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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I (claims 1-15 and 17) in the reply filed on 11/20/2025 is acknowledged. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-2 and 8-9 are objected to because of the following informalities:
The term “and/or” in claim 1 should read “or”.
The term “and/or” in claim 2 should read “or”.
The term “and/or” in claim 8 should read “or”.
The term “and/or” in claim 9 should read “or”.
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
“the birefringent polarizer element is configured to produce a position offset in addition to producing the angle offset, and wherein the further optical element is configured in a birefringent fashion to position the partial beam on the optical axis” in claim 7;
“the beam shaping optical unit is configured for producing a non-rotationally symmetrical quasi-nondiffractive beam profile” in claim 12;
“the at least two focus zones are at least partly overlapping focus zones of a continuous interaction region” in claim 13;
“a rotary drive configured to rotate the polarizer arrangement and/or the beam shaping optical unit about a rotation axis” in claim 14;
“a processing optical unit as claimed in claim 1, and a laser source” in claim 15; and
“the quasi-nondiffractive beam profile includes a Bessel-like beam profile” in claim 17
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.
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 birefringent polarizer element for splitting at least one input laser beam into at least two partial beams each partial beam having one of two different polarization states” in claim 1;
“a focusing optical unit … configured to focus the partial beams onto at least two focus zones” in claim 1;
“a further optical element … configured to change an angle and/or a distance of at least one of the partial beam relative to an optical axis of the processing optical unit” in claim 1.
“a beam shaping optical unit configured to convert an entering laser beam having a Gaussian beam profile into an emerging laser beam having a quasi-nondiffractive beam profile” in claim 11;
“a rotary drive configured to rotate the polarizer arrangement and/or the beam shaping optical unit about a rotation axis” in claim 14;
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 the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 7, 10, and 13 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the birefringent polarizer element is configured to produce a position offset in addition to producing the angle offset, and wherein the further optical element is configured in a birefringent fashion to position the partial beam on the optical axis” is lacking support in specification, because the specification does not disclose such as embodiment of a processing optical unit including all limitation in claims 1-3 and 6-7.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “the further optical element is configured in a birefringent fashion, and wherein a polarization-influencing optical element is arranged upstream of the further optical element” is lacking support in specification, because the specification does not disclose such as embodiment of a processing optical unit including all limitation in claims 1-10.
Regarding claim 13, the limitation “the at least two focus zones are at least partly overlapping focus zones of a continuous interaction region, wherein the partial beams each have different polarization states” is lacking support in the specification, because the figures clearly shows the focus zones are separated each other. The claim limitation is contradicted to the specification.
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.
Claims 1-15 and 17 are 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.
Claim limitation “a birefringent polarizer element for splitting at least one input laser beam into at least two partial beams each partial beam having one of two different polarization states”, “a focusing optical unit … configured to focus the partial beams onto at least two focus zones”, and “a further optical element … configured to change an angle and/or a distance of at least one of the partial beam relative to an optical axis of the processing optical unit” in claim 1; “a beam shaping optical unit configured to convert an entering laser beam having a Gaussian beam profile into an emerging laser beam having a quasi-nondiffractive beam profile” in claim 11; and “a rotary drive configured to rotate the polarizer arrangement and/or the beam shaping optical unit about a rotation axis” in claim 14;
invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Regarding claim 4, the limitation “the polarizer element is configured to produce an angle offset without producing a position offset” is indefinite. The difference between the position offset and angle offset is unclear, since the angle offset of the beams inherently causes the position offset of beams
Regarding claim 7, the limitation “the birefringent polarizer element is configured to produce a position offset in addition to producing the angle offset, and wherein the further optical element is configured in a birefringent fashion to position the partial beam on the optical axis” is indefinite. The difference between the position offset and angle offset is unclear, since the angle offset of the beams inherently causes the position offset of beams.
Regarding claim 9, the limitation “the further optical element is configured in a birefringent fashion and, for the purpose of changing the angle offset is displaceable along the optical axis of the processing optical unit and/or is rotatable about the optical axis of the processing optical unit” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the further optical element is rotating in the processing optical unit. If the further optical element is rotating in the processing optical unit, what structure is configured to rotate the processing optical unit?
For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to the further optical element is capable to rotate by operator.
Regarding claim 10, the limitation “a polarization-influencing optical element is arranged upstream of the further optical element” is indefinite. It is unclear whether the polarization-influencing optical element positioned between the polarizer arrangement and the further optical element, or positioned upstream of the polarizer arrangement.
For the purpose of examination, the limitation is interpreted to the polarization-influencing optical element positioned between the polarizer arrangement and the further optical element in light of the specification.
Regarding claims 2-15 and 17, the claims are rejected due to their dependency on an indefinite claim as shown above.
