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 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: workpiece movement system and control unit in claim 35.
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
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.
Claim(s) 24, 28-29, 32-33, 35 and 38-40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being clearly anticipated by Tanigawa (DE 102015113919).
Regarding claims 24 and 35, Tanigawa discloses a method for producing a microstructured component (16) which has a plurality of functional microelements on a substrate, in particular for producing a micro-LED display, which has a substrate that carries an array of pixel-forming micro light-emitting diodes on an electrical power supply structure (paragraphs [0163], [0173] and [0174]) wherein, in at least one method step, a laser machining is carried out in a laser machining station (2) controlled by a control unit (14) (figure 1; paragraph [0055]) wherein the method step comprises positioning a workpiece (16) to be machined in a machining position of the laser machining station (2) by means of a workpiece movement system (36) in response to movement signals from the control unit (14) (paragraph [0072]);
said method comprising:
camera-based monitoring of the workpiece (16) by means of a camera system (42), wherein the monitoring comprises recording at least one section of the workpiece (16) located in the field of view of a camera (42) and producing an image representing the section (paragraph [0073]);
evaluating the image by means of image processing to ascertain position data which represent the current position of at least one structural element of the workpiece (16) in the field of view (implicit: paragraph [0073]);
comparing the current position to a target position of the structural element (16) and producing correction signals according to a deviation of the current position from the target position (implicit: paragraph [0073]);
correcting the machining position by controlling the workpiece control system (36) for adjusting the current position to the target position on the basis of the correction signals (implicit: paragraphs [0072] and [0073]);
radiating at least one laser beam directed onto the workpiece (16) on at least one machining point of the workpiece (16) for local laser machining of the workpiece (16) (paragraph [0087]).
Regarding claims 28-29, 32-33 and 38-40, the platform or carrier 18 is positioned below the lens 32. The processing object 16, which is the object of cutting, is mounted on the stage 18. A carrier driving portion 36 for driving or operating the carrier 18 is connected to the carrier 18. The control section 14 drives the carrier 18 via the carrier driving section 36.The CCD camera 42 is provided above the carrier 18. The image obtained by the CCD camera 42 is input to the control section 14. The control section 14 uses the image obtained by the CCD camera 42 and performs positioning of the processing object 16 (paragraphs [0072]-[0073]).
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) 25 and 36 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa (DE 102015113919) as described above in view of Ikegami et al (US 2005/0045090).
Ikegami discloses a machining mask 21 in the beam shaping unit 4, a region machining opening 26 is provided, which includes a slit 23 providing an opening in an opaque portion 22 made of stainless steel or the like, and a rectangular shaped transparent region 25 having a side wider than a width of the slit 23 and being connected to one end of the slit 23. See Fig. 2.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ a mask, as taught by Ikegami in the method and system of Tanigawa in order to provide the predictable result of facilitating manufacture of the materials.
Claim(s) 26 and 30-31, 34 and 41-46 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa (DE 102015113919) as described above in view of Sercel et al (US 2015/0179523).
Sercel discloses dividing the object to be machined into sectors which can overlap if necessary and are machined one after another, for which purpose the laser or the workpiece is moved correspondingly, thus are positioned (paragraphs [0061], [0066] and [0069]; figure 11). It is further described that a movement control unit sets and monitors the positioning of the workpiece (paragraph [0075]).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ the control system of Sercel in the method of Tanigawa in order to provide the predictable result of facilitating manufacture of the materials. In addition, it is the examiner’s position that the specific laser wavelengths are within the purview of one having ordinary skill in the art and would have been obvious to employ in the method of method and system of Tanigawa based on the physical properties of such lasers.
Claim(s) 27 and 37 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tanigawa (DE 102015113919) as described above in view Thomas et al (US 2009/0007933).
Thomas discloses providing illuminators 18 and detection of the resulting reflected light by photosensitive detector 20. The illuminators can be comprised of one to many individual illuminators that provide illumination from a single wavelength to a wide range of wavelengths. See paragraph [0052].
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to employ illuminators, as taught by Thomas, in the method and system of Tanigawa in order to provide the predictable result of facilitating manufacture of the materials.
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 27 and 29-30 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 27, line 5, “in particular” is indefinite and needs to be rephrased.
Claim 29, line 8, “preferably” is indefinite and needs to be rephrased.
Claim 30, line 5, “in particular” is indefinite and needs to be rephrased.
Claim 30, line 7, “preferably” is indefinite and needs to be rephrased.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JAMES D SELLS whose telephone number is (571)272-1237. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 8:30-5.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Phillip Tucker can be reached at 571-272-1095. 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.
JAMES D. SELLS
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 1745
/JAMES D SELLS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1745