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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 16 January 2026 has been entered.
Applicant’s amendments to fig. 3 have overcome one of the Drawing objections. However, some of the Drawing objections have not been addressed. Therefore, there are still grounds for Drawing objections in the present Office action.
Applicant’s amendments and arguments regarding the Specification objections and the 35 USC 112(a)/(b) rejections based on 35 USC 112(f) interpretation have been fully considered and are persuasive (referencing pages 8-9 in the arguments filed 16 Jan 2026 as well as the interview summary filed 21 Jan 2026). Accordingly, the Specification objections and the 35 USC 112 rejections have been withdrawn.
Applicant’s arguments, filed 16 January 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered. After conducting an updated search, an additional reference was identified, which teaches the amended portion of the claims. Therefore, the grounds of rejection under 35 USC § 103 still stand.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 16 January 2026, the status of the claims is as follows: Claims 1 and 3-5 have been amended. Claim 2 has been cancelled. Claims 7-8 are new.
Claims 1 and 3-8 are pending.
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, in claim 1, the “detecting unit that is configured to detect a water retention state …. of any of the crystal the laser oscillator…and the collecting lens, and a drying unit that is configured to dry any of the crystal of the laser oscillator .. and the collecting lens” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Although the Drawings show this feature for the “characteristic conversion optical element,” the Drawings do not show this feature for the “crystal” or the “collecting lens.”
Therefore, in claim 4, the “detecting part that is configured to detect the light that has been emitted from the light source and been transmitted through any of the crystal of the laser oscillator … and the collecting lens, and the controller is configured to determine the water retention state of any of the crystal of the laser oscillator … and the collecting lens on a basis of transmittance of the light emitted from the light source” must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). Although the Drawings show this feature for the “characteristic conversion optical element,” the Drawings do not show this feature for the “crystal” or the “collecting lens.”
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.
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 the following:
“controller” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “controller” (understood to as a replacement for “means for controlling”) and “configured to control respective components of the laser beam irradiation unit.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitation includes a “computer” and a “computer program.”
“at least one characteristic conversion optical element” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional limitations are “characteristic conversion,” “optical,” and “configured to convert a characteristic of the laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes a “cesium lithium borate crystal.” Claim 6 has sufficient structure such that 112f is not invoked for this term in the claim.
“detecting unit” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “detecting” and “configured to detect a water retention state.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes a “photodiode.”
“drying unit” in claim 1
The generic placeholder is “unit” and the functional limitations are “drying” and “configured to dry.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes a “dry air supply source” and a “pump.”
“first characteristic conversion optical element” and “second characteristic conversion optical element” in claim 3
The generic placeholder is “element” and the functional limitations are “characteristic conversion” and “optical.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes a “cesium lithium borate crystal.”
“detecting part” in claim 4
The generic placeholder is “part” and the functional limitations are “detecting” and “configured to detect the light that has been emitted from the light source.”
Structure that is used from the Specification to cover the functional limitations includes a “photodiode” (same structure used 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 § 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.
Claims 1 and 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US-20220158402-A1, EFD of 13 Sep 2019) in view of Yoshimura et al. (US-20090080475-A1), Morimoto et al. (NPL: “Water-associated surface degradation of CsLiB6O10 crystal during harmonic generation in the ultraviolet region”), and Scheidiger et al. (US-20230013251-A1, EFD of 23 Dec 2019).
Regarding claim 1, Tanaka teaches a laser processing apparatus (fig. 20) comprising:
a holding table (workpiece table WT, fig. 20) that holds a workpiece (“semiconductor wafer,” para 0347);
a laser beam irradiation unit (solid state laser system 1, fig. 20) that is configured to irradiate the workpiece held by the holding table with a laser beam (“pulse laser beam,” para 0346); and
a controller (temperature control unit 106, fig. 6; “controller,” para 0130; ) configured to control respective components of the laser beam irradiation unit (the control unit 106 controls the heaters 78, fig. 6 and para 0130, which are construed as being components of the laser system 1)
wherein the laser beam irradiation unit (laser system 1, fig. 1) includes
a laser oscillator (laser apparatus 24, fig. 1) having a crystal (crystal 32, fig. 1; construed as being “BBO,” claim 13 and para 0128) that is configured to emit the laser beam (para 0112),
at least one characteristic conversion optical element (CLBO crystals 36 and 40, fig. 1) that is configured to convert a characteristic of the laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator (paras 0113-0114 and 0117-0118),
a collecting lens (projection optical system 206, fig. 20; a lens is not explicitly disclosed) that is configured to guide the laser beam for which the characteristic has been converted to the workpiece (para 0347), and
a drying unit (gas supply apparatus 86, fig. 2) that is configured to dry any of the crystal of the laser oscillator (not explicitly disclosed), the at least one characteristic conversion optical element (crystal 32, fig. 2; used for all the crystals, para 0107), and the collecting lens (not explicitly disclosed).
