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 6/14/2024 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 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 1-40 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.
The term “substantially” in claims 1 and 25 are is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The limitation “a substantially constant first intensity transmission factor” is rendered indefinite, but for purposes of examination, the limitation is understood as “a
Claim 1 recites the limitation " the respective local optical axis.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the limitation is taken to be “
Claim 18 recites the limitation "the mirror.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the mirror” refers to the “at least one mirror” recited previously in claim 15, or if “the mirror” refers to the “at least one second mirror” recited previously in claim 16. For purposes of examination, “the mirror” is taken to be the “at least on second mirror.”
Claim 25 recites the limitation " the respective local optical axis.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. For purposes of examination the limitation is taken to be “
Claim 35 recites the limitation "the mirror.” There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear if “the mirror” refers to the “at least one mirror” recited previously in claim 32, or if “the mirror” refers to the “at least one second mirror” recited previously in claim 33. For purposes of examination, “the mirror” is taken to be the “at least on second mirror.”
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, 8-9, 11, 14, 19-26, 28, 31, 36-37, and 39-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Warm (WO2012041351A1) with citations made to attached machine translations.
PNG
media_image1.png
568
560
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Fig. 1 of Warm
PNG
media_image2.png
290
618
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Annotated Fig. 2 of Warm
PNG
media_image3.png
350
404
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Fig. 3 of Warm
Regarding claim 1, Warm teaches a beam analysis device for determining an axial position of a beam focus (P), wherein
the beam focus (P) is a focus of an energy beam (12) of electromagnetic radiation, or a focus of a sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14) decoupled from the energy beam (12), comprising a beam-shaping device (20, L1, L2), a detector (D1, D2), and an evaluation device (C);
wherein the beam-shaping device (20, L1, L2)
is set up to modulate an intensity distribution ([0042] pattern generator 20 produces an inhomogeneous distribution of the beam intensity across its cross-section) of the energy beam (12), or of the sample beam decoupled from the energy beam (12), in a modulation plane (Fig. 2) with a two-dimensional transmission function (Fig. 1 beam exiting pattern generator having a two-dimensional function), for purposes of forming a modulated sample beam (Fig. 1 beam exiting pattern generator 20), which has a modulated intensity distribution (Fig 1 beam exiting pattern 20),
wherein the transmission function has at least one passage region (Fig. 1) with a substantially constant first intensity transmission factor (Fig. 2 beam exiting pattern generator at points P), and has at least one blocking region (Fig.1) with a substantially constant second intensity transmission factor (Fig. 2 beam exiting pattern generator blocked by pattern generator 20, other than points P),
wherein the second intensity transmission factor (Fig. 2 beam exiting pattern generator 20 that is blocked by generator is understood to have 0% transmission factor which would be less than 50% of a transmission factor of a transmitted beam) is at most 50% of the first intensity transmission factor (Fig. 2 points P transmitting beam having a transmission factor),
wherein the transmission function along a first lateral direction (Fig. 2) comprises at least two contrast steps (Annotated Fig. 2) in the form of transitions between the at least one blocking region (Fig. 2 blocked areas) and the at least one passage region (P1-4),
wherein the contrast steps (Annotated Fig. 2) are a distance k apart from each other along the first lateral direction (Annotated Fig. 2 contrast steps being spaced apart in a lateral direction),
wherein the term “lateral” refers to directions in planes at right angles to the respective local optical axis (Fig. 1),
is set up to guide the modulated sample beam (Fig. 1 beam exiting pattern generator 20) along a propagation path onto the detector (D1, D2) for purposes of forming an intensity distribution ([0061] a one-dimensional distribution with two peaks) on the detector (D1, D2) with at least two contrast features along the first lateral direction ([0046] two detectors D1, D2 are high-resolution electronic cameras and generate electrical signals from the images they capture of the pattern created with the pattern generator 20, understood to image the transition from P to the area that has no beam along a lateral direction),
wherein the contrast features (Fig. 1 beam exiting pattern 20, having features that are formed by contrast steps as shown in annotated Fig. 2),in the intensity distribution ([0061] a one-dimensional distribution with two peaks) on the detector (D1, D2) are formed from the at least two contrast steps (Annotated Fig. 2) in the modulated intensity distribution (Fig 1 beam exiting pattern 20), by means of beam propagation of the modulated sample beam (Fig. 1 beam exiting pattern generator 20)to the detector (D1, D2);
