.
Hattori teaches adjustable distances between modulator and L2, and also between L2 to Lo in Fig. 18. Paragraph [175] teaches “making variable the light path length pl.sub.3 makes it possible to displace the position of the image on the fluctuation correction surface generated in the specimen shown by the solid lines, regardless of the focus position and the magnification ratio of the observation target or the reference object.”)
to be used for machining on a workpiece, (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical system in Hattori in a laser processing device as taught in Okuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a laser processing device including a holding mechanism that holds a workpiece and a laser irradiation mechanism that irradiates the workpiece held by the holding mechanism with laser light. In this laser processing device, components arranged on an optical path of the laser light extending from a laser oscillator to a condenser lens are accommodated in one housing” as taught in paragraph [2] in Okuma.
Regarding claim 5, comprising the machining lens, and the optical system according to claim 1, (Similar scope to claim 1 and therefore rejected under the same argument.)
Primary combination of references is silent about A laser machining device ….wherein the spatial light modulator modulates laser light that is radiated with its focal point set inside the workpiece for forming a laser machining region inside the workpiece, and the optical system relays the laser light modulated by the spatial light modulator to the machining lens.
Okuma teaches A laser machining device (abstract in Okuma teaches “a laser processing device”)
wherein the spatial light modulator (410 in Fig. 11) modulates laser light that is radiated with its focal point set inside the workpiece for forming a laser machining region inside the workpiece, (Fig. 1)
and the optical system (420 in Fig. 11) relays the laser light modulated by the spatial light modulator (410) to the machining lens (403).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use the optical system in Hattori in a laser processing device as taught in Okuma. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “a laser processing device including a holding mechanism that holds a workpiece and a laser irradiation mechanism that irradiates the workpiece held by the holding mechanism with laser light. In this laser processing device, components arranged on an optical path of the laser light extending from a laser oscillator to a condenser lens are accommodated in one housing” as taught in paragraph [2] in Okuma.
Claim(s) 2 and 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori, and Okuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Naoya et al., JP 2015146036 (hereafter Naoya).
Regarding claim 2,
The optical system according to claim 1, further comprising an afocal optical system including a first lens and the second lens, wherein the first lens is arranged upstream of the spatial light modulator. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Naoya teaches prism mirror 30 upstream of spatial light modulator 40 in Fig. 1. Here prism mirror 30 corresponds to first lens.)
PNG
media_image2.png
645
544
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 in Naoya
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the prism mirror as taught in Naoya to the optical system in Hattori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because prism mirror reflects the light from light source 10 to modulator 40, and then reflects the modulated light from modulator 40 towards condensing lens as taught in Fig. 1 in Naoya.
Regarding claim 3,
The optical system according to claim 1, further comprising an afocal optical system including a first lens and the second lens, wherein the first lens is arranged such that light entering the spatial light modulator passes through the first lens, and reflected light reflected by the spatial light modulator after entering the spatial light modulator passes through the first lens. (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Naoya teaches prism mirror 30 upstream of spatial light modulator 40 in Fig. 1. Here prism mirror 30 corresponds to first lens.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to add the prism mirror as taught in Naoya to the optical system in Hattori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because prism mirror reflects the light from light source 10 to modulator 40, and then reflects the modulated light from modulator 40 towards condensing lens as taught in Fig. 1 in Naoya.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hattori, and Okuma as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Seo et al., US 20090147330 (hereafter Seo).
The optical system according to claim 1, wherein: the spatial light modulator has a condensing function, and a focal length f1 of the spatial light modulator is f1 = -f2/M. ( The claim is interpreted as the spatial light modulator has a variable focal length f1.
Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Seo teaches a spatial light modulator 13 with a focal length f1 in paragraph [57].
Paragraph [56] teaches that f1 is a variable.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design the spatial light modulator to have a variable focal length as taught in Seo to the optical system in Hattori. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “the image size of the pattern reproduced on the processed surface becomes constant regardless of the focal length of the Fresnel zone plate data 45” as taught in paragraph [57] in Seo.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments filed on 03/05/2026 with respect to claim(s) 1-5 have been considered but are moot because of the new ground of rejection based on the amendment of claims.
The applicant amended claim 1 and argued that this makes the claimed invention distinguishable from prior art. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of prior art as discussed above.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FAHMIDA FERDOUSI whose telephone number is (303)297-4341. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday; 9:00AM-3:00PM; PST.
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. 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.
/FAHMIDA FERDOUSI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights