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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference characters "1" and "6" have both been used to designate the LDMs. 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. 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 Objections
Claims 4, 5, 7, and 8 are objected to because of the following informalities: “width” in reference to time is improper English. One of ordinary skill in the art would understand it as either a “length” or “duration” of time interchangeably. Appropriate correction is required.
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.
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:
Control device in claim 12, with the purpose being to limit the duration of a continuous light component such that the laser light includes an optical pulse component and the continuous light component and a ratio of energy of the continuous light component to energy of the optical pulse component is equal to or less than a predetermined value. In the specification it is stated that it could be a personal computer and a peripheral device thereof (First paragraph page 8).
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 § 102
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, 6, 8, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Suzuki et al. (US Publication 2019/0314928) hereafter referred to as Suzuki.
Regarding claim 1, Suzuki teaches a laser device (1) that comprises lasers being generated by pulsed pumping energy to a laser source (10), wherein the laser light includes an optical pulse component (Figure 3B Lp) and a continuous light component (Figure 3B Lc) that is continuous with the optical pulse component and temporally after the optical pulse component (Figure 3B) wherein the laser light irradiates a surface of the workpiece ([0002]), and the duration of the continuous light component is limited such that a ratio of energy of the continuous light component to energy of the optical pulse component is equal to or less than a predetermined value as shown in Figure 3B as the predetermined value can be any value.
Regarding claim 6, Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, and laser diodes (21) which generate light when supplied with electric power, in order to generate the pumped light of Figure 3A there must be pulses of electric power.
Regarding claim 8, Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, and a rectangular pulse (Figure 3A) that is of the relationship between the intensity of pumping light and time, where the pumping light is electrically powered laser diodes (21), where the time pulses are a duration lower than the shortest on time period as the shortest on time period is a value where the peak power of the peak power of the optical pulse component is greater than all of the values of time shorter than the shortest on time period. When there is no rectangular pulse there is no peak power, therefore the smallest possible timeframe to get power from the laser diodes is a valid shortest on time period because every time period shorted would not have any peak power at all.
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.
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 2-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Kakui (US Patent 8873595).
Regarding claims 2 and 3, Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach that the ratio of energy of the continuous light component to energy of the optical pulse component is forty or less (claim 2), more specifically 5 or less (claim 3).
PNG
media_image1.png
307
510
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Modified Figure 1
Kakui teaches a laser processing method where the laser light has a ratio of energy of the continuous light component to the energy of the optical pulse component is 5 or less (Figure 3) where the dividing line from the optical pulse component to the continuous light component is the first local minimum after the power has reached the peak (please see discussion in the last paragraph of page 18 of applicant’s specification filed 3/17/2023) as the area under the curve in the power time diagram (Figure 3) is the power, and as the line A is the dividing line between the optical pulse component and the continuous light component, and the ratio of energy of the continuous light component to the energy of the optical pulse component is less than 1, for the purpose of processing metal thin film (Abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of the frequency of laser light of Kakui in order to process thin metal film to improve the laser device of Suzuki for the predictable result of improving the ability to process thin metal film.
Regarding claims 4 and 5, Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but fails to teach that the laser light has a time width of 12 microseconds or less (claim 4), or more specifically 2.3 microseconds or less.
Kakui teaches a laser processing method where the laser light lasts for less than 10 nanoseconds (Figure 3) for the purpose of processing metal thin film (Abstract).
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the known technique of the duration of laser light of Kakui in order to process thin metal film to improve the laser device of Suzuki for the predictable result of improving the ability to process thin metal film.
Claims 7 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Suzuki in view of Ishizu et al. (US publication 2010/0183040) hereafter referred to as Ishizu.
Regarding claims 7, 9, and 10, Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 6, but does not teach the duration being 10 microseconds or less (Claim 7) or frequency being 5 kHz or greater (Claim 9) or between 50 kHz and 300kHz (Claim 10) of the pulse of electrical power.
Ishizu teaches a laser device that has a range of possible repeating frequencies including 100kHz (Figure 8) for the purpose of processing an object. The time duration of one cycle at 100kHz is 10 microseconds so a pulse at a frequency of 100kHz is 10 microseconds long or less, and 100kHz is both greater than 5 kHz and within the range between 50 kHz and 300kHz.
It would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to apply the technique of the repeating frequency of 100kHz as taught by Ishizu to the laser device of Suzuki for the predictable result of enabling the processing of an object.
Regarding claim 11, Suzuki teaches all of the limitations of claim 1, but does not teach moving the position to be irradiated with the laser light on the surface of the workpiece relatively to the workpiece.
Ishizu teaches a laser device where the position to be irradiated with the laser light on the work piece moves relative to the work piece (Figures 12-16) in order to do work on more than a singular point on any given work piece as without moving the position to be irradiated with the laser light on the work piece movies relative to the work piece only one point on any given work piece can be worked on as to change the location being worked on would be to move the position to be irradiated with the laser light on the work piece relative to the work piece.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to apply the technique of moving the position to be irradiated with the laser light on the work piece relative to the work piece of Ishizu to improve the laser device of Suzuki for the predictable result of enabling processing multiple locations on a work piece.
Regarding claim 12, Suzuki teaches a laser device (1) that comprises lasers being generated by controlling pulsed pumping energy to a laser source (10), wherein the laser light includes an optical pulse component (Figure 3B Lp) and a continuous light component (Figure 3B Lc) that is continuous with the optical pulse component and temporally after the optical pulse component (Figure 3B) wherein the laser light irradiates a surface of the workpiece ([0002]), and the duration of the continuous light component is limited such that a ratio of energy of the continuous light component to energy of the optical pulse component is equal to or less than a predetermined value as shown in Figure 3B as the predetermined value can be any value. Relaxation oscillation is a property of pumped lasers so it is inherent that pumped lasers pulse due to relaxation oscillation.
Suzuki does not teach an optical head to emit the laser light onto the surface of a workpiece.
Ishizu teaches a laser processing device (100) with a laser emission device (120), in order to utilize the laser generated by the laser source device (110) for processing the workpiece.
All of the component parts are known in Suzuki and Ishizu. The only difference is the combination of the “old elements” by combining them into one device.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to combine the laser device of Suzuki with the laser emission device of Ishizu in order to utilize the laser generated as each element merely functions the same function as it does separately and would find that the combination would have the predictable results of a laser device with a laser emission device to emit the laser.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Lee et al. (US Patent 9000326) teaches an apparatus for laser processing with square voltage waves. However no actual values of either the voltage or the time are given.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Drew J Mitchum whose telephone number is (571)272-5610. The examiner can normally be reached 8-4:30.
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 F 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.
/D.J.M./Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights