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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed 6/8/2026 is objected to under 35 U.S.C. 132(a) because it introduces new matter into the disclosure. 35 U.S.C. 132(a) states that no amendment shall introduce new matter into the disclosure of the invention. The added material which is not supported by the original disclosure is as follows: “the laser unit is configured to emit a laser that oscillates about an optical axis”.
The specification as originally filed does not contain the word “oscillate” or any indication the laser would oscillate. “Periodically vibrating” as originally claimed would not include “oscillate”.
Applicant is required to cancel the new matter in the reply to this Office Action.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6/8/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
In response to applicant's argument that the references fail to show certain features of the invention, it is noted that the features upon which applicant relies (i.e., “ultrasonic fluid processing”) are not recited in the rejected claim(s). Although the claims are interpreted in light of the specification, limitations from the specification are not read into the claims. See In re Van Geuns, 988 F.2d 1181, 26 USPQ2d 1057 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
On page 7 of the reply, applicant argues that Sun is not configured to oscillate the laser. However, this is not what is claimed. The claims recite “configured to emit a beam that oscillates…”
Assuming the specification does have support for oscillating the laser, Sun does disclose a laser unit which emits a beam that oscillates. The laser used is an oscillating laser. (See Page 5, Paragraph 3) On the remainder of page 5, applicant argues the functions involved with Sun. However, Sun is only relied upon to show why it would have been obvious to oscillate the laser beam. The reasoning for oscillation would not destroy the combination.
Also, again, applicant states “laser ultrasonic fluid processing”. This limitation is not claimed.
On page 6 applicant states introducing an oscillating laser into Yuan would disrupt the arrangement and only makes conclusory statements. However, Yuan does not teach against using an oscillating laser and no evidence is provided to indicate the oscillation would disrupt the arrangement.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention.
Claims 1-7, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention. Claim 1 has been amended to include: “the laser unit is configured to emit a laser that oscillates about an optical axis”.
The specification as originally filed does not contain the word “oscillate” or any indication the laser would oscillate.
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) 1-2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yuan (CN 103317234) in view of Sun et al (CN 104959730) and Nagata et al (US 2012/0298649).
Regarding claim 1, Yuan discloses, A low-damage processing device for complex microstructure by hybrid laser-ultrasonic processing in a steady flow area (See Fig 1), the low-damage processing device comprising: a base (table 9), a workpiece clamping sliding table unit (clamping table 7), a laser unit (laser 2), a jet gun unit (jet device comprising nozzle 20, valve 10, pump 16 and etch tank 18, See Paragraph [0021]) ) and a host computer (The device is an XYZ three axis control worktable and must be controlled by a computer as a CNC is inherently controlled by some type of computer running software, See Paragraphs [0010], [0015]), wherein the workpiece clamping sliding table unit, the laser unit and the jet gun unit are provided on the base; a workpiece is clamped on the workpiece clamping sliding table unit; (Fig 1 shows the clamp 7, laser 2 and jet gun 20 provided on the base 9, with the clamp 7 clamping a workpiece. See Paragraph [0026]) the jet gun unit emits a high pressure water jet at an acute angle to the surface (Fig 1 shows the jet 20 emitting the water jet at an acute angle, as the angle is able to be changed. See Claim 5)
Yuan fails to disclose, an optical axis of the laser emitted by the laser unit is in a horizontal state and is perpendicular to a surface of the workpiece, and a laser periodically vibrates with the optical axis as a center point on the surface of the workpiece in the direction perpendicular to the optical axis during processing; the jet gun unit emits a high pressure water jet at an acute angle to the surface of the workpiece; and the high pressure water jet and the laser in the high-frequency reciprocating motion act on the surface of the workpiece at the same time, reducing the heat-affected zone and the recast layer while stripping the attachments on the surface of the processed workpiece.
However, Sun discloses, a laser beam from a femtosecond laser source after modulation by a laser modulator is incident on a workpiece via a microscope objective; an X-Y axis two-dimensional translation stage and a rotary stage disposed on the X-Y axis two-dimensional translation stage, an axis of rotation of the rotary stage aligned with the direct-write optical axis, a stage of the rotary stage perpendicular to the direct-write optical axis, a work piece fixed on the stage of the rotary stage; and a controller configured to control the laser beam incident on the workpiece via the laser path and to control operation of the X-Y axis two-dimensional translation stage and the rotation stage; the optical axis of the laser light emitted by the femtosecond laser is horizontal and perpendicular to the surface of the workpiece (see Figure 1, which is equivalent to the optical axis of the laser light emitted by the laser unit of the present disclosure being horizontal and perpendicular to the surface of the workpiece).
Nagata discloses a laser processing apparatus have a jet fluid feed 72. The laser emitted is oscillated perpendicular to the workpiece. (See Paragraphs [0043]-[0046] and Fig 1)
It would have been obvious at the time of the invention to adapt Yuan in view of Sun and Nagata to provide the horizontal optical axis vibrating and the high-frequency reciprocating motion act on the surface of the workpiece at the same time, reducing the heat-affected zone and the recast layer while stripping the attachments on the surface of the processed workpiece for stabilizing the device during processing, and achieve surface strengthening, increase microstructural performance to couple the laser spot to achieve high frequency micro displacement modification and macro-machining trajectories perpendicular to the optical axis, and high pressure water jets to engage with high frequency reciprocating laser light while acting on the workpiece surface. It is also obvious to oscillate a beam for increased porosity and a shallower heat affected zone.
Regarding claim 2, Yuan fails to disclose a shield. However, it would have been obvious to provide a shield beyond the base, laser and jet gun, for preventing the laser from damaging any object behind the workpiece in the event of an error. A shield is standard when working with laser processing.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 3-7, 9 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
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 571-270-5569. 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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 8/21/2026
Prosecution Insights