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 without traverse of Groups III (claims 6-14) in the reply filed on 02/04/2026 is acknowledged.
Claims 1-5 and 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected group I-II and IV, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 02/04/2026.
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 laser-scanning system configured to direct a laser beam …” in claim 6.
“a CO2 nozzle movement stage configured to controllably adjust a location of a CO2 spot …” in claim 6
“an electronic controller configured to control the laser scanning system … control the CO2 nozzle …” in claim 6.
“a CO2 system configured to selectively cause the CO2 nozzle to emit a gaseous form, a liquid form, and a solid form.” in claim 11.
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.
“a laser-scanning system” (claim 6) is interpreted as “The system includes a laser scan head 101 and a confocal microscope scan head 103” ([0055] of instant publication application).
“a CO2 nozzle movement stage” (claim 6) is interpreted as “The machining system 1000 of FIG. 9 includes a CO.sub.2 nozzle 109 coupled to the support arm 1070 by a nozzle extension arm 1110. The nozzle extension arm 1110 is configured to controllably adjust a position of the CO.sub.2 nozzle 1090 in the y-direction by extending and retracting the nozzle extension arm 1110 and to controllably adjust a position of the CO.sub.2 nozzle 1090 in the x-direction by moving the nozzle extension arm 1110 along a track of the support arm 1070. In some implementations, the CO.sub.2 nozzle 1090 is configured to deliver a CO.sub.2 gas to the machining area by controllable targeting of the CO.sub.2 nozzle 1090. OAs described in further detail below, in some implementations, the machining system 1000 may be configured to cause the CO.sub.2 nozzle 1090 to follow the same scan pattern as the laser beam. A relatively large spot size of the CO.sub.2 nozzle 1090 and the corresponding injection system allows for compensating the lower accuracy of the 2D movement system of the CO.sub.2 nozzle 1090 for achieving higher speeds.” [0086] of instant publication application.
“an electronic controller” (claim 6) is interpreted as “an electronic processor 111 and a non-transitory computer-readable memory 113” [0056] of instant publication application.
“a CO2 system” (claim 11) is interpreted as “the actuators/valves 3210” [0090] of instant publication application.
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 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.
Claim 12 is 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 12 recites “the head mask” at line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis regarding this claim limitation.
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.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaoka et al. (US 2021/0308799) in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0086851), Minehara (US 2014/0263221) and Miklos et al. (US 2009/0014422).
Regarding claim 6, Funaoka et al. discloses “a laser-based machining system” (figs.1-2) comprising:
“a 11);
“a laser-scanning system” (13) configured to direct “a laser beam” (dash line) from “the laser source” (11) to “a surface of a sample” (item W)
“a 15) configured to emit “a nozzle 15 is capable of a jet of gas);
“a fig.2, 16 which includes 23, 24, 25 and 26. Examiner treated “CO2” nozzle movement stage as a name) “configured to controllably adjust a location of a [0042] As described above, the laser machining apparatus 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention includes: the nozzle 15 that externally applies the squirted gas in the direction of the optical axis 1a of the laser beam 1; the rotation mechanism 16 that causes the nozzle 15 or the workpiece W to rotate about the optical axis 1a; and the controller 18 that controls the rotation mechanism 16 during cutting to position the nozzle 15 on the side of the machining (cutting) path that becomes the machined product 29);
“an electronic controller configured to control the laser scanning system to cause the laser spot to follow a defined machining path on the surface of the sample; and control the [0025] In accordance with preset machining conditions, the controller 18 controls those including the laser oscillator 11, the actuator 14, and the rotation mechanism 16 so that the laser beam 1 scans along a machining path on the workpiece W. [0042] As described above, the laser machining apparatus 100 according to the first embodiment of the present invention includes: the nozzle 15 that externally applies the squirted gas in the direction of the optical axis 1a of the laser beam 1; the rotation mechanism 16 that causes the nozzle 15 or the workpiece W to rotate about the optical axis 1a; and the controller 18 that controls the rotation mechanism 16 during cutting to position the nozzle 15 on the side of the machining (cutting) path that becomes the machined product 29),
“wherein the movement of the fig.2 shows the movement of gas spot is synchronized with the movement of the laser spot. [0025] In accordance with preset machining conditions, the controller 18 controls those including the laser oscillator 11, the actuator 14, and the rotation mechanism 16 so that the laser beam 1 scans along a machining path on the workpiece W).
