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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/10/2023, 11/16/2023 was filed. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
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.
In particular, the claim limitation “means of microtechnology and/or nanotechnology” that use the word “means” is 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 use the word “means” or “step” but are nonetheless not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph because the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure, materials, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Such claim limitation(s) is/are:
“by means of the interaction of at least one following pulse or following pulses of the burst with the plasma,” in claim 3.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are not being interpreted to cover only the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
If applicant intends 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 remove the structure, materials, or acts that performs the claimed function; or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) does/do not recite sufficient structure, materials, or acts to perform the claimed function.
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.
Claim 1-5 and 10-11 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.
Claim limitation, in claim 1 of “means of microtechnology and/or nanotechnology” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The specification does not recites what construes a “means of microtechnology and/or nanotechnology” rather only repeats the phrasing such as in [0042] of the specification. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claim 3 recites the limitation "a first pulse of the burst" and “following pulses of the burst.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a burst” is not recited previously in the claim or previous independent claims. For purposes of examination, “the burst” is understood to be “a burst” from the laser of independent claim 1.
Claim 4 recites the limitation "the number of shockwaves." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a number of shockwaves” is not recited previously in the claim or previous independent claims. For purposes of examination, “the number of shockwaves” is understood to be “a number of shockwaves.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the pulse duration and the fluence." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a pulse duration and a fluence” is not recited previously in the claim or previous independent claims. For purposes of examination, “the pulse duration and the fluence” is understood to be “a pulse duration and a fluence.”
Claim 5 recites the limitation " the force of the shockwave." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a force of a shockwave” is not recited previously in the claim or previous independent claims. For purposes of examination, “the force of the shockwave” is understood to be “a force of a shockwave.”
Claim 10 recites the limitation "the number of shockwaves." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a number of shockwaves” is not recited previously in the claim or previous independent claims. For purposes of examination, “the number of shockwaves” is understood to be “a number of shockwaves.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the pulse duration and the fluence." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a pulse duration and a fluence” is not recited previously in the claim or previous independent claims. For purposes of examination, “the pulse duration and the fluence” is understood to be “a pulse duration and a fluence.”
Claim 11 recites the limitation " the force of the shockwave." There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim as “a force of the shockwave” is not recited previously in the claim or previous independent claims. For purposes of examination, “the force of the shockwave” is understood to be “a force of the shockwave.”
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 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.
Claims 1-3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US20070251543A1) in view of Brand (DE102012214335A1) and further in view of Schille (DE 102017009001) with citations made to attached machine translations.
Regarding claim 1, Singh teaches a method for removing dirt deposits (25) on at least one geometric structure (21) of at least one body (20),
said geometric structure (21) being produced by means of microtechnology and/or nanotechnology ([0002] lithographic apparatus, known to be microtechnology),
characterized in that the geometric structure (21) is exposed to short pulsed laser irradiation from a laser with pulses ([0071] a pulsed particle liberating beam 41 can be particularly effective, especially with a short pulse length, e.g. less than 100 nanoseconds and preferably less that 10 nanoseconds) in burst mode to remove the dirt deposits (25, [0073]).
Singh is silent on wherein the dirt deposits are dirt deposits resulting from an ablation or evaporation of material during creation of the geometric structure, and ultra-short pulsed laser irradiation.
Brand teaches wherein the dirt deposits are dirt deposits (135) resulting from an ablation or evaporation of material ([0056] laser radiation 210 from a first laser, such that the layer 13 in the irradiated regions breaks down into fragments 130, which turn into residues 135) during creation of the geometric structure ([0062] 5 shows the cross section through the substrate 10 after irradiation by the laser radiation 210).
Singh and Brand are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser methods. It would have been obvious to have modified the method of removal of dirt deposits as taught in Singh to be applied to the dirt deposits that result from a laser ablation of the geometric structure as taught by the teachings of Brand given that dirt deposits are known to remain after the removal of surfaces through laser ablated components and are desirable to remove in particular as any impurities that remain will reduce the lifetime of the created component and damage the created product, and it is advantageous to remove the dirt deposits with methods that do not involve a large amount of manufacturing such as chemical etching (Brand [0005-0006]).
Singh and Brand are silent on ultra-short pulsed laser irradiation.
Schille teaches ultra-short pulsed laser irradiation (Pg. 2 line 1 ultrashort pulse laser for material removal).
Singh, Brand, and Schille are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser methods. It would have been obvious to have modified Singh and Brand to incorporate the teachings of Schille to use an ultra-short pulsed laser so that the laser radiation of the
respective pulse reaches the body surface and penetrates the resulting process plasma during the pulse duration without hitting the ablated particle cloud (Schille Pg. 2 Para. 11).
