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 .
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.
All foreign documents are citing the translated copies provided, with the exception of WO 2017129795, which is citing the English equivalent of the application, CA 3012899; WO 2021228829 is citing the English equivalent US 20230111969.
Claim 1 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsumoto et al (WO 2021182643), in view of Schnick et al (WO 2017129795), further in view of Usada (US Patent No. 15,517,705), and Dounassre et al (WO 2021228829), hereinafter Dounassre.
Matsumoto teaches (Figure 14) a laser system comprising at least a blue ray laser model (112), emitting a blue ray laser beam through a blue ray optic fiber (130); an infrared optic fiber laser module (111), emitting an infrared laser beam through an infrared optic fiber (130); and the first focus of the blue ray laser beam will be formed on the surface of a material to be processed (Paragraph 119), and the second focus of the infrared laser beam configured to penetrate into the material to be processed (Paragraph 129).
Matsumoto teaches an optical head (120) with a collimator lens (121-1); however, Matsumoto fails to teach a fiber bundle for embedding the blue ray optic fiber and the infrared optic fiber, an output optic fiber emitting an output light beam, and an output assembly including a collimating lens at a front of the output optical assembly configured to form the output light beam into a collimated parallel beam and a focusing lens at a back of the output optical assembly configured to cause the passing parallel beam to generate focal points of two wavelengths. Matsumoto further fails to teach coaxial and coincident beams, a BPP value of less than 10 mm*mrad, and the distance between the first focus and second focus is 1-3mm.
Shnick teaches a fiber bundle (Pg. 5, lines 20-21), which is being used for embedding the blue ray optic fiber and the infrared optic fiber (Fig. 25), and emitting an output light beam through an output optic fiber (Pg. 5, lines 35-36) to increase power (Pg. 21, lines 32-33); and an output optical assembly (13) including a collimating lens (Pg. 20, line 32) and a focusing lens (Pg. 20, line 33) located at a front and back of the optical assembly respectively, wherein the collimating lens is used to form the output light beam into a collimated parallel beam; and the focusing lens will make the passing parallel beam generating focal points of two wavelengths (Pg. 20, lines 33-35), which are a first focus and a second focus for the purpose of increasing flexibility and power of the system while minimizing aberrations (Pg. 20, lines 35-36).
Therefore, it would have to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Shnick and have a fiber bundle for embedding the blue ray optic fiber and the infrared optic fiber, emitting an output light beam through an output optic fiber; and an output optical assembly including a collimating lens and a focusing lens located at a front and back of the optical assembly respectively, wherein the collimating lens is used to form the output light beam into a collimated parallel beam; and the focusing lens will make the passing parallel beam generating focal points of two wavelengths, which are a first focus and a second focus for the purpose of increasing flexibility and power of the system while minimizing aberrations.
The modified device of Matsumoto still fails to teach the output of the blue ray laser beam and the infrared laser beam being coaxial and coincident and the BPP value of both beams being less than 10 mm*mrad each.
Usada teaches a device wherein it is known for the output light beam generated by the output fiber (transmission fiber; pg. 1, paragraph 3), including the blue ray laser beam and the infrared laser beam (multiple-wavelength laser beam, paragraph 3) to be coaxial and coincident to emit light (superimposed; pg. 1, paragraph 3); and the BPP of the blue ray laser beam (400 nm; pg. 3, paragraph 38) and the infrared laser beam (980 nm; pg. 3, paragraph 38) are both less than 10 mm*mrad (8 mm*mrad; pg. 3, paragraph 38) for the purpose of dealing with absorptance variations occurring depending on wavelengths when processing a workpiece with the multiple-wavelength laser beam by the DDL processing apparatus (Pg. 1, p. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate the output of the blue ray laser beam and the infrared laser beam being coaxial and coincident and the BPP value of both beams being less than 10 mm*mrad each as taught by Usada for the purpose of dealing with absorptance variations of the materials being processed.
The modified device of Matsumoto still fails to teach the distance between the first and second focus, specifically between 1-3 mm.
Dounassre teaches a laser cutting method (Title) wherein the distance between the focal points of the two laser beams is preferably at most 2 mm (Pg. 3, par. 33) for the purpose of improving efficiency and quality of the laser (Pg. 2 par. 21-22).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate the teachings of Dounassre and have the distance between the first and second focus be 1-3 mm for the purpose of improving efficiency and quality of the laser.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Dawson et al (US Patent No. 15,849,057), and even further in view of Price et al (US Patent No. 13,726,586).
The modified device of Matsumoto fails to teach a laser system, wherein the blue ray laser model has at least 7 blue ray laser diodes to excite at least 7 blue ray light beams with a wavelength of 400nm~670nm, an optical lens assembly, including at least 7 fast axis collimating lenses, 7 slow axis collimating lenses, 7 reflecting lenses and one focusing lens, so that the individual blue ray light beams are collimated through their respective set of fast axis and slow axis collimating lenses, and after passing through their respective reflecting lens, then combined into a blue ray laser beam, and the blue ray laser beam can be coupled into the core of the blue ray optic fiber through the action of the focusing lens.
Dawson teaches a focusing lens (Fig. 4, 430), individual blue ray beams combined into a blue ray laser beam (Pg. 7, paragraph 43), and the blue ray laser beam can be coupled into the core of the blue ray optic fiber (434) through the action of the focusing lens (Pg. 7, paragraph 43) to develop a laser system with fewer drawbacks (Pg. 1, paragraph 3).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate the focusing lens, combining beams, and the focusing lens coupling the beams into the core of the optical fiber taught by Dawson for the purpose of creating a laser system with fewer drawbacks.
Price teaches a diode laser apparatus (FIG. 1, 100) comprising a plurality of diode lasers configured to emit respective beams (110), a plurality of fast axis collimators optically coupled to respective beams (124), a plurality of slow axis collimators optically coupled to respective fast-axis collimated beams (126), and a plurality of immovably situated reflectors configured to receive respective collimated beams (128) to provide a module that is simpler to manufacture and that can exhibit improved etendue preservation, while providing high-power low-divergence output (Col. 2, lines 24-26).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto such that the blue ray laser model (Col 3, lines 59-61) has at least 7 blue ray laser diodes (110) to excite at least 7 blue ray light beams with a wavelength of 400nm~670nm, including at least 7 fast axis collimating lenses (124), 7 slow axis collimating lenses (126), and 7 reflecting lenses (128) as taught by Price for the purpose of improving the quality of the laser system.
Claim 3 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Hayashi et al (US Patent No. 18,290,497), and even further in view of Miura et al (WO Patent 2019225174).
The modified device of Matsumoto fails to teach a fiber output hybrid laser system, wherein the infrared optical fiber laser module having a seeding light source device, which uses an infrared laser diode to emit a seeding laser beam with a wavelength of 1064nm, and an excitation light source device, which uses a high-power semiconductor laser, so as to emit an excitation laser beam with a wavelength of 800~980nm, a beam combiner, which is used to couple the seeding laser beam and the excitation laser beam into the core of the infrared optical fiber, so as to form the infrared laser beam.
Hayashi teaches an excitation light source device, which uses a high-power semiconductor laser (Pg. 8, paragraph 139), so as to emit an excitation laser beam with a wavelength of 800~980nm, and a beam combiner (Pg. 2, paragraph 40), which is used to couple beams into the core of the infrared optical fiber, so as to form the infrared laser beam to facilitate processing at a high processing speed (Pg. 1, paragraph 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate the excitation light source, and beam combiner as taught by Hayashi to facilitate processing at a high processing speed.
Miura teaches a laser system, wherein the infrared optical fiber laser module having a seeding light source device (Fig. 11), which uses an infrared laser diode (105) to emit a seeding laser beam with a wavelength of 1064nm (Paragraph 48) to reduce the occurrence of problems caused by unnecessary light (Paragraph 8).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate the seed light taught by Miura for the purpose of producing a laser system with minimal error occurrences.
Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hann (US Patent No. 17,921,981).
Matsumoto fails to teach a laser system, wherein the output optic fiber has a core diameter of 100pm and a cladding of 300pm.
Hann teaches a laser system, wherein the output optic fiber (115) may have a core part (115a) having a diameter of 50 μm to 100 μm (Pg 5, paragraph 71); and a cladding part (115b), wherein at least one clad has a diameter of several tens to hundreds of μm (Pg 5, paragraph 71) to achieve a quality of welding that is stable overall (Pg. 1, paragraph 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one having ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate an output optic fiber with specific diameter and cladding values by having the output optical fiber have any core diameter between 50 μm and 100 μm, with 100 μm being the claimed diameter, and a cladding of hundreds of μm, including the claimed cladding 300 μm, in an attempt to increase stability.
Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over the modified device of Matsumoto as applied to claim 1 above, further in view of Yasuoka et al (WO Patent 2022211133), even further in view of Schillinger et al (KR Patent 20160010396), and Sercel et al (US Patent No. 15,708,628).
Matsumoto fails to teach a laser system, wherein the blue ray laser beam in the output light beam having a wavelength between 400nm~480nm, and a power between 20~100W, and the infrared laser beam in the output light beam having a wavelength between 900nm~1100nm, and a power between 500~5000W.
Yasuoka teaches a laser system, wherein the laser device 111 outputs a first laser beam having a wavelength of, for example, 800 nm or more and 1200 nm or less (Paragraph 36), and the laser device 112 outputs a second laser beam having a wavelength of, for example, 300 nm or more and 600 nm or less (Paragraph 37) to increase absorptance of the beam in the material (Paragraph 19). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate a blue ray laser beam in the output light beam having a wavelength between 300nm-600nm, which includes the claimed range of 400nm~480nm, and an infrared laser beam in the output light beam having a wavelength between 800-1200nm, which includes the claimed range of 900nm~1100nm for the purpose of increasing absorptance of the beam into the material.
Schillinger teaches a laser system with the laser power between 10 watts and 100 watts (Paragraph 48) to ensure minimal errors caused by the laser system.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto to incorporate a laser power between 10-100 watts, which includes the claimed range of 20~100W as taught by Schillinger to ensure minimal errors caused by the laser system (Paragraph 9).
Sercel teaches a range in power from 500 W to 50 kW (Pg. 3, paragraph 34) to improve the cost and laser efficiency (Pg. 1, paragraph 9).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to have modified the modified device of Matsumoto incorporate a laser power between 500-50 kW, which includes the claimed range of 500~5000W as taught by Sercel to improve cost and laser efficiency.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 5-7, filed on January 28, 2026, with respect to the rejection of claim 1 under 35 USC 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Dounassre.
Applicant pointed out that the examiner misinterpreted the limitation of claim 1, which states, “the distance between the first focus and the second focus is 1-3 mm”. The art used to reject the limitation was removed. However, examiner was able to find prior art to read on the limitation and has incorporated the reference in the instant action.
The applicant amended the drawing, specification, and claims to overcome the 112(a) and (b) rejections and objections pointed out in the previous Non-Final Office action.
There were no arguments made against the rejections regarding the other limitations of claim 1 or dependent claims 2-5 of the application. Therefore, the rejections for those claims remain the same as in the previous Non-Final Rejection.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHANCIE I VELASQUEZ SANCHEZ whose telephone number is (571)272-9477. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7:30AM-4:30PM.
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.
/C.V.S./Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761