DETAILED ACTION
This is the first office action regarding application number 18/157090, filed on 01/20/2023, which is a continuation of International Application No. PCT/EP2021/070092 (WO 2022/018006 A1), filed on July 19, 2021, and claims benefit to German Patent Application No. DE 102020119306.8, filed on July 22, 2020.
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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant's claim for foreign priority based on an application filed in Federal Republic of Germany on 07/22/2020. It is noted, however, that applicant has not filed a certified copy of the English translation of DE 102020119306.8 application.
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Group I, claims 1-11 in the reply filed on 12/17/2025 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)).
Claims 12-16 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being drawn to a nonelected Group II, there being no allowable generic or linking claim.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the 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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities: claim 4 cites “beamusing”. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim 10 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 10 has an extra space before “.” Appropriate correction is required.
Claims 12-16 are objected because the claim status of these claims are not updated as set forth in MPEP 714 “In the claim listing, the status of every claim must be indicated after its claim number by using one of the following identifiers in a parenthetical expression: (Original), (Currently amended), (Canceled), (Withdrawn), (Previously presented), (New), and (Not entered).”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112(b)
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 1-11 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 1 recites “using” without citing any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. MPEP 2173.05 (q) sets forth that “Attempts to claim a process without setting forth any steps involved in the process generally raises an issue of indefiniteness under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. For example, a claim which read: "[a] process for using monoclonal antibodies of claim 4 to isolate and purify human fibroblast interferon" was held to be indefinite because it merely recites a use without any active, positive steps delimiting how this use is actually practiced. Ex parte Erlich, 3 USPQ2d 1011 (Bd. Pat. App. & Inter. 1986).”
Claim 6 recites “Gauss-type”. It is not clear if the beam profile is Gaussian profile or something else.
Claims 2-11 are rejected based on their dependency on claim 1.
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) 1-2, 4, 6-11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikolaschek et al., EP 1478602 (hereafter Mikolaschek) and further in view of Arai et al., US 9138913 (hereafter Arai).
Regarding claim 1, A method for hardening a transparent material comprising: (Abstract teaches “the invention relates to a method for hardening glass,”)
introducing a material modification to the transparent material using a laser beam of ultrashort laser pulses of an ultrashort pulse laser so as to harden at least a portion of the transparent material. (Abstract teaches “the temperature of the glass surface is increased in a locally defined manner by exposing said surface to a laser beam (7), until the glass transition temperature is reached, and the locally heated glass surface (8) is then quickly cooled.”
Page 6, paragraph 6 teaches using a pulsed laser beam.
However, Mikolaschek is silent about ultrashort laser pulses of an ultrashort pulse laser.
Arai teaches “forming a plurality of lines at different depths within the material using tightly focused ultrashort laser pulses” in column 34, lines 45-50.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to use an ultrashort pulse laser as taught in Arai to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so “for generating patterns of laser-modified features below a surface of a transparent material” as taught in column 34, lines 40-45 in Arai.
Regarding claim 2,
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the transparent material is a glass or a polymer or a ceramic. (Abstract in Mikolaschek teaches “the invention relates to a method for hardening glass,”)
Regarding claim 4,
The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising focusing the laser beamusing an optical unit so as to dispose a focus region in the transparent material or on a surface of the transparent material. (Mikolaschek is silent about this.
Arai teaches “an optical system to focus the pulses and to form at least one feature within the material” in column 36, lines 5-10. Arai further teaches focusing the beam in the transparent material in Fig. 2.)
PNG
media_image1.png
398
500
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 2 in Arai
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus the beam inside the transparent material as taught in Arai to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “At the beam waist location, the beam diameter is small enough to once again generate sufficient intensity for nonlinear absorption and subsequent laser modification to occur in the bulk of the material” as taught in column 11, lines 60-65 in Arai.
Regarding claim 6,
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser beam has a Gauss-type beam profile or a beam profile of a quasi non-diffractive beam. (Mikolaschek is silent about this.
Arai teaches a Gaussian beam profile in column 9, line 40.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design a gaussian type beam profile as taught in Arai to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “At the beam waist location, the beam diameter is small enough to once again generate sufficient intensity for nonlinear absorption and subsequent laser modification to occur in the bulk of the material” as taught in column 11, lines 60-65 in Arai.
Regarding claim 7,
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a distance between the ultrashort laser pulses is shorter than a thermal diffusion time of the transparent material, and/or a pulse overlap of the ultrashort laser pulses is greater than 1, and/or a plurality of ultrashort laser pulses are emitted in a first pulse train, wherein a temporal distance of the pulse trains is greater than 100 ns. (Mikolaschek is silent about this.
The claim is interpreted as a pulse overlap of the ultrashort laser pulses is greater than 1. Arai teaches “An output from a pulsed laser apparatus is received by a multifocus beam generator that produces multiple output beams focused at different depths relative to the material, either simultaneously” in column 13, lines 1-6.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to design a overlapping pulses as taught in Arai to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “High repetition rates are preferred for rapid processing with significant pulse overlap for inducing thermal accumulation” as taught in column 27, lines 25-30 in Arai.
Regarding claim 8,
The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising shifting the laser beam and the transparent material relative to one another using a feed. (Mikolaschek is silent about this.
Arai teaches “an automated X-Y axis stage assembly (9) is generally required for moving the work pieces (7) laterally relative to the focused laser beam. Alternatively, the laser beam (2) could be moved relative to a stationary target material with the use of scanning mirrors (3), (4), and (5)” in column 11, lines 6-12.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to shift the beam and workpiece relative to one another as taught in Arai to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The transformed beam is directed toward the target transparent material (7) to cause ablation/modification of the material (7) at multiple determined locations, within and/or on the surface, of the material (7)” as taught in column 11, lines 25-30 in Arai.
Regarding claim 9,
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser beam sweeps multiple times over at least one position of the transparent material. (Mikolaschek is silent about this.
Arai teaches “Features may be formed with single scans, multiple scans, or any combination” in column 16, lines 35-36.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to apply multiple scans as taught in Arai to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so to “incrementally heat the materials until melting and welding occurs” as taught in column 4, lines 10-15 in Arai.
Regarding claim 10,
The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising splitting the laser beam into a plurality of laser beams, before the introducing of the material modification . (Mikolaschek is silent about this.
Arai teaches “A single input laser beam is first split into two beams using a polarizing beam splitter” in column 14, lines 20-22.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to split the laser beam into a plurality of beams as taught in Arai to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “In some embodiments two depth wise spaced focused beams are produced, and at least one beam focused within the material. The second beam may be focused at or near a surface of the material, within the material, or at any depth wise location suitable for material modification” in column 14, lines 15-20 in Arai.
Regarding claim 11,
The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the material is prestressed by being chemically or thermally hardened prior to introducing the material modification. (Mikolaschek teaches in page 6, paragraph 10 “the glass before, during or after the actual curing process, for example, be heated to about 200 ° C to compensate for unwanted material stresses.”)
Claim(s) 3, 5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mikolaschek, and Arai as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Hosseini, US 20200324368 (hereafter Hosseini).
Regarding claim 3,
The method as claimed in claim 1, further comprising focusing the laser beam using an optical unit so as to dispose a focus region outside of the transparent material (Primary combination of references is silent about this.
Hosseini teaches “FIG. 1(c) employs distributed focusing element 150 to focus incident beam 160 such that the resulting converging beam 165 is focused to an initial external waist 175” in paragraph [89].)
PNG
media_image2.png
514
319
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1c of Hosseini
at a distance of less than 100 times a characteristic length from a surface of the transparent material. (Paragraph [89] further teaches “the waist is located at an offset of at least approximately 10 μm from an external surface of the material.” Paragraph [77] teaches a quasi-Rayleigh length of 10mm. Thus the offset is less than 100 times the characteristic length.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to focus the beam outside the transparent material as taught in Hosseini to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “The external formation of the initial waist prevents excessive focusing and optical breakdown within the material, avoiding deleterious effects such as optical breakdown” as taught in paragraph [89] in Hosseini.
Regarding claim 5,
The method as claimed in claim 3, wherein the distance of the focus region relative to the surface of the transparent material is automatically kept constant. (Mikolaschek is silent about this. The claim is interpreted as the focus position is controlled by a controller.
Arai teaches “a Z-axis stage (8) is used for beam focus position control (depth)” in column 11, lines 5-10. It is implied that the Z-axis stage controller maintains the distance automatically.)
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art to control the focus position as taught in Arai to the hardening method in Mikolaschek. One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to do so because “Particular regions of the transformed laser beam have sufficient intensity to cause ablation and/or modification of the target material via nonlinear absorption processes” as taught in column 11, lines 14-20 in Arai.
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