Regarding claim 2, Singh, Brand, and Schille teach the method according to claim 1, but Singh and Brand are silent on characterized in that the pulse repetition frequency in a burst is equal to/greater than 1 GHz and the pulse duration of a pulse in a burst is less than/equal to 1 ns.
Schille teaches characterized in that the pulse repetition frequency in a burst is equal to/greater than 1 GHz (Pg. 2 Para. 10-11 a high-power ultrashort pulse laser with a pulse repetition frequency equal to / greater than 400 MHz to less than or equal to 50 GHz) and the pulse duration of a pulse in a burst is less than/equal to 1 ns (Pg. 2 Para. 10-11 a pulse duration equal to / greater than 100 fs to less than / equal to 20 ps).
It would have been obvious to have modified Singh and Brand to incorporate the teachings of Schille to have pulse repetition frequency in a burst is equal to/greater than 1 GHz and the pulse duration of a pulse in a burst is less than/equal to 1 ns so that the laser radiation of the respective pulse reaches the body surface and penetrates the resulting process plasma during the pulse duration without hitting the ablated particle cloud (Schille Pg. 2 Para. 11).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse repetition frequency as taught by the combination of Singh, Brand, and Schille from being equal to or greater than 400 MHz to less than or equal to 50 GHz to be equal to/greater than 1 GHz since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the pulse repetition duration as taught by the combination of Singh, Brand, and Schille et al. from being equal to or greater than 100 fs to less than or equal to 20 ps to be less than/equal to 1 ns since it has been held that “[i]n the case where the claimed ranges ‘overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art’ a prima facie case of obviousness exists.” In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990).
Regarding claim 3, Singh, Brand, and Schille teach the method according to claim 1, and Singh teaches characterized in that a plasma is generated on the debris by a first pulse of the burst ([0071] vaporized contaminants may be turned into a plasma by continued absorption of energy from the particle liberating beam 41, being a pulsed particle liberating beam 41),
and, by means of the interaction of at least one following pulse or following pulses of the burst with the plasma, a shock wave or shock waves is/are induced on the at least one dirt deposit, and the dirt deposit is removed ([0071] subsequent pulses impinging on vaporized or dislodged contaminants may generate a plasma and further shock waves, which assist in dislodging contaminants.).
Claims 4-5 and 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Singh (US20070251543A1), Brand (DE102012214335A1) and Schille (DE 102017009001) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Tagliaferri (US20180034231A1)
Regarding claim 4, Singh, Brand, and Schille teach the method according to claim 1, but are silent on characterized in that the number of shock waves is determined by the number of following pulses in the burst.
Tagliaferri teaches characterized in that the number of shock waves is determined by the number of following pulses in the burst ([0064] two pulses, two shock waves).
Singh, Brand, Schille, and Tagliaferri are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser methods. It would have been obvious to have modified Singh, Brand, and Schille to incorporate the teachings of Tagliaferri to have the number of pulses determine the number of shockwave in order to produce a less invasive and more effective at treating the substrate (Tagliaferri [0064]).
Regarding claim 5, Singh, Brand, and Schille teach the method according to claim 1, but are silent on wherein the force of the shock wave is determined by the pulse duration and the fluence per following pulse.
Tagliaferri teaches wherein the force of the shock wave is determined by the pulse duration and the fluence per following pulse ([0064] generation of shockwaves, fluence of laser radiation and pulse duration).
It would have been obvious to have modified Singh, Brand, and Schille to incorporate the teachings of Tagliaferri to have the force of the shockwave be determined by pulse duration and fluence in order to produce a less invasive and more effective at treating the substrate (Tagliaferri [0064]).
Regarding claim 10, Singh, Brand, and Schille teach the method according to claim 3, but are silent on characterized in that the number of shock waves is determined by the number of following pulses in the burst.
Tagliaferri teaches characterized in that the number of shock waves is determined by the number of following pulses in the burst ([0064] two pulses, two shock waves).
It would have been obvious to have modified Singh, Brand, and Schille to incorporate the teachings of Tagliaferri to have the number of pulses determine the number of shockwave in order to produce a less invasive and more effective at treating the substrate (Tagliaferri [0064]).
Regarding claim 11, Singh, Brand, and Schille teach the method according to claim 3, but are silent on wherein the force of the shock wave is determined by the pulse duration and the fluence per following pulse.
Tagliaferri teaches wherein the force of the shock wave is determined by the pulse duration and the fluence per following pulse ([0064] generation of shockwaves, fluence of laser radiation and pulse duration).
It would have been obvious to have modified Singh, Brand, and Schille to incorporate the teachings of Tagliaferri to have the force of the shockwave be determined by pulse duration and fluence in order to produce a less invasive and more effective at treating the substrate (Tagliaferri [0064]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ABIGAIL RHUE whose telephone number is (571)272-4615. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 10-6.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/ABIGAIL H RHUE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/29/2026
/VY T NGUYEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761