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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election without traverse of Invention I (Claims 1-14) in the reply filed on 1/28/26 is acknowledged.
Claim 15 withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 1/28/26.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement filed 4/12/23 fails to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97, 1.98 and MPEP § 609 because the cited NPL document is not legible and is not in English. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits. Applicant is advised that the date of any re-submission of any item of information contained in this information disclosure statement or the submission of any missing element(s) will be the date of submission for purposes of determining compliance with the requirements based on the time of filing the statement, including all certification requirements for statements under 37 CFR 1.97(e). See MPEP § 609.05(a).
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:
“an analysis device for analyzing a radiation which is based on the laser radiation” in Claim 1 (interpreted as “According to an embodiment, the one analysis device of the laser processing device 100 comprises a power meter 128 configured to determine a power of a processing beam 130 emitted from the laser processing device 100.” (p. 18); or “According to another embodiment, the analysis device comprises a position determination device 144 for determining a relative position of the workpiece 140 with respect to the laser processing device 100” (p. 19); or “According to another embodiment, the analysis device comprises a position determination device 144 for determining a relative position of the workpiece 140 with respect to the laser processing device 100.” (p. 19-21); or “According to an embodiment, the analysis device comprises at least one optical element that can increase a yield of the back-reflected portion 142 on the detector 150. For example, according to an embodiment, a second retardation plate 124 is arranged in the ray path 120.” (p. 21); or “According to an embodiment, the radiation analyzed by the analysis device comprises a fourth radiation 183, which is generated by interaction of the processing beam 130 with the workpiece. According to an embodiment, the analysis device comprises a detector 133 configured to analyze the fourth radiation 183.” (p. 27); see also associated citations in the specification and see also p. 28); 244 (“Accordingly, according to an embodiment, an analysis device within the meaning of the subject matter disclosed herein comprises at least one of - the power meter 128, - the position determination device 144, - the position determination device 244,- the detector 133.”)
“a control device configured to adjust at least one parameter of the processing beam based on the analysis of the radiation” interpreted as 135 (ex. p. 18, 21-22)
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.
Examiner notes on claim interpretation:
The preamble has been considered limiting to the structure of the claimed invention (MPEP 2111.02).
Applicant has provided special definitions (MPEP 2173.01, 2173.05(a) III, and 2111.01 IV): From p. 6: “As used herein, for ease of distinction, the term "beam path" is assigned to the processing beam and the term "ray path" is assigned to the laser radiation. It is understood, however, that these two terms are not restrictive of the laser radiation and the processing beam, and that the beam path of the processing beam is a part of the ray path of the laser radiation”.
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.
Claims 1-3, 11 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bocksrocker et al. (US 20190084092, on applicant’s IDS).
Regarding Claim 1,
A laser processing device (1, Figs. 1) for processing a workpiece (2) with a processing beam (5) formed by at least a portion of a provided laser radiation (of 5 by 6), the laser processing device comprising:
an analysis device (15) for analyzing a radiation which is based on the laser radiation;
a control device (23) configured to adjust at least one parameter of the processing beam based on the analysis of the radiation.
Regarding Claim 2,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein the at least one parameter of the processing beam (ex. [0049-0057]) comprises at least one of the following parameters:
a power of the processing beam;
a focus position of the processing beam along a beam path of the processing beam;
a position of an intersection point of a beam path of the processing beam with the workpiece.
Regarding Claim 3,
The laser processing device according to claim 1,
further comprising an optical element (ex. any of 12, 13, 24, 26, 14) arranged in a ray path of the laser radiation;
wherein the radiation comprises a first radiation which is a portion of the laser radiation transmitted by the optical element.
Regarding Claim 11,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, wherein
the radiation comprises a fourth radiation which is generated by interaction of the processing beam with the workpiece; and
the analysis device is adapted to analyze the fourth radiation (ex. [0039-0043, 0047]).
Regarding Claim 13,
The laser processing device according to claim 1, further comprising an image sensor (ex. [0040, 0041, 0043, 0029-0030]) with which a light reflected from the workpiece is recordable to generate image data of a surface of the workpiece.
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.
Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksrocker in view of Takada et al. (US 20110164635).
Regarding Claims 4 and 5, Bocksrocker teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the analysis device further comprises a power meter configured to determine a power of the processing beam delivered to the workpiece based on the first radiation.
wherein the power meter is configured to determine the power of the processing beam delivered to the workpiece based on the first radiation by measuring an intensity of the first radiation and determining the power of the processing beam based on a calibration.
Bocksrocker teaches measuring the intensity (ex. [0040, 0043, 0045-0057]) and adjusting power (ex. [0055]); inasmuch as intensity is a measure of power / area, Bocksrocker is implicitly measuring the power but not explicitly.
Takada teaches
For a laser processing device,
wherein an analysis device further comprises a power meter (72; abstract, [0032, 0042-0047]) configured to determine a power of the processing beam delivered to the workpiece based on the first radiation,
wherein the power meter is configured to determine the power of the processing beam delivered to the workpiece based on the first radiation by measuring an intensity of the first radiation and determining the power of the processing beam based on a calibration ([0042-0047]).
Since both references are directed to laser processing devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser processing device of Bocksrocker to include a power meter with calibration as taught by Takada in order to provide a long-term stable operation by accurate controlling of the light output (ex. [0047]).
Claims 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksrocker in view of Yamakawa et al. (US 2020/0209522, on ids).
Regarding Claims 6 and 7, Bocksrocker teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the analysis device is configured to determine a position of the workpiece by analyzing the radiation using triangulation.
wherein the radiation comprises a second radiation which is a reflected portion of the processing beam from the workpiece.
Bocksrocker teaches controlling the distance and position after measurement (ex. [0026, 0038, 0055, 0056]) but does not say this is explicitly done with triangulation.
Yamakawa teaches
For a laser processing device,
wherein an analysis device is configured to determine a position of the workpiece by analyzing the radiation using triangulation (ex. [0287-0290]),
wherein the radiation comprises a second radiation which is a reflected portion of the processing beam from the workpiece (ex. Fig. 20).
Since both references are directed to laser processing devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser processing device of Bocksrocker to include a measuring and using triangulation for determining position as taught by Yamakawa as an appropriate manner for determining the position of the workpiece for feedback thereby improving accuracy during processing.
Claims 8-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksrocker in view of IWAMOTO et al. (JP H07-253508).
Regarding Claims 8-10, Bocksrocker teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
wherein the analysis device is configured to determine a position of the workpiece by analyzing the radiation using astigmatism.
the radiation comprises a third radiation which is a portion of the processing beam reflected from the workpiece, which is reflected back into the beam path of the processing beam;
the analysis device comprises an astigmatic lens and a position- sensitive detector;
the position-sensitive detector and the astigmatic lens are configured such that the third radiation passes through the astigmatic lens onto the position-sensitive detector and the position-sensitive detector provides a position signal in response thereto.
wherein the astigmatic lens is arranged between the position-sensitive detector and a polarizer, wherein the processing beam first passes through the polarizer and in the opposite direction, coming from the workpiece, the polarizer directs the third radiation onto the position-sensitive detector.
Iwamoto teaches
wherein an analysis device (with 85) is configured to determine a position of the workpiece (59) by analyzing the radiation using astigmatism (“astigmatism method”, note 79).
the radiation comprises a third radiation which is a portion of the processing beam reflected from the workpiece, which is reflected back into the beam path of the processing beam (ex. Fig. 1);
the analysis device comprises an astigmatic lens (79) and a position- sensitive detector (83);
the position-sensitive detector and the astigmatic lens are configured such that the third radiation passes through the astigmatic lens onto the position-sensitive detector and the position-sensitive detector provides a position signal in response thereto (Fig. 1).
wherein the astigmatic lens is arranged between the position-sensitive detector and a polarizer (73), wherein the processing beam first passes through the polarizer and in the opposite direction, coming from the workpiece, the polarizer directs the third radiation onto the position-sensitive detector.
Since both references are directed to devices with lasers, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser processing device of Bocksrocker to include a measuring position by using astigmatism for determining position as taught by Iwamoto as an appropriate manner for determining the position of the workpiece for feedback thereby improving accuracy during processing.
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bocksrocker in view of Ohkubo et al. (US 12296402).
Regarding Claim 12, Bocksrocker teaches the invention substantially as claimed except for
further comprising a retardation plate and a polarizer which are arranged in a ray path of the laser radiation;
wherein the retardation plate is rotatably supported about an axis of rotation, wherein a rotation of the retardation plate about the axis of rotation causes a rotation of a direction of polarization of the processing beam and thereby a power of a portion of the processing beam decoupled by the polarizer is variable.
Ohkubo teaches
For a laser processing device,
further comprising a retardation plate (54) and a polarizer (56) which are arranged in a ray path of the laser radiation;
wherein the retardation plate is rotatably supported about an axis of rotation (Col. 7, lines 11-35), wherein a rotation of the retardation plate about the axis of rotation causes a rotation of a direction of polarization of the processing beam and thereby a power of a portion of the processing beam decoupled by the polarizer is variable (ex. Col. 11, lines 37-48).
Since both references are directed to laser processing devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser processing device of Bocksrocker to include a retardation plate and polarizer as taught by Ohkubo in order to immediately correct an output power level of the laser beam in the case where the output power level deviates from a predetermined level beyond an allowable margin (ex. Col. 11, lines 42-48).
Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizumura (US 9802221) in view of Bocksrocker.
Regarding Claim 14, Mizumura teaches
A laser device (Fig. 6) comprising at least two laser processing devices (14, 14, 14) for processing a workpiece (12) with a processing beam formed by at least a portion of a provided laser radiation,
wherein for each laser processing device of the at least two laser processing devices, a parameter of its processing beam is adjustable independently of the processing beams of the other laser processing devices of the at least two laser processing device (Col. 8, lines 4-6).
Mizumura does not teach
each laser processing device comprising:
an analysis device for analyzing a radiation which is based on the laser radiation;
a control device configured to adjust at least one parameter of the processing beam based on the analysis of the radiation;
Bocksrocker teaches
A laser processing device (1, Figs. 1) for processing a workpiece (2) with a processing beam (5) formed by at least a portion of a provided laser radiation (of 5 by 6), the laser processing device comprising:
an analysis device (15) for analyzing a radiation which is based on the laser radiation;
a control device (23) configured to adjust at least one parameter of the processing beam based on the analysis of the radiation.
Since both references are directed to laser processing devices, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the laser processing device if Mizumura to include an analysis device and a control device as taught by Bocksrocker in order to provide improved control over processing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MICHAEL QUANDT whose telephone number is (571)272-1247. The examiner can normally be reached Tuesday-Thursday 9-3pm (part-time).
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, NATHANIEL WIEHE can be reached at (571)272-8648. 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.
MICHAEL QUANDT
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/MICHAEL QUANDT/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights