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 § 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.
Claims 6 and 14 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.
Claims 6 and 14 both recites in part, “laser pulse width is in a picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 1,000 picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 15 picosecond range”. It is unclear what range is meant to be protected by this limitation. In addition, the ranges overlap one another, so it is unclear when infringement would occur. Therefore, Claims 6 and 14 are indefinite in scope.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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 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 1-2, 4-5, 8-13,15-18, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bunker et al., hereafter Bunker (US 20100282721).
Regarding Claim 1, Bunker discloses a method of ablating one or more holes in an article with a laser, the method comprising: establishing an ablation characteristic, the ablation characteristic including a synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraph 0026);
ablating the one or more holes with the laser based on the synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraph 0029); and
wherein the synchronized machine motion characteristic synchronizes a laser beam emitted from the laser with a location of the one or more holes (paragraphs 0026,0029).
Regarding Claim 2, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the ablating step further comprises: moving at least one of the article and the laser during the ablating step (paragraphs 0026,0029 – laser is moved).
Regarding Claim 4, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the ablating step further comprises: moving the laser during the ablating step (paragraphs 0026,0029).
Regarding Claim 5, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the ablation characteristic also comprises at least one of: laser pulse width or pulse duration, laser frequency, laser pulse peak power, wavelength, average laser power, laser beam quality, repetition rate, pulse energy, laser spot size, and focal distance (paragraphs 0025,0026 – ablation characteristic includes laser pulse duration, wavelength, average laser power, repetition rate, and laser spot size).
Regarding Claim 8, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the synchronized machine motion characteristic includes at least one of a linear and a rotational acceleration, a linear and a rotational speed, and a field of view (paragraphs 0026,0029).
Regarding Claim 9, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 above. Bunker further discloses further comprising moving at least one of the laser and the article when transitioning from a first working zone to a second working zone (paragraph 0026 – laser is moved from a machining location to a next machining location as first and second working zones, respectively).
Regarding Claim 10, Bunker discloses a system for ablating one or more holes in an article with a laser, the system comprising: a memory storing a set of machine motion synchronization data (paragraphs 0026,0028 – processor includes a memory); and
at least one processor (paragraphs 0026,0028) executing instructions that cause the at least one processor to:
establish an ablation characteristic, the ablation characteristic including a synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraph 0026);
ablating the one or more holes with the laser based on the synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraph 0029); and
wherein the synchronized machine motion characteristic synchronizes a laser beam emitted from the laser with a location of the one or more holes (paragraphs 0026,0029).
Regarding Claim 11, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 10 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the ablating step further comprises: moving at least one of the article and the laser during the ablating step (paragraphs 0026,0029 – laser is moved).
Regarding Claim 12, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 10 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the ablating step further comprises: moving the article during the ablating step, or moving the laser during the ablating step (paragraphs 0026,0029 – laser is moved).
Regarding Claim 13, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 10 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the ablation characteristic also comprises at least one of: laser pulse width or pulse duration, laser frequency, laser pulse peak power, wavelength, average laser power, laser beam quality, repetition rate, pulse energy, laser spot size, and focal distance (paragraphs 0025,0026 – ablation characteristic includes laser pulse duration, wavelength, average laser power, repetition rate, and laser spot size).
Regarding Claim 15, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 10 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the synchronized machine motion characteristic includes at least one of a linear and a rotational acceleration, a linear and a rotational speed, and a field of view (paragraphs 0026,0029).
Regarding Claim 16, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 10 above. Bunker further discloses comprising moving at least one of the laser and the article when transitioning from a first working zone to a second working zone (paragraph 0026 – laser is moved from a machining location to a next machining location as first and second working zones, respectively).
Regarding Claim 17, Bunker discloses a non-transitory, computer-readable medium storing instructions that, when executed by at least one processor (paragraphs 0026,0028), causes the at least one processor to: establish an ablation characteristic, the ablation characteristic including a synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraph 0026);
ablating one or more holes with a laser based on the synchronized machine motion characteristic (paragraph 0029); and
wherein the synchronized machine motion characteristic synchronizes a laser beam emitted from the laser with a location of the one or more holes (paragraphs 0026,0029).