Tanaka, figs. 2 and 6
PNG
media_image1.png
785
876
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
1081
758
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a controller (a computer is not explicitly disclosed); a collecting lens (a lens is not explicitly disclosed); a detecting unit that is configured to detect a water retention state, which is a value of captured water vapor, of any of the crystal of the laser oscillator, the at least one characteristic conversion optical element, and the collecting lens; a drying unit (a pump is not explicitly disclosed) that is configured to dry, when the detected retention state exceeds a predetermined value.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing systems, Yoshimura teaches a controller (“controller,” para 0056; “temperature program,” para 0056; construed as the equivalent of a computer); a collecting lens (“condensing lens,” para 0065); a detecting unit (“Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer,” para 0047) that is configured to detect a water retention state (“transmittance,” para 0047), which is a value of captured water (“content of water impurities in the crystal,” para 0027; construed such that the water impurities are captured inside the crystal), of any of the crystal of the laser oscillator (not explicitly disclosed), the at least one characteristic conversion optical element (wavelength conversion element 2, fig. 5), and the collecting lens (not explicitly disclosed); a drying unit (“vacuum evacuation,” para 0052; creating a vacuum is construed as equivalent to a pump) that is configured to dry (paragraphs 0044 and 0050-0052 as well as claim 3), when the detected water retention state exceeds a predetermined value (“1%,” para 0043 and claim 1) .
Yoshimura, fig. 5
PNG
media_image3.png
741
710
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanaka, in view of the teachings of Yoshimura, by running a temperature program, as taught by Yoshimura, on the controller, as taught by Tanaka, by using a condensing lens, as taught by Yoshimura, in the projection optical system 206, as taught by Tanaka, by using a Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer to monitor the transmittance, as taught by Yoshimura, of the drive cell 100C after it has been replaced by drive cell 100D, as taught by Tanaka, and by creating vacuum extraction when the actual measure of transmittance is at least 1%, as taught by Yoshimura, using the AR gas supply 86 and discharge 82, as taught by Tanaka, in order to use a temperature program that controls the temperature of the gas applied to the wavelength conversion element and to measure the transmittance, which corresponds with the amount of water impurities in the crystal, for the advantage of improving the output power efficiency of the offline crystal by using vacuum extraction to remove moisture from the crystal to below 1% for a period of over 24 hours, thus preventing damage to the CLBO crystal (Yoshimura, paras 0006, 0011, 0043-0044, and 0055)
Tanaka/Yoshimura do not explicitly disclose a detecting unit (a photodiode is not explicitly disclosed); a detecting unit configured to detect captured water vapor.
However, reasonably pertinent to the same problem of preventing water damage in CLBO crystals, Morimoto teaches a detecting unit (“Fourier transform IR (FTIR) spectrometer,” page 2082) configured to detect captured water vapor (the spectrometer measures the “IR spectrum” to “estimate the relative water contents” of “water vapor,” page 2084).
Morimoto, fig. 8
PNG
media_image4.png
366
1158
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanaka/Yoshimura, in view of the teachings of Morimoto, where the detection of the water moisture, as taught by Yoshimura, represented a measurement of water vapor, as taught by Morimoto, because IR absorption spectroscopy can be measured to determine whether the CLBO crystal is wet or dry, for the advantage using these measurements to determine whether water vapor is present, which can cause degradation in CLBO crystals (Morimoto, pages 2082 and 2088 as well as fig. 8; Yoshimura references Morimoto in para 0008)
Tanaka/Yoshimura/Morimoto do not explicitly disclose a detecting unit (a photodiode is not explicitly disclosed).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing systems, Scheidiger teaches a detecting unit (“scattered light can be detected with at least one photodiode,” para 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanaka, in view of the teachings of Scheidiger, by using a photodiode, as taught by Scheidiger, instead of a Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer, as taught by Yoshimura, in order to use two photodiodes on either side of the optical element, which can be used to detect scattering light, for the advantage of using a photodiode, which is easily obtainable, as opposed to a more complex Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer, to measure the drops of moisture that can form on an optical element (Scheidiger, paras 0021 and 0026).
Regarding claim 4, Tanaka teaches the invention as described above but does not explicitly disclose wherein: the detecting unit includes: a light source that is configured to emit light in an infrared region, and a detecting part that is configured to detect the light that has been emitted from the light source and been transmitted through any of the crystal of the laser oscillator, the at least one characteristic conversion optical element, and the collecting lens, and the controller is configured to determine the water retention state of any of the crystal of the laser oscillator, the at least one characteristic conversion optical element, and the collecting lens on a basis of transmittance of the light emitted from the light source.
