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 .
DETAILED ACTION
Status of the Claims
Claims 16-34 are pending in the current application.
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 21 is 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 21 recites the limitation "the flange assembly" in line 3. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim.
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) 16-17, 20-22, 24, 30-31 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Kekkonen (US 20170350000).
As to claim 1, Kekkonen discloses a laser evaporation system comprising:
A reaction chamber with a wall for enclosing a reaction volume (figure 1: chamber 18);
A target in the reaction volume comprising materials to be evaporated (figure 1: target 15 with evaporating/ablated material 16);
A laser light source for producing a thermal laser beam for evaporating the material from the target and having a propagation direction (figure 1: laser source 11 directing laser into the chamber);
A chamber window in the chamber wall for conducting the laser beam into the reaction volume (figure 1: window 18w);
A mirror in the reaction volume with a reflective surface to deflect the laser from the window towards the target (figure 1: mirror 13 with surface deflection from window source 11 through 18w towards target 15);
An aperture along the path of the laser beam within the reaction chamber between the mirror and the target (figure 5: showing structure 52 between mirror 14 and target 15 with apertures for beam path; paragraph 67).
As to claim 17 and 31, Kekkonen discloses the mirror deflects at 90 degrees (figure 1).
As to claim 20-21, Kekkonen discloses a blocking device to prevent line of sight from target to window with the aperture in the blocking device (figure 5; paragraph 42-43: tube and shield structure 51 and 52 with apertures for beam path and between the window and target structure).
As to claim 22, Kekkonen discloses the laser is focused on a point like focal volume in the reaction volume between the mirror and target with an aperture at the focal volume (figure 3 and 5: showing focusing of beam 12 to a point after mirror 13 near final aperture in 52).
As to claim 24, Kekkonen discloses the laser is focused by the mirror on the point-like focal volume (figure 3 and 5: focusing of beam after mirror 13 reflection).
As to claim 30, Kekkonen discloses a mirror body with two or more mirror surfaces (paragraph 8, 19; figure 2: ‘turbine’ mirror scanner 21 with 6 surfaces).
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.
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 18-19, 32-33 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kekkonen.
As to claims 18 and 32, Kekkonen discloses a mirror within a reaction volume within a chamber and a chamber window in the chamber wall (as discussed above). Kekkonen is silent as to specific distances or sizing of components. However, it has generally been held that both changes in size and proportion and specific experimental determination of result effective variables – here a distance between a laser entry point and a reflection point, are within the purview of one of ordinary skill in the art (see Mpep 2144.04 (IV(a)) and 2144.05 II (A)). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to select an effective distance, including a distance of less than 75mm to obtain an effective laser processing system as taught by Kekkonen.
As to claims 19 and 33, Kekkonen discloses a chamber containing a window and mirror, as discussed above. Because a flange is defined as an object to strengthen or attach, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide a mechanism to attach these components within the chamber to allow for their stability within the chamber and to match in size with the components being attached and therefore be elongated in some direction.
Claim(s) 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kekkonen as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Dai (US 20160340770).
Kekkonen disclose a flat surface mirror (figures 1-4), but is silent as to a focusing mechanism outside the chamber.
Dai discloses a laser deposition system in which a laser is pass thorugh a chamber window towards a mirror to a target (abstract; figure 1: laser 19 to window 24 to mirror 29 to target 32). Dai also discloses knowledge in the art of a lens for focusing the laser into the chamber (figure 1: lens 23).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a lens outside the reaction volume, as disclosed by Dai, in the system of Kekkonen, because this allows for focusing of the laser beam into the chamber through the chamber window.
Claim(s) 25-26 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kekkonen as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Borstel (US 20020040894).
As to claims 25-26, Kekkonen disclose a laser reflected by a mirror and focused by a lens (figure 1: mirror 12, lens 14), but is silent as to a free-form or adapting mirror.
Borstel discloses a laser processing apparatus in which a laser is directed into a reaction volume through a chamber window to a mirror and through an aperture (figure 1: laser source 1, window 2, mirror 5 and aperture 9). Brostel also discloses knowledge in the art of using a focusing mirror with angled shape to focus the beam towards the aperture (figure 1; paragraph 28).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use a focusing or free-form mirror, as disclosed by Borstel, in the system of Kekkonen, because this allows for focusing the laser beam along a desired path.
Claim(s) 27-28 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kekkonen as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Hosoda (US 20180253010).
As to claims 27-28, Kekkonen is silent as to mirror cooling.
Hosada discloses a laser reflecting and focusing system to a metal target (abstract; figure 1). Hosada also discloses knowledge in the art of using cooling channels within the mirrors to prevent overheating of the mirrors causing deformation and improperly reflected light (paragraph 341, 346).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to provide cooling systems for mirrors, as disclosed by Hosada, in the system of Kekkonen, because this prevents mirror failures.
Claim(s) 29 and 34 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kekkonen as applied to claim 16 above, and further in view of Zewail (US 20100108883).
As to claims 29 and 34, Kekkonen disclose mirrors, but is silent as to their composition.
Zewail discloses a system with laser beam focusing using mirrors in which the mirrors are polished metal including aluminum, a material resisting damage.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use aluminum, as disclosed by Zewail, in the system of Kekkonen, because this allows for use of a known effective mirror material.
Correspondence Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JASON BERMAN whose telephone number is (571)270-5265. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Thursday 8-4.
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, James Lin can be reached on (571) 272-8902. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/JASON BERMAN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1794