Funaoka et al. is silent regarding a femtosecond laser source; a laser scanning system and to controllably adjust a location of a laser spot where the laser beam contacts the surface of the sample; a CO2 nozzle configured to emit a CO2 jet to cause the CO2 spot.
Park et al. teaches “a femtosecond laser source” (302).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Park et al., to amplify light via stimulated emission, creating the laser beam used for cutting or engraving.
Minehara teaches “a laser scanning system and to controllably adjust a location of a laser spot where the laser beam contacts the surface of the sample” ([0058], i.e., reflectors 21a (galvano-mirrors) of the XY axis scanner 21 may well be altered with a high-velocity electro-optical device or resonant mirror and as such. Further, the movable lens 22a of the Z axis scanner 22 may well be altered with a variable focus lens, which lens (comprising a liquid or crystal device) is electrically controlled so as to adjust a focal distance with high velocity. Abstract, i.e., the Z axis scanner being provided with a focus position controlling section to automatically adjust a focus position in accordance with an irradiation position such that a focus of the laser beam comes on the surface of the contaminated article based on a shape data obtained at the surface shape measuring device).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Minehara, by adding Minehara’s laser scanning system to Park et al.’s machining head, for more precise cut and dynamic adjustment for processing workpiece.
Miklos et al. teaches “a CO2 nozzle” (7 and 17 forms a nozzle) configured to emit a CO2 jet to cause the CO2 spot” (the mixture of CO2 and air 8 forms a CO2 spot).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Miklos et al., to generate a high-power infrared beam for more efficient laser processing.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaoka et al. (US 2021/0308799) in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0086851), Minehara (US 2014/0263221) and Miklos et al. (US 2009/0014422) as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Mori (US 2015/0314394), Stapleton et al. (US 2019/0176397) and Mudd (US 9,067,278).
Regarding claim 7, Funaoka et al. discloses “the electronic controller is configured to: operate the CO2 nozzle movement stage to cause the CO2 spot to follow the defined machining path” ([0025] In accordance with preset machining conditions, the controller 18 controls those including the laser oscillator 11, the actuator 14, and the rotation mechanism 16 so that the laser beam 1 scans along a machining path on the workpiece W).
Funaoka et al. is silent regarding the electronic controller is configured to: temporarily prevent the laser beam from contacting the surface of the sample, operate the CO2 nozzle to emit the CO2 jet; the electronic controller is further configured to machine the surface of the sample by controlling the laser scanning system to cause the laser spot to perform multiple passes along the defined machining path, wherein, between each pass of the multiple passes along the defined machining path, the electronic controller operate the CO2 nozzle to stop emitting the CO2 jet after the CO2 spot completes the defined machining path.
Mori teaches “the electronic controller” ([0084], i.e., in the case where the assist gas supply command is being output from the controller 14 or the assist gas supply monitoring signal is being input to the controller 14 at the above-described instant of suspending the program execution.) is configured to: “temporarily prevent the laser beam from contacting the surface of the sample, operate the CO2 nozzle to emit the CO2 jet” ([0073] Step T2: [0074] Assist gas A is blown from the processing nozzle 46 to the workpiece W, and when the internal pressure of the processing nozzle 46 reaches a predetermined gas pressure, the workpiece W is irradiated with laser beam L for 0.3 seconds. This suggest the laser beam is temporarily prevented until the nozzle reaches a predetermined gas pressure); “the electronic controller operate the CO2 nozzle to stop emitting the CO2 jet after the CO2 spot completes the defined machining path” (fig.6, T4. [0077] Step T4: [0078] The supply of the assist gas is stopped to terminate a burning reaction, and thereby the formation of the hole H is finished). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Mori, by adding Mori’s control algorithm to Funaoka et al.’s controller, to save the gas when not in use.