wherein the detector (D1, D2)
comprises a light radiation-sensitive sensor ([0046] two detectors D1, D2 are high-resolution electronic cameras), resolving spatially in two dimensions, which is set up to convert the intensity distribution ([0061] a one-dimensional distribution with two peaks) impinging on the detector (D1, D2) into electrical signals ([0046] generate electrical signals from the images they capture of the pattern generated by the pattern generator 20), and
is arranged along the propagation path at a distance s behind the modulation plane (Fig,. 1 D1, D2 at a distance from pattern generator 20); and
wherein the evaluation device (C)
is set up to process the electrical signals of the detector ([0046] The two detectors D1, D2 are high-resolution electronic cameras and generate electrical signals from the images they capture of the pattern generated by the pattern generator 20, which are then passed to a computer C for image processing), which represent the intensity distribution ([0061] a one-dimensional distribution with two peaks) on the detector (D1, D2),
is set up to determine a distance a along the first lateral direction (Fig. 3) between the two contrast features (Fig. 2-3) on the detector (D1, D2 FIG. 3, [0053] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C) and
is set up to determine the axial position of the beam focus (P) based on the distance a, and/or to determine an alteration of the axial position of the beam focus (P), based on an alteration of the distance a ([0053] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C).
Regarding claim 2, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, wherein
at each of the at least two contrast steps (Annotated Fig. 2), in each case a section of the passage region (P) extends along the first lateral direction (Annotated Fig. 2) over a width b, and in each case a section of the blocking region (Annotated Fig. 2) extends along the first lateral direction (Annotated Fig. 2) over a width p.
Regarding claim 4, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 2, wherein
the sections of the passage region (Fig. 2 sections passing through points P1-4) and the sections of the blocking region (Fig. 2) at the contrast steps (Annotated Fig. 2) extend in a second lateral direction (Fig. 2), which is oriented at right angles to the first lateral direction (Fig. 2), over at least a width h (Fig. 2).
Regarding claim 8, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the first lateral direction (Annotated Fig. 2) and the local optical (Arrows on Fig. 1 being the local optical axis) between the modulation plane (20) and the detector (D1, D2) are altered by beam folding and/or beam redirection (22, beam splitting taken to be a beam redirection).
Regarding claim 9, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, comprising a decoupling device (22), wherein the decoupling device (22) comprises a beam decoupler (22) for purposes of decoupling the sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14) from the energy beam (12).
Regarding claim 11, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the beam-shaping device (20, L1, L2) comprises an imaging device (L1, L2) with at least one optical lens (lenses L1, L2) for purposes of guiding the modulated sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14) onto the detector (D1, D2).
Regarding claim 14, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, wherein the evaluation device (C) is set up to determine the axial position of the beam focus (P1-P4), based on the distance a of the contrast features (Fig. 3),
and/or the alteration of the axial position of the beam focus, based on the alteration of the distance a between the contrast features, by means of a linear calculation rule ([0056] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C, and an empirically derived function).
Regarding claim 19, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, the evaluation device (C) is furthermore set up to determine a lateral position of the entire intensity distribution (Fig. 3) on the detector (D1, D2), and is set up to calculate a lateral position of the beam focus (P1-P4) of the sample beam (12) from the lateral position of the entire intensity distribution (Fig. 3), and/or to calculate an alteration of the lateral position of the beam focus of the sample beam from an alteration of the lateral position of the entire intensity distribution ([0056] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C, and an empirically derived function).
Regarding claim 20, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 11, additionally comprising a beam splitter (22) for purposes of splitting the sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14), a further imaging device (L1, L2) with at least one optical lens (lens), and a second detector (D1, D2),
wherein the beam splitter (22) is arranged in the beam path in front of the modulation plane (Fig. 1),
wherein the beam splitter (22) is arranged between the optical lens (L1, L2) of the imaging device (L1, L2) and the modulation plane (Fig. 1), and
wherein the further imaging means (L1, L2) is arranged between the beam splitter (22) and the second detector (D1, D2) for purposes of imaging an enlarged beam spot (12), or an enlarged image of the beam focus (12), onto the second detector (D1, D2, [0047] the L1 and L2 lenses format the images on the detectors for maximum resolution).
Regarding claim 21, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 20, wherein the evaluation device (C) is set up to process the electrical signals generated by the second detector (D1, D2), and wherein
the evaluation device (C) is set up to determine a beam diameter, and/or a focal diameter, from an intensity distribution on the second detector ([0046] The two detectors D1, D2 are high-resolution electronic cameras and generate electrical signals from the images they capture of the pattern generated by the pattern generator 20, which are then passed to a computer C for image processing), which represent the intensity distribution ([0061] a one-dimensional distribution with two peaks).
Regarding claim 22, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 11, additionally comprising a beam splitter (22) for purposes of splitting the sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14), a further imaging device (L1, L2) with at least one optical lens (lens L1, L2), and a second detector (D1, D2),
wherein the beam splitter (22) is arranged in the beam path in front of the modulation plane (Fig. 1),
wherein the beam splitter (22) is arranged between the optical lens (L1, L2) of the imaging device (L1, L2) and the modulation plane (Fig. 1),
wherein the further imaging device (L1, L2) is arranged between the beam splitter (22) and the second detector (D1, D2),
wherein the imaging device (L1, L2) and the further imaging device (L1, L2) together form a combined lens system, which has an image-side focal plane (Fig. 1), and
wherein the second detector (D1,D2) is arranged in the image-side focal plane of the combined lens system (Fig. 1).
Regarding claim 23, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 22, wherein the evaluation device (C) is set up to process the electrical signals generated by the second detector (D1,D2), and wherein
the evaluation device (C) is set up to determine a divergence angle from an intensity distribution on the second detector (D1, D2; [0051] computer C to calculate control signals for the divergence actuator 18, with which the divergence of the beam is controlled so that the focus F has a desired position.).
Regarding claim 24, Warm teaches a system comprising a beam analysis device according to claim 1, and processing optics (14, 16, 18) for purposes of guiding and focusing the energy beam (12), wherein
the processing optics (14, 16, 18) comprise a decoupling device (14) for purposes of decoupling the sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14) from the energy beam (12), and wherein
the beam analysis device (Fig. 1) can be connected to the processing optics (14, 16, 18) for purposes of receiving the decoupled sample beam (12).
Regarding claim 25, Warm teaches a method for determining an axial position of a beam focus (P), wherein
the beam focus (P) is a focus (P) of an energy beam (12) of electromagnetic radiation, or a focus of a sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14) decoupled from the energy beam (12), comprising the following steps:
modulation of an intensity distribution ([0042] pattern generator 20 produces an inhomogeneous distribution of the beam intensity across its cross-section) of the energy beam (13), or the sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14) decoupled from the energy beam (12), in a modulation plane (20) with a two-dimensional transmission function (Fig. 1 beam exiting pattern generator having a two-dimensional function) for purposes of forming a modulated sample beam (FIg. 1 beam exiting pattern 20) that has a modulated intensity distribution (Fig 1 beam exiting pattern 20, having a modulated intensity distribution), wherein
the transmission function has at least one passage region (Fig. 1) with a substantially constant first intensity transmission factor (Fig. 2 beam exiting pattern generator at points P), and at least one blocking region with a substantially constant second intensity transmission factor (Fig. 2 beam exiting pattern generator blocked by pattern generator 20, other than points P), wherein
the second intensity transmission factor is at most 50% of the first intensity transmission factor (Fig. 2 beam exiting pattern generator 20 that is blocked by generator is understood to have 0% transmission factor which would be less than 50% of a transmission factor of a transmitted beam), wherein
the transmission function along a first lateral direction (Fig. 2) comprises at least two contrast steps (Annotated Fig. 2) in the form of transitions between the at least one blocking region (Fig. 2 blocked areas) and the at least one passage region (P1-4), wherein
the contrast steps (Annotated Fig. 2) are a distance k apart from each other along the first lateral direction (Annotated Fig. 2 contrast steps being spaced apart in a lateral direction), wherein
wherein the term “lateral” refers to directions in planes at right angles to the respective local optical axis (Fig. 1),
guidance of the modulated sample beam (Fig. 1 beam exiting pattern generator 20) onto a detector (D1, D2), which is arranged along a propagation path for the modulated sample beam (Fig. 1) at a distance s behind the modulation plane (20), for purposes of forming an intensity distribution ([0061] a one-dimensional distribution with two peaks) on the detector (D1,D2) with at least two contrast features (Annotated Fig 2) along the first lateral direction ([0046] two detectors D1, D2 are high-resolution electronic cameras and generate electrical signals from the images they capture of the pattern created with the pattern generator 20, understood to image the transition from P to the area that has no beam along a lateral direction), wherein
the contrast features (Fig. 1 beam exiting pattern 20, having features that are formed by contrast steps as shown in annotated Fig. 2) in the intensity distribution [0061] a one-dimensional distribution with two peaks)on the detector (D1, D2) are formed from the at least two contrast steps (Annotated Fig. 2) in the modulated intensity distribution (Fig 1 beam exiting pattern 20), by beam propagation of the modulated sample beam (Fig 1 beam exiting pattern 20) to the detector (D1, D2),
conversion of the intensity distribution ([0061] a one-dimensional distribution with two peaks) impinging onto the detector (D1, D2) into electrical signals ([0046] generate electrical signals from the images they capture of the pattern generated by the pattern generator 20) by means of a light radiation-sensitive sensor of the detector (D1, D2), resolving spatially in two dimensions,
processing of the electrical signals of the detector (D1, D2), which represent the intensity distribution ([0046] generate electrical signals from the images they capture of the pattern generated by the pattern generator 20) on the detector (D1, D2),
determination of a distance a along the first lateral direction (Fig. 3) between the contrast features (Annotated Fig. 2 ([0053] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C).
determination of the axial position of the beam focus (Fig. 2-3), based on the distance a (D1, D2 FIG. 3, the distance between the filled dots and the blank dots may be determined by image processing in the computer C), or determination of an alteration of the axial position of the beam focus (71), based on an alteration of the distance a ([0053] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C).
Regarding claim 26, Warm teaches the method according to claim 25, comprising a decoupling of the sample beam (Fig. 1 beam from deflection mirrors 14) from the energy beam (12).
Regarding claim 28, Warm teaches the method according to claim 25, wherein the guidance of the modulated sample beam (Fig. 1) onto the detector (D1,D2) takes place by means of an imaging device (L1, L2) with at least one optical lens (lenses L1, L2).
Regarding claim 31, Warm teaches the method according to claim 25, wherein the determination of the axial position of the beam focus (P1-P4), based on the distance a between the contrast features (Fig. 3), or the alteration of the axial position of the beam focus (P1-P4) based on the alteration of the distance a between the contrast features (Fig. 3), takes place by means of a linear calculation rule ([0056] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C, and an empirically derived function).
Regarding claim 36, Warm teaches the method according to claim 25, comprising the determination of a lateral position of the entire intensity distribution (Fig. 3) on the detector (D1, D2), and the calculation of a lateral position of the beam focus (P1-P4) of the sample beam (12) from the lateral position of the entire intensity distribution (Fig. 3), or the calculation of an alteration of the lateral position of the beam focus (P1-P4) of the sample beam (12) from an alteration of the lateral position of the entire intensity distribution ([0056] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C, and an empirically derived function).
Regarding claim 37, Warm teaches the method according to claim 28, comprising the following steps:
splitting the sample beam (12) by means of a beam splitter (22), which is arranged in the beam path behind the optical lens (L1, L2) of the imaging device (L1, L2) and in front of the modulation plane (Fig. 1),
imaging of a split-off sample beam onto a second detector (D1, D2) by means of a further imaging device (L1, L2) with at least one optical lens (L1, L2) arranged between the beam splitter (22) and the second detector (D1, D2), for purposes of forming an enlarged beam spot (Fig. 2), or an enlarged image of the beam focus (Fig. 2), on the second detector (D1,D2), and
determination of a beam diameter or a focal diameter from an intensity distribution on the second detector (D1, D2, [0047] the L1 and L2 lenses format the images on the detectors for maximum resolution, [0046] The two detectors D1, D2 are high-resolution electronic cameras and generate electrical signals from the images they capture of the pattern generated by the pattern generator 20, which are then passed to a computer C for image processing).