Regarding Claim 18, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 17 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the ablating step further comprises: moving at least one of the article and the laser during the ablating step (paragraphs 0026,0029 – laser is moved).
Regarding Claim 20, Bunker discloses all the limitations of Claim 17 above. Bunker further discloses wherein the ablating step further comprises: moving the laser during the ablating step (paragraphs 0026,0029).
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.
Claims 3, 6-7, 14, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bunker.
Regarding Claim 3, Bunker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
However, Bunker fails to teach wherein the ablating step further comprises: moving the article during the ablating step.
Bunker does teach moving the laser during the ablating step (paragraphs 0026,0029). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are two solutions to moving the laser and article relative to each other during the ablation step – either the laser moves, or the article moves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the ablation step taught by Bunker could comprise moving the article rather than moving the laser, as moving the article is one of a finite number of identified predictable solutions to moving a laser and article relative to each other during ablating.
Regarding Claim 6, Bunker teaches all the limitations of Claim 5 above.
However, Bunker fails to explicitly teach wherein the laser pulse width is in a picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 1,000 picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 15 picosecond range.
Bunker does teach that the laser pulse width is in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width could be in a picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 1,000 picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 15 picosecond range, as Bunker teaches a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 14, Bunker teaches all the limitations of Claim 13 above.
However, Bunker fails to explicitly teach wherein laser operating parameters are at least one of: a repetition rate is in a range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz, average laser power is in a range of 25 W to 250 W.
Bunker does teach that the repetition rate is greater than 1000 Hz and the average laser power is greater than 20 W (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the repetition rate could be in a range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz, and the average laser power in a range of 25 W to 250 W, as Bunker teaches a repetition rate greater than 1000 Hz and an average laser power greater than 20 W will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 7, Bunker teaches all the limitations of Claim 1 above.
However, Bunker fails to explicitly teach wherein laser operating parameters are at least one of: laser pulse width is in a picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 1,000 picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 15 picosecond range,
a repetition rate is in a range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz,
average laser power is in a range of 25 W to 250 W.
Bunker does teach that the laser pulse width is in a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range, the repetition rate is greater than 1000 Hz, and the average laser power is greater than 20 W (paragraph 0025), in order to achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. Similarly, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges or amounts do not overlap with the prior art but are merely close (See MPEP 2144.05 I.). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the laser pulse width could be in a picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 1,000 picosecond range, or within a 1 picosecond to 15 picosecond range, the repetition rate could be in a range of 10 kHz to 10 MHz, and the average laser power in a range of 25 W to 250 W, as Bunker teaches a 50 microsecond to 1 femtosecond range, a repetition rate greater than 1000 Hz, and an average laser power greater than 20 W will achieve a wide range of laser intensity, while mitigating negative effects of laser machining and reaching a high material removal rate (paragraph 0025), and claimed ranges overlapping ranges taught by the prior art are obvious (MPEP 2144. 05 I.).
Regarding Claim 19, Bunker teaches all the limitations of Claim 17 above.
However, Bunker fails to teach wherein the ablating step further comprises: moving the article during the ablating step.
Bunker does teach moving the laser during the ablating step (paragraphs 0026,0029). One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that there are two solutions to moving the laser and article relative to each other during the ablation step – either the laser moves, or the article moves. Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art that the ablation step taught by Bunker could comprise moving the article rather than moving the laser, as moving the article is one of a finite number of identified predictable solutions to moving a laser and article relative to each other during ablating.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
Deshi (US 20060169677), Das (US 20040134897), Hu (US 20150209899), Kinoshita (US 6346687), and Neil (US 6809291) each teaches a method of ablating holes in an article.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JACKSON GILLENWATERS whose telephone number is (469)295-9151. The examiner can normally be reached 10:00AM-6:00PM ET, M-F.
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE 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.
/JACKSON N GILLENWATERS/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745