Stapleton et al. teaches “the electronic controller” ([0018], i.e., a control unit for controlling the laser source (or sources), wherein, in use, layers of flowable material are successively formed across the build table, the laser source(s) directs a laser beam onto each layer to selectively solidify the material in a defined area, and the control unit directs the laser beam) is further configured to “machine the surface of the sample fig.3c shows the multiple pass along the defined machining path. Abstract, i.e., the laser beam irradiates the entire selected area in a single pass over the first path and the or each further path). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Stapleton et al., by adding Stapleton et al.’s scan control algorithm to Funaoka et al.’s control system, to create a more uniform weld pool for weld workpiece (abstract) as taught by Stapleton et al.
Mudd teaches “the electronic controller” (40 and 42) is further configured to controlling “the laser scanning system” (46). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Mudd, by adding Mudd’s scanning controller to Funaoka et al.’s control system, to control the speed, position, and trajectory of a laser beam for marking, engraving, cutting, or scanning applications with high accuracy and speed.
Claim(s) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaoka et al. (US 2021/0308799) in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0086851), Minehara (US 2014/0263221) and Miklos et al. (US 2009/0014422) as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Bunker et al. (US 2012/0164376).
Regarding claim 12, modified Funaoka et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for a sample comprises the hard mask comprises aluminum foil.
Bunker et al. teaches “the hard mask comprises aluminum foil” (MPEP 2115. [0046], i.e., the mask could comprise a metal sheet, e.g., an aluminum sheet, aluminum tape, aluminum foil). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Bunker et al., by replacing Funaoka et al.’s workpiece with Bunker et al.’s workpiece, to provide desired type of workpiece for laser processing.
Claim(s) 13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaoka et al. (US 2021/0308799) in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0086851), Minehara (US 2014/0263221) and Miklos et al. (US 2009/0014422) as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Reichenbach (US 2014/0175067) and Design Choice.
Regarding claim 13, modified Funaoka et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the laser spot comprises an 85% overlap.
Reichenbach teaches “the laser spot comprises an [0037], i.e., a laser spot overlap between about 88% and 92%). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Reichenbach, by modifying Funaoka et al.’s laser spot according to Reichenbach’s laser spot overlapping percentage, to achieve high-quality surface finishing, uniform material removal, or dense, defect-free material deposition.
However, the applicant has not disclosed that “the laser spot comprises an 85% overlap” solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results. The examiner notes that “the laser spot comprises an 85% overlap” just to optimize surface modification. As such, the examiner considers this limitation to be a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to modify Funaoka et al.’s laser spot comprises 85% overlap as proposed by the applicant, since the applicant has not disclosed that “the laser spot comprises an 85% overlap” solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results and it appears that “the laser spot comprises an 85% overlap” would perform equally well, since “the laser spot comprises an 85% overlap” merely to optimize surface modification.
Claim(s) 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Funaoka et al. (US 2021/0308799) in view of Park et al. (US 2016/0086851), Minehara (US 2014/0263221) and Miklos et al. (US 2009/0014422) as applied in claim 6 above, and further in view of Zhang (US 2014/0263212) and Design Choice.
Regarding claim 14, modified Funaoka et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the laser spot comprises a size of 8 μm.
Zhang teaches “the laser spot comprises a size of 10 μm” ([0103], i.e., the laser spot 102 measured at the surface of the workpiece 22 may range from 10 microns to 1000 microns or from 50 microns to 500 microns.). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Funaoka et al. with Zhang, by modifying Funaoka et al.’s laser spot according to Zhang’s laser spot, to provide high-precision applications requiring extreme accuracy.
However, the applicant has not disclosed that “the laser spot comprises a size of 8 μm” solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results. The examiner notes that “the laser spot comprises a size of 8 μm” merely determines the size of laser beam. As such, the examiner considers this limitation to be a design choice. Therefore, it would have been obvious as a matter of design choice to modify Funaoka et al.’s the laser spot comprises a size of 8 μm as proposed by the applicant, since the applicant has not disclosed that “the laser spot comprises a size of 8 μm” solves any stated problem or provides any unexpected results and it appears that “the laser spot comprises a size of 8 μm” would perform equally well, since “the laser spot comprises a size of 8 μm” merely determines the size of laser beam.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 8-11 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761