Regarding claim 39, Warm teaches the method according to claim 25, wherein the energy beam (12) is focused by processing optics (14, 16, 18).
Regarding claim 40, Warm teaches the method according to claim 39, wherein the determined axial position of the beam focus (P1-P4), or the determined alteration of the axial position of the beam focus, is used to control a laser processing operation (it is possible to control or regulate the focus position via the divergence actuator by deriving the information about the focus position during image processing ).
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.
Claim 3 and 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warm (WO2012041351A1) in view of Ai (US 6548797).
PNG
media_image4.png
308
184
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Fig. 7 of Ai
Regarding claim 3, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 2, but is silent on the width b of the sections of the passage region is at least 1.5 times the width p of the sections of the blocking region.
Ai teaches the width b of the sections of the passage region (111 a, 111b) is at least 1.5 times the width p of the sections of the blocking region (Fig. 7).
Warm and Ai are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Ai to have a width of the passage region be greater than the width of the blocking region so that an operator is able to distinguish the focal points more easily (Ai Col. 7 lines 3-50).
Regarding claim 5, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 2, but is silent on wherein the width h is at least 2 times the width p.
Ai teaches the width h is at least 2 times the width p (Col. 6 lines 15-35 apertures 113 and 115, aligned in a second direction x, may be separated by a distance of approximately 70% of the overall length of screen 112 along second direction).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Ai to have a width of the lateral direction region be greater than the width of the blocking region so that an operator is able to distinguish the focal points more easily (Ai Col. 7 lines 3-50).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warm (WO2012041351A1) in view of Kretschmer (DE 102007056554 A1) with citations made to attached machine translation.
PNG
media_image5.png
586
442
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figs. 1-2 of Kretschmar
Regarding claim 6, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, but is silent on wherein the contrast steps are designed as lines, whose tangents at the points of intersection with the first lateral direction are aligned at right angles to the first lateral direction.
Kretschmar teaches the contrast steps (181) are designed as lines, whose tangents at the points of intersection with the first lateral direction (Fig. 1) are aligned at right angles to the first lateral direction (Fig. 1-2 [0014] where lines 181 are arranged to be at a right angle with beam path 11).
Warm and Kretschmar are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified [] to incorporate the teachings of Kretschmar to have the contrast steps be lines whose tangents are at right angles to the lateral first direction to be able to achieve a desired pattern output from the laser beam, that is precise and can be adjusted precisely (Kretschmar [0004]).
Regarding claim 7, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, but is silent on the contrast steps are designed as straight lines that are aligned at right angles to the first lateral direction.
Kretschmar teaches the contrast step (181) are designed as straight lines that are aligned at right angles to the first lateral direction (Figs. 1-2).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Kretschmar to have the contrast steps be lines at right angles to the lateral first direction to be able to achieve a desired pattern output from the laser beam, that is precise and can be adjusted precisely (Kretschmar [0004]).
Claims 10 and 27 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warm (WO2012041351A1) in view of Gogler (US10823948B2).
Regarding claim 10, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 9, the beam decoupler (22) is a beam splitter device (beam splitter 22), but is silent on which is set up to decouple a radiation component in the range from 0.01% to 5% of the energy beam as a sample beam, by reflection and/or transmission.
Gogler teaches which is set up to decouple a radiation component in the range from 0.01% to 5% of the energy beam as a sample beam, by reflection and/or transmission (Col. 3 lines 50-67the beam splitter device is configured such that the measurement radiation, which is coupled out to the monitoring device, is small compared to the proportion of the illumination radiation that continues to travel to the objective/object. For example, only 15%, 10%, 5% or 1% of the illumination radiation is coupled out to the monitoring device in the form of measurement radiation).
Warm and Gogler are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Gogler to decouple a radiation component in the range from 0.01% to 5% of the energy beam as a sample beam so that a proportional amount of energy may be split from the common path for accurate measurements of the incident beam (Gogler Col. 2 lines 10-25).