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 1-3, 6, and 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Ashukenasi (DE 102012004312) (cited in IDS).
PNG
media_image1.png
316
327
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Ashkenasi teaches a processing optical unit for workpiece processing, comprising:
a polarizer arrangement (birefringent element 3) comprising a birefringent polarizer element (birefringent element 3) for splitting at least one input laser beam into at least two partial beams each partial beam having one of two different polarization states (See fig.4 and para. [0009] “The incident beam is initially incident on a ?/4 plate ( 1), which can be positioned both in front of and behind the focusing device ( 2) for setting the polarization components (s- and p-polarization). With the aid of this optical element, the power components of the partial beams arising behind the birefringent element ( 3) can be controlled, which can be realized both manually and automatically during processing. In addition, other optical elements which have an effect on the polarization of light, such as prisms, mirrors, etc. The focusing device generally consists of a lens combination in order to keep the proportion of spherical aberration low. However, this can also be achieved with so-called Grin gradient index lenses or a spheres or their combination. The coupled-in beam then impinges on an optically birefringent element, which splits it into two linearly polarized partial beams which are perpendicular to one another.”); and
a focusing optical unit (focusing device 2) arranged downstream of the polarizer arrangement (birefringent element 3) in the beam path and configured to focus the partial beams onto at least two focus zones (focusing device 2 is capable to focus beams onto to focus),
wherein the polarizer arrangement has a further optical element (beam offset device 4 and optical device 6) arranged downstream of the birefringent polarizer element (birefringent element 3) in the beam path and configured to change an angle and/or a distance of at least one of the partial beams relative to an optical axis of the processing optical unit (See para.[0011] “he beam offset device (4) an optical device (6) for angling the individual partial beams can be seen”.)
Regarding claim 2, Ashkenasi teaches the polarizer element (birefringent element 3) is configured to produce a position offset and/or an angle offset between the partial beams having the different polarization states (See fig.4, birefringent element 3 is capable to produce an angle offset between the partial beams having the different polarization states.)
Regarding claim 3, Ashkenasi teaches the polarizer element (birefringent element 3) is configured to produce an angle offset between the partial beams having the different polarization states (See fig.4, birefringent element 3 is capable to produce an angle offset between two partial beams.), wherein the further optical element (beam offset device 4 and optical device 6) is configured to change the angle of one of the two partial beams relative to the optical axis in order to align the partial beam parallel to the optical axis (see fig.4, beam offset device 4 is configured to change angle the partial beams to be parallel to the optical axis.).
Regarding claim 6, Ashkenasi teaches the polarizer arrangement (birefringent element 3) is configured to position one of the partial beams on the optical axis or to position both partial beams at identical distances from the optical axis (see fig.4, birefringent is capable to position one of the partial beams on the optical axis.).
Regarding claim 8, Ashkenasi teaches the polarizer arrangement is configured to change an angle offset and/or a position offset between the two partial beams (See fig.4, birefringent element 3 is capable to produce an angle offset between the partial beams having the different polarization states.)
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.
Claims 5, 14-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ashkenasi in view of Blasenheim (US 20190094130).
Regarding claim 5, Ashkenasi does not explicitly teach the polarizer arrangement has a beam offset optical unit having a further birefringent element configured to align both partial beams parallel to one another.
However, Blasenheim teaches in the same field of endeavor of a polarizer arrangement has a beam offset optical unit (beam compensating element 180) having a further birefringent element (beam compensating element 180) configured to align both partial beams parallel to one another (See fig.8B).
PNG
media_image2.png
238
346
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 the processing optical unit of Ashkenasi with a polarizer arrangement has a beam offset optical unit having a further birefringent element as taught by Blasenhiem, in order to align both partial beams parallel to one another so that obtain desired beam profiles.
Regarding claim 14, Ashkenasi does not explicitly teach a rotary drive configured to rotate the polarizer arrangement and/or the beam shaping optical unit about a rotation axis.
However, Blasenheim teaches in the same field of endeavor of a polarizer arrangement has a rotary drive (actuators 182A and 182B) configured to rotate an optical element (optical element 181A and 181B) (See fig,8B).
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 processing optical unit of Ashkenasi by adding a rotary drive as taught by Blasenheim, in order to adjust the optical element so that provide desired beam profile.
Regarding claim 15, Ashkenasi teaches a processing optical unit as claimed in claim 1 (See the discussion of claim 1), but does not explicitly teach a laser source.
However, Blasenheim teaches in the same field of endeavor of a laser processing apparatus comprising a laser source (light source 1).
PNG
media_image3.png
448
546
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 the processing optical unit of Ashkenasi by adding a laser source as taught by Blasenhiem, in order to provide laser beam (see para.[0043] of Blasenhiem).
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