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 Objections
Claim 1, lines 13-14 and lines 17 are objected to because of the following informalities: “with laser light” should be - -with the laser light- -. 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.
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 element” in claim 1, “a light receiving element” in claim 1, “a moving mechanism” in claim 1, “a control unit” in claim 1, “a diffusion element” in claim 2, “a light reduction element” in claim 3.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Karam et al (US 20130112650).
Regarding claim 1, Karam discloses a laser processing apparatus (Figure 3A) comprising:
a stage (Figure 3C; 70) on which a workpiece (Figure 3B; 70) is placed;
a laser element (Figure 3A; 14, 46, 48) configured to emit laser light (Functional Language, the laser element emits a laser light);
a light receiving element (Figure 3A; 52) configured to receive the laser light from the laser element (Functional Language, Paragraph 0033);
a moving mechanism (Figure 3A; 32, 34, 54, Paragraph 0033) configured to change a relative position of the laser element and the stage (Functional Language, the moving mechanism is capable of changing the relative position of the laser element and the stage) and a relative position of the laser element and the light receiving element (Functional Language, the moving mechanism is capable of changing the relative position of the laser element and the light receiving element); and
a control unit (Figure 3A; 55 and the instrumentation system of Paragraph 0033 that performs the method in Paragraph 0045) configured to control the laser element and the moving mechanism (Functional Language, the control unit controls the laser element and moving mechanism), wherein
the control unit performs
a first process (Functional Language, The process when the laser hits Figure 3A; 52, Paragraph 0033) of controlling the laser element and the moving mechanism to irradiate the light receiving element with the laser light in a state (The state when the laser element and light receiving element, which includes 48, face each other, Paragraph 0033) where the laser element and the light receiving element face each other , and
a second process (Functional Language, The process when the laser hits Figure 3B; 70) of controlling the laser element and the moving mechanism to irradiate the workpiece with the laser light based on a detection value (The measurement and or light calibration of the laser in Paragraph 0033) of the light receiving element in a state (The state when the laser element, which includes 48, and workpiece face each other) where the laser element and the workpiece face each other.
Regarding claim 4, Karam discloses the invention as claimed.
Karam further discloses a distance (The first distance between Figure 3A; 48 and 52) between the laser element and the light receiving element in the first process is greater (The first distance is greater than the second distance as shown in Figure 3A) than a distance (The second distance between Figure 3A; 48 and Figure 3B; 71) between the laser element and the workpiece in the second process.
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) 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karam in view of OphirBlog et al (Warning: Don’t Make These Mistakes When Using a Diffuser on Your High-Energy Laser Beam).
Regarding claim 2, Karam discloses the invention as claimed.
Karam does not disclose a diffusion element configured to diffuse the laser light from the laser element, wherein
the laser light from the laser element is applied to the light receiving element through the diffusion element.
However, OphirBlog teaches a diffusion element (The diffuser in the Figure entitled “A Laser Energy Sensor with a Diffuser”) configured to diffuse a laser light (The small beam in the Figure entitled “A Laser Energy Sensor with a Diffuser”) from a laser element (The element which emits the small beam in the Figure entitled “A Laser Energy Sensor with a Diffuser”), wherein
the laser light from the laser element is applied to a light receiving element (The Absorber in the Figure entitled “A Laser Energy Sensor with a Diffuser”) through the diffusion element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Karam to include a diffusion element configured to diffuse the laser light from the laser element, wherein the laser light from the laser element is applied to the light receiving element through the diffusion element as taught by and suggested by OphirBlog in order to avoid damage to the sensor (The Paragraphs above and below the Figure entitled “A Laser Energy Sensor with a Diffuser”, The modification uses a diffuser prior to the laser hitting the light receiving element).
Claim(s) 3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karam in view of Ito et al (US 20050046792).
Regarding claim 3, Karam discloses the invention as claimed.
Karam does not disclose a light reduction element configured to reduce the laser light from the laser element, wherein
the laser light from the laser element is applied to the light receiving element through the light reduction element.
However, Ito teaches a light reduction element (Figure 16; 132) configured to reduce laser light (The laser beam in Paragraph 0205) from a laser element (Figure 15; 131), wherein
the laser light from the laser element is applied to a light receiving element (Figure 16; 413C) through the light reduction element.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Karam to include a light reduction element configured to reduce the laser light from the laser element, wherein the laser light from the laser element is applied to the light receiving element through the light reduction element as taught by and suggested by Ito in order to adjust the intensity of the laser beam to a desired value (Paragraph 0205, the modification adds a diffusion element when the laser light hits the light receiving element).
Claim(s) 5-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karam in view of Gregg et al (US 20190254775)
Regarding claim 5, Karam discloses the invention as claimed.
Karam does not disclose wherein the control unit pulse-drives the laser element in the first process, and CW-drives the laser element in the second process.
However, Gregg teaches wherein a control unit (The unit having the programs of the laser device, Paragraph 0013) pulse-drives (Figure 3B) a laser element (Figure 2A; 10) in a first process (A process that uses Figure 3B), and CW-drives (Figure 3A) the laser element in a second process (A process that uses Figure 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Karam wherein the control unit pulse-drives the laser element in the first process, and CW-drives the laser element in the second process as taught by and suggested by Gregg in order to adjust the intensity of the laser beam to provide multi-wavelength emission for different applications (Paragraph 0013, 0108, the modification has the laser being able to produce multiple wavelength emission and uses a pulse drive in the first process and a continuous wave in the second process).
Regarding claim 6, Karam discloses the invention as claimed.
Karam does not disclose wherein in the first process, the control unit pulse-drives the laser element at a frequency higher than a frequency of pulse- driving of the laser element in the second process.
However, Gregg teaches wherein in a first process (A process that uses Figure 3B), a control unit (The unit having the programs of the laser device, Paragraph 0013) pulse- drives (Figure 3B) a laser element (Figure 2A; 10) at a frequency (The frequency of Figure 3B) higher than a frequency (The frequency of Figure 3B with a smaller pulse duty cycle per Paragraph 0014) of pulse- driving (Figure 3B with a smaller pulse duty cycle per Paragraph 0014) of the laser element in a second process (A process that uses Figure 3B with a smaller pulse duty cycle per Paragraph 0014).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Karam wherein in the first process, the control unit pulse-drives the laser element at a frequency higher than a frequency of pulse- driving of the laser element in the second process as taught by and suggested by Gregg in order to provide less energy during the second process (Paragraph 0014, the modification has the laser being able to produce multiple wavelength emission and uses a pulse drive in the first process with a larger frequency than the second process)
Regarding claim 7, Karam discloses the invention as claimed.
Karam does not disclose wherein in the first process, the control unit drives the laser element at a duty cycle smaller than a duty cycle of the laser element in the second process.
However, Gregg teaches wherein in a first process (A process that uses Figure 3A), a control unit (The unit having the programs of the laser device, Paragraph 0013) drives a laser element (Figure 2A; 10) at a duty cycle (The duty cycle of Figure 3A) smaller than a duty cycle (The duty cycle of Figure 3B) of the laser element in a second process (A process that uses Figure 3B).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Karam wherein in the first process, the control unit drives the laser element at a duty cycle smaller than a duty cycle of the laser element in the second process as taught by and suggested by Gregg in order to provide multi-wavelength emission for different applications (Paragraph 0013, 0108, the modification has the laser being able to produce multiple wavelength emission and uses a pulse drive in the first process and a continuous wave in the second process).
Regarding claim 8, Karam discloses the invention as claimed.
Karam does not disclose wherein in the first process, the control unit drives the laser element at a light output smaller than a light output of the laser element in the second process.
However, Gregg teaches wherein in a first process (A process that uses Figure 3B), a control unit (The unit having the programs of the laser device, Paragraph 0013) drives a laser element (Figure 2A; 10) at a light output (The output of Figure 3B) smaller than a light output (The output of Figure 3A) of the laser element in the second process (A process that uses Figure 3A).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Karam wherein in the first process, the control unit drives the laser element at a light output smaller than a light output of the laser element in the second process as taught by and suggested by Gregg in order to provide multi-wavelength emission for different applications (Paragraph 0013, 0108, the modification has the laser being able to produce multiple wavelength emission and uses a pulse drive in the first process and a continuous wave in the second process).
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Karam in view of King et al (Coherent power scaling in photonic crystal surface emitting laser arrays)
Regarding claim 9, Karam discloses the invention as claimed.
Karam does not disclose wherein the control unit pulse-drives the laser element in the first process, and CW-drives the laser element in the second process.
However, King teaches wherein a laser element (The photonic crystal surface emitting lasers in the abstract) is a photonic crystal surface emitting laser.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of effective filing to modify the invention of Karam wherein the control unit pulse-drives the laser element in the first process, and CW-drives the laser element in the second process as taught by and suggested by King in order to increase output power while maintaining high quality single mode emission (Abstract, The modification has the laser element being a photonic crystal surface emitting laser).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to EDWIN G KANG whose telephone number is (571)272-9814. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8:00-5:00 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, Devon Kramer can be reached at (571) 272-7118. 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.
/EDWIN KANG/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3741
Prosecution Insights