However, Yoshimura teaches wherein the detecting unit (“Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer,” para 0047) includes
a light source (“Nd:YAG laser,” para 0025) that is configured to emit light in an infrared region (“infrared transmission spectrum,” para 0025), and
a detecting part (“Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer,” para 0047) that is configured to detect the light that has been emitted from the light source (para 0062) and been transmitted through any of the crystal of the laser oscillator (not explicitly disclosed), the at least one characteristic conversion optical element (wavelength conversion device 2, fig. 5; para 0062), and the collecting lens (not explicitly disclosed), and
the controller (“controller,” para 0056) is configured to determine the water retention state (“content of water impurities,” para 0027) of any of the crystal of the laser oscillator (not explicitly disclosed), the at least one characteristic conversion optical element (wavelength conversion element 2, fig. 5), and the collecting lens (not explicitly disclosed) on a basis of transmittance (“transmittance,” para 0047) of the light emitted from the light source.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanaka, in view of the teachings of Yoshimura, by using a Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer to monitor the transmittance, as taught by Yoshimura, of the drive cell 100C after it has been replaced by drive cell 100D, as taught by Tanaka, in order to measure the transmittance, which corresponds with the amount of water impurities in the crystal, of the drive cell for a wavelength conversion element after it has been replaced by another drive cell, for the advantage of improving the output power efficiency of the offline crystal by using vacuum extraction to remove moisture from the crystal for a period of over 24 hours, thus preventing damage to the CLBO crystal (Yoshimura, paras 0006, 0011, 0044, and 0055)
Tanaka/Yoshimura do not explicitly disclose a detecting part (a photodiode is not explicitly disclosed).
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing systems, Scheidiger teaches a detecting part (“scattered light can be detected with at least one photodiode,” para 0021).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanaka, in view of the teachings of Scheidiger, by using a photodiode, as taught by Scheidiger, instead of a Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer, as taught by Yoshimura, in order to use two photodiodes on either side of the optical element, which can be used to detect scattering light, for the advantage of using a photodiode, which is easily obtainable, as opposed to a more complex Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer, to measure the drops of moisture that can form on an optical element (Scheidiger, paras 0021 and 0026).
Regarding claim 5, Tanaka teaches wherein the at least one characteristic conversion optical element (CLBO crystals 36 and 40, fig. 1) is a wavelength conversion optical element that converts a wavelength that is the characteristic of the laser beam emitted from the laser oscillator (paras 0113-0114 and 0117-0118).
Regarding claim 6, Tanaka teaches wherein the wavelength conversion optical element (CLBO crystals 36 and 40, fig. 1) is a cesium lithium borate crystal (para 0090).
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US-20220158402-A1, EFD of 13 Sep 2019) in view of Yoshimura et al. (US-20090080475-A1) Morimoto et al. (NPL: “Water-associated surface degradation of CsLiB6O10 crystal during harmonic generation in the ultraviolet region”), and Scheidiger et al. (US-20230013251-A1, EFD of 23 Dec 2019) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Miwa et al. (JP-2010204176-A, referencing foreign version for drawings and provided English translation for written disclosure).
Tanaka teaches wherein the at least one characteristic conversion optical elements (CLBO crystals 36 and 40, fig. 1) including a first characteristic conversion optical element (CLBO crystal 102 in cell 100A, fig. 3) disposed on an optical path of the laser beam and a second characteristic conversion optical element (CLBO crystal 102 in cell 100B, fig. 3) disposed to be allowed to replace the first characteristic conversion optical element (“replacement,” fig. 3),
the second characteristic conversion optical element is configured to convert the characteristic of the laser beam (para 0133) and is configured to execute processing for the workpiece (step S8, fig. 4; paras 0144 and 0347), while the first characteristic conversion optical element is being dried by the drying unit (paras 0122 and 0124).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose the first characteristic conversion optical element is configured to move to an outside of the optical path of the laser beam and the second characteristic conversion optical element is configured to move into the optical path of the laser beam.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing systems, Miwa teaches the first characteristic conversion optical element (a “stage” moves the wavelength conversion optical elements perpendicular to the laser beam, para 0034) is configured to move to an outside of the optical path of the laser beam (“The operator removes the element unit 50 attached to the laser head 2 , and attaches the spare unit 50 ′,” para 0049; construed such that when the spare unit 50’ replaces element 50, element 50 is outside the path of the laser beam) and the second characteristic conversion is configured to move (para 0034) into the optical path of the laser beam (para 0052).
Miwa, fig. 4
PNG
media_image5.png
540
454
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanaka, in view of the teachings of Miwa, by using a stage, as taught by Miwa, to move the cells, i.e., cell 100A as it is being replaced by cell 100B, as taught by Tanaka, in order to use an automated stage that moves the cells as heating and gas is provided to the wavelength conversion optical elements that are inside the cells as the cells are being moved, for the advantage of keeping the optical elements constantly dry and ensuring they remain isolated from contact with the atmosphere (Miwa, para 0034).
Claims 7-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanaka et al. (US-20220158402-A1, EFD of 13 Sep 2019) in view of Yoshimura et al. (US-20090080475-A1), Morimoto et al. (NPL: “Water-associated surface degradation of CsLiB6O10 crystal during harmonic generation in the ultraviolet region”), and Scheidiger et al. (US-20230013251-A1, EFD of 23 Dec 2019) as applied to claim 1 above and further in view of Kwon et al. (US-20150194784-A1, cited in list of references filed on 16 Jan 2026).
Regarding claim 7, Tanaka teaches wherein the at least one wavelength conversion optical element (CLBO crystals 36 and 40, fig. 1) includes a CLBO crystal (CLBO crystals) and is housed in a cell (first container 70, fig. 2; the container is construed as being a “cell”) whose inside is sealed (the inside of the container receives AR gas, and AR gas is discharged from the container, para 0110; construed such that the inside of the container is sealed to AR gas).
Tanaka does not explicitly disclose a box-shaped cell.
However, in the same field of endeavor of laser processing systems, Kwon teaches a box-shaped cell (intracavity module 150, fig. 1; “encapsulation may be completed using a simple box-shape enclosure,” para 0055; “sealing,” para 0055).
Kwon, fig. 1
PNG
media_image6.png
923
1760
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the invention of Tanaka, in view of the teachings of Kwon, by using a box shape, as taught Kwon, for the container 70, as taught by Tanaka, in order to use a box-shape enclosure that is simple and which can be made from material such as metal, ceramics, glass or PTFE, to which hermetic sealing elements can be attached (Kwon, para 0055).
Regarding claim 8, the combination of Tanka in view of Kwon as set forth above regarding claim 7 teaches the invention of claim 8. Specifically, Tanaka teaches wherein the cell includes windows (windows 72 and 74, fig. 3) through which the laser beam is transmitted (para 0133). Additionally, Kwon teaches a box-shaped cell (para 0055).
Response to Argument
Applicant's arguments filed 16 January 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Page 7 of the arguments suggests that fig. 3 was amended to show “a detecting unit that is configured to detect a water retention state…of any of the crystal of the laser oscillator, the at least one characteristic conversion optical element, and the collecting lens” as well as “a drying unit that is configured to dry any of the crystal of the laser oscillator, the at least one characteristic conversion optical element, and the collecting lens.” However respectfully submit that fig. 3 only shows the configuration for the at least one characteristic conversion optical element 23 and does not show detecting unit/ drying unit configurations for the crystal 221 or the lens 24.
Page 12 of the arguments references Yoshimura (US 20090080475A1) and states the following:
“The Yoshimura reference fails to disclose or suggest a laser beam irradiation unit which includes "a drying unit that is configured to dry any of the crystal of the laser oscillator, the at least one characteristic conversion optical element, and the collecting lens, when the detected water retention state exceeds a predetermined value" within the laser beam irradiation unit. Moreover, the Yoshimura reference fails to disclose or suggest "a detecting unit that is configured to detect a water retention state, which is a value of captured water vapor, of any of the crystal of the laser oscillator, the at least one characteristic conversion optical element, and the collecting lens" as recited in amended Claim 1.”
The examiner agrees that Yoshimura does not explicitly disclose “water vapor.” Instead, Yoshimura teaches water moisture, which is not necessarily a gas or vapor. However, the examiner disagrees that Yoshimura does not disclose these drying-unit or detecting-unit configurations. Instead, Yoshimura teaches a Fourier transform infrared spectrophotometer, which is construed as the claimed detecting unit, and which is able detect the water transmittance of the moisture in the crystal (paragraphs 0047 and 0062). Additionally, Yoshimura teaches a vacuum evacuation, which is construed as the claimed drying unit, and which is able to dry the crystal until the transmittance is below 1% (paragraphs 0044 and 0050-0052 as well as claim 3) when the transmittance is initially above 1% (paragraph 0043 and claim 1)
The Applicant's remaining arguments have been fully considered but are moot because the arguments do not apply to the new rejections of Tanaka and Yoshimura and Scheidiger combined with Morimoto. For the above reasons, rejections to the pending claims are respectfully sustained by the examiner.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 ERWIN J WUNDERLICH whose telephone number is (571)272-6995. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 7:30-5:30.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at 571-272-5567. 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.
/ERWIN J WUNDERLICH/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 3/24/2026