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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), 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), 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) 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: the optical element in claim 3 (disclosed as a lens or mirror element).
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), 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), applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (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).
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 1–4 and 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karlsen et al. (US Pub. 2014/0263208).
Claim 1: Karlsen discloses a device for generating a laser line on a work plane, the device comprising:
a first laser light source (204) configured to generate a first raw laser beam,
a second laser light source (208) configured to generate a second raw laser beam, and
an optical arrangement (205, 210) configured to:
transport the first raw laser beam along a first beam path (206), and reshape the first raw laser beam along a first optical axis to form a first illumination beam with a first caustic and a first beam profile (¶ 24, “line beam”), and
transport the second raw laser beam along a second beam path (210), and reshape the second raw laser beam along a second optical axis to form a second illumination beam with a second caustic and a second beam profile (¶ 24, “line beam”),
wherein the first illumination beam and the second illumination beam are directed with overlap on the work plane (¶ 29, “beams can be shaped to . . . partially overlap”) and define a joint illumination direction (206 and 210 effectively define a joint illumination direction), the first beam profile and the second beam profile each having a long axis with a long-axis beam width and a short axis with a short-axis beam width perpendicular to the joint illumination direction (these features are necessary and inherent from the “line beam” in ¶ 24), and the first beam profile and the second beam profile jointly forming the laser line on the work plane (clearly evident from the overlapping mentioned in ¶ 29), and
wherein the optical arrangement is configured to position the first caustic and the second caustic offset from one another in the illumination direction (¶ 30 explains that the beam focus can be adjusted, where an adjustment of the beam focus necessarily affects the position of the caustic in the illumination direction; further, ¶ 29 explains that “beam parameters can be independently adjusted for each of the beams,” where the beam focus (and, thereby, the caustic) of each beam may be different).
Claim 2: Karlsen discloses that the optical arrangement comprises a first beam transformer (762A in the analogous embodiment shown in fig. 7B) in the first beam path and a second beam transformer (762B) in the second beam path, the first beam transformer configured to reshape the first raw laser beam in order to generate the first beam profile (necessary and inherent given its function as a line beam optic), the second beam transformer configured to reshape the second raw laser beam in order to generate the second beam profile (ibid.), wherein the first optical axis and the second optical axis define a joint system axis (¶ 40 explains that “the beams can overlap”) and the first beam transformer and the second beam transformer are arranged offset relative to one another along the joint system axis (to effectuate the different beam focuses discussed for claim 1, these transformers would necessarily be offset relative to one another).
Claim 3: Karlsen discloses that the optical arrangement comprises at least one beam transformer (762 in fig. 7B) configured to reshape the first raw laser beam and/or the second raw laser beam in order to generate the first beam profile and/or the second beam profile (necessary and inherent given their function as line beam optics), and wherein the optical arrangement further comprises, in the second beam path, an optical element configured to offset the second caustic relative to the first caustic (an optical element would be necessary and inherent for performing the beam focus control discussed for claim 1).
Claim 4: Karlsen discloses that the first caustic defines a process window with a process window length in the illumination direction (a process window is defined by how the laser (including the caustic) is intended to be used, and is arbitrarily definable), and wherein the first caustic and the second caustic are offset in the illumination direction by a defined distance that is less than 1.5 times the process window length and greater than 0.5 times the process window length (as the process window, and its length, are arbitrarily definable, Karlsen’s mere caustic adjustment control is sufficient to read on the claim).
Claim 9: Karlsen discloses that the optical arrangement superposes the first beam profile and the second beam profile along the respective long axis and along the respective short axis (this necessarily and inherently results from the differently adjusted beam focus positions discussed in claim 1).
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.
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 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karlsen as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Lissotschenko et al. (DE 102008027229 A1).
Karlsen is silent regarding that the optical arrangement focuses the first beam profile and the second beam profile onto the work plane, wherein neither the first beam path nor the second beam path has a determined stop.
However, line beam optics without stops are known in the art, as for example shown in Lissotschenko, which discloses an (detailed) apparatus for production of a laser with a linear intensity distribution, without a stop.
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to construct the optical arrangement of Karlsen to be without a determined stop, as suggested by Lissotschenko, to reduce wasted laser energy.
Comment: A “determined stop” is understandable in the art as something like a “field stop” or an “aperture stop.”
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 5–7 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.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Regarding claim 5, Burghardt et al. (DE 102018200078 A1) discloses a similar LLO apparatus with a telescope arrangement with a refractive power with respect to the short axis, but it does not disclose illuminating the lens over more than 50% of the effective diameter.
Regarding claim 6, Burghardt et al. (DE 102018200078 A1) discloses an intermediate image in a single beam path. However, unlike other elements, Burghardt does not teach that this intermediate image moves, and therefore, the reference does not render obvious the idea of offsetting first and second intermediate images.
Regarding claim 7, Beck et al. (DE 102018115126 A1) discloses the use of a rotated beam transformer, but does not disclose first and second beam transformers, particularly where one is rotated relative to the other.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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 (Ned) F. Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-8648. 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761