Regarding claim 27, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 26, but is silent on by reflection and/or transmission a radiation component in the range from 0.01% to 5% of the energy beam is decoupled as a sample beam.
Gogler teaches by reflection and/or transmission a radiation component in the range from 0.01% to 5% of the energy beam is decoupled as a sample beam (Col. 3 lines 50-67 the beam splitter device is configured such that the measurement radiation, which is coupled out to the monitoring device, is small compared to the proportion of the illumination radiation that continues to travel to the objective/object. For example, only 15%, 10%, 5% or 1% of the illumination radiation is coupled out to the monitoring device in the form of measurement radiation).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Goglerto decouple a radiation component in the range from 0.01% to 5% of the energy beam as a sample beam so that a proportional amount of energy may be split from the common path for accurate measurements of the incident beam (Gogler Col. 2 lines 10-25).
Claims 12, 13, 29, 30, and 38 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warm (WO2012041351A1) in view of Schulz (US10044167B2).
Regarding claim 12, Warm teaches beam analysis device according to claim 11, but is silent on the modulation plane is arranged at the image-side focal point of the imaging device.
PNG
media_image6.png
174
164
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5B of Schulz
Schulz teaches the modulation plane (23') is arranged at the image-side focal point of the imaging device (28 Fig. 5B).
Warm and Schulz are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to have the modulation plane be at the image side of the imaging device so that the desired beam paths may be observed to detect near and far field images (Schulz Col. 11 lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 13, Warm and Schulz teaches beam analysis device according to claim 12, and Warm teaches the evaluation device (C) is set up to determine the axial position of the beam focus (P1-P4), based on the distance a of the contrast features (Fig. 3),
and/or the alteration of the axial position of the beam focus, based on the alteration of the distance a between the contrast features, by means of a linear calculation rule ([0056] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C, and an empirically derived function).
Regarding claim 29, Warm teaches beam analysis device according to claim 28, but is silent on the modulation of the intensity distribution takes place at the image-side focal point of the imaging device.
Schulz teaches the modulation of the intensity distribution (23') takes place at the image-side focal point of the imaging device (28 Fig. 5B).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to have the modulation plane be at the image side of the imaging device so that the desired beam paths may be observed to detect near and far field images (Schulz Col. 11 lines 25-35).
Regarding claim 30, Warm and Schulz teaches beam analysis device according to claim 29, and Warm teaches the determination of the axial position of the beam focus (P1-P4), based on the distance a between the contrast features (Fig. 3), or the alteration of the axial position of the beam focus (P1-P4) based on the alteration of the distance a between the contrast features (Fig. 3), takes place by means of a linear calculation rule ([0056] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C, and an empirically derived function).
Regarding claim 38, Warm teaches beam analysis device according to claim 28, comprising the following steps: splitting the sample beam (12) by means of a beam splitter (22) which is arranged in the beam path behind the optical lens (L1, L2) of the imaging device (L1, L2) and in front of the modulation plane (20),
guidance of a split-off sample beam onto a second detector (D1, D2) by means of a further imaging device (L1, L2), with at least one optical lens arranged between the beam splitter (22) and the second detector (D1, D2),
wherein the imaging device (L1, L2) and the further imaging device (L1, L2) together form a combined lens system, which has an image-side focal plane, and wherein the second detector (D1,D2) is arranged in the image-side focal plane of the combined lens system (L1, L2), and determination of a diameter or a divergence angle from an intensity distribution (P1-P4) on the second detector (16).
Warm is silent on a far-field beam, for purposes of forming a far-field beam distribution on the second detector.
Schulz teaches for a far-field beam (Col. 10 lines 60-67 far field laser beam 7), purposes of forming a far-field beam distribution (Col. 10 lines 60-67 far field laser beam 7) on the second detector (Col. 9 lines 55-67 a far field of the laser beam 7 on the same detector 16 or on a further detector)
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified [] to form a far field distribution so that both near and far field of the laser beam may be detected and detectable apart from each other (Col. 4 lines 55-65).
Claims 15 and 32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warm (WO2012041351A1) in view of Spanner (US 7542149).
Regarding claim 15, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 1, a beam-folding device (22), the modulation plane (20) is arranged in the beam path in front of the beam-folding device (22), or in the first folded beam path.
Warm is silent on a beam-folding device, which includes a beam splitter and at least one mirror, and which is arranged in the beam path in front of the detector, wherein the at least one mirror is arranged to reflect a radiation component leaving the beam splitter back into the beam splitter, in this manner forming a first folded beam path.
Spanner teaches comprising a beam-folding device, which includes a beam splitter (1.5) and at least one mirror (1.11), and which is arranged in the beam path in front of the detector (1.10), wherein
the at least one mirror (1.11) is arranged to reflect a radiation component leaving the beam splitter (1.5) back into the beam splitter (1.5), in this manner forming a first folded beam path.
Warm and Spanner are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Spanner to have a beam folding device with a beam splitter and a mirror arranged in front of the detector and which reflects the beam back to the beam splitter for optimization in particular for the reduction of the structural volume and for reducing the spatial beam pattern (Spanner Col. 6 lines 25-40).
Regarding claim 32, Warm teaches the beam analysis device according to claim 25, the modulation of the intensity distribution (20) in the beam path takes place in front of the beam-folding device (22), or in the first folded beam path.
Warm is silent on by means of a beam-folding device, which includes a beam splitter and at least one mirror, and which is arranged in the beam path in front of the detector, a first folded beam path is formed by reflection of a radiation component leaving the beam splitter at the at least one mirror back into the beam splitter.
Spanner teaches by means of a beam-folding device, which includes a beam splitter (1.5) and at least one mirror (1.11), and which is arranged in the beam path in front of the detector (1.10), a first folded beam path is formed by reflection of a radiation component leaving the beam splitter (1.5) at the at least one mirror (1.11) back into the beam splitter (1.5).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm to incorporate the teachings of Spanner to have a beam folding device with a beam splitter and a mirror arranged in front of the detector and which reflects the beam back to the beam splitter for optimization in particular for the reduction of the structural volume and for reducing the spatial beam pattern (Spanner Col. 6 lines 25-40).
Claims 16, 17, 33, and 34 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warm (WO2012041351A1) in view of Spanner (US 7542149), and further in view of Schulz (US10044167B2).
PNG
media_image7.png
142
182
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Fig. 5C of Schulz
Regarding claim 16, Warm and Spanner teach the beam analysis device according to claim 15, but are silent on wherein the beam-folding device additionally includes at least one second mirror, wherein the second mirror is arranged to reflect a further radiation component leaving the beam splitter back into the beam splitter, in this manner forming a second folded beam path.
Schulz teaches the beam-folding device (27, 28') additionally includes at least one second mirror (28'), wherein the second mirror (28') is arranged to reflect a further radiation component leaving the beam splitter (27) back into the beam splitter (27), in this manner forming a second folded beam path (26b, Fig. 5C).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm and Spanner to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to have a second mirror to have a second folded beam path as the set up having multiple mirrors and folded paths is advantageously compact and easy to manage (Schulz Col. 10 lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 17, Warm, Spanner, and Schulz teach the beam analysis device according to claim 16, and Warm teaches the evaluation device (C) is set up to determine a beam diameter and/or a beam profile from an intensity distribution of a beam spot of the beam (P1-P4) on the detector (16).
Warm and Spanner are silent on the modulation plane of the beam-shaping device is arranged in the first folded beam path, wherein no modulation is arranged in the second folded beam path for purposes of guiding a radiation component of the sample beam or the energy beam as an unmodulated beam onto the detector and the unmodulated beam.
Schulz teaches the modulation plane (23) of the beam-shaping device (27) is arranged in the first folded beam path (26A Fig. 5C), wherein
no modulation is arranged in the second folded beam path (26b) for purposes of guiding a radiation component of the sample beam or the energy beam (13a,b) as an unmodulated beam (13a', 13b') onto the detector (16) and the unmodulated beam (13a', 13b').
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm and Spanner to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to have a modulation in a first folded path and no modulation in a second path in order to be able to identify a change that may be occurring in the focal position of the imaged partial beam in the propagation direction and deduce a change in the divergence of the laser beam (Schulz Col. 11 lines 1-15).
Regarding claim 33, Warm and Spanner teach the beam analysis device according to claim 32, but are silent on wherein by means of the beam-folding device, which additionally contains at least one second mirror, a second folded beam path is formed by reflection of a further radiation component leaving the beam splitter at the second mirror back into the beam splitter.
Schulz teaches by means of the beam-folding device (27, 28'), which additionally contains at least one second mirror (28'), a second folded beam path is formed by reflection of a further radiation component leaving the beam splitter (27) at the second mirror (28') back into the beam splitter (27).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm and Spanner to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to have a second mirror to have a second folded beam path as the set up having multiple mirrors and folded paths is advantageously compact and easy to manage (Schulz Col. 10 lines 50-65).
Regarding claim 34, Warm, Spanner, and Schulz teach the beam analysis device according to claim 33, and Warm teaches a beam diameter and/or a beam profile is determined from an intensity distribution of a beam spot of the beam (P1-P4) on the detector (16).
Warm and Spanner are silent on the modulation plane of the beam-shaping device is arranged in the first folded beam path, wherein no modulation is arranged in the second folded beam path for purposes of guiding a radiation component of the sample beam or the energy beam as an unmodulated beam onto the detector and the unmodulated beam.
Schulz teaches the modulation plane (23) of the beam-shaping device (27) is arranged in the first folded beam path (26A Fig. 5C), wherein
no modulation is arranged in the second folded beam path (26b) for purposes of guiding a radiation component of the sample beam or the energy beam (13a,b) as an unmodulated beam (13a', 13b') onto the detector (16) and the unmodulated beam (13a', 13b').
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm and Spanner to incorporate the teachings of Schulz to have a modulation in a first folded path and no modulation in a second path in order to be able to identify a change that may be occurring in the focal position of the imaged partial beam in the propagation direction and deduce a change in the divergence of the laser beam (Schulz Col. 11 lines 1-15).
Claims 18 and 35 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Warm (WO2012041351A1) in view of Spanner (US 7542149), and further in view of Schulz (US10044167B2) and Rabe (US9217853B2).
Regarding claim 18, Warm, Spanner, and Schulz teach the beam analysis device according to claim 17, but are silent on the mirror is arranged such that it can be axially shifted in the second folded beam path and the position of the mirror can be adjusted by means of a positioning device.
Rabe teaches the mirror (30a) is arranged such that it can be axially shifted in the second folded beam path and the position of the mirror (30a) can be adjusted by means of a positioning device (32, Col. 22 lines 30-40).
Warm, Spanner, Schulz, and Rabe are considered to be analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of laser systems. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm, Spanner, and Schulz to incorporate the teachings of Rabe to have a mirror that is adjustable by a positioning device in order to be able to displace the laser beam rapidly and efficiently in accordance with the desired position beam on a treated workpiece (Rabe Col. 1 lines 20-45).
Regarding claim 35, Warm, Spanner, and Schulz teach the beam analysis device according to claim 34, and Warm teaches wherein from the registered intensity distributions at least one beam parameter of the sample beam (P1-P4) is determined ([0056] as shown in Fig. 3, the distance between the filled points and the empty points can be determined by image processing in computer C, and an empirically derived function).
Warm, Spanner, and Schulz are silent on by means of a positioning device the axial position of the mirror in the second beam path is varied, and for at least three different positions of the mirror an intensity distribution of the beam spot of the unmodulated beam is in each case registered on the detector.
Rabe teaches by means of a positioning device (32) the axial position of the mirror (30a) in the second beam path is varied (Col. 22 lines 50-67),
and for at least three different positions of the mirror (30a) an intensity distribution of the beam spot of the unmodulated beam (5) is in each case registered on the detector (17).
It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to have modified Warm, Spanner, and Schulz to incorporate the teachings of Rabe to have a mirror that is adjustable by a positioning device in order to be able to displace the laser beam rapidly and efficiently in accordance with the desired position beam on a treated workpiece (Rabe Col. 1 lines 20-45).
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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. 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 4/24/2026
/WOODY A LEE JR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights