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 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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-5, 7-9, 11-15, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtold et al. (DE 102013201968), referred to hereafter as Bechtold.
With regard to claim 1:
Bechtold discloses a system comprising: a laser generator (1) configured to generate a laser beam (2); an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) (6) positioned in a path of the laser beam (Fig. 5); and at least one acoustic signal generator (5) configured to generate at least two acoustic signals (two channel signal source 5 generates signal forms SFx and SFy, see [0059] and [0060]) comprising a first acoustic signal and a second acoustic signal (SFx and SFy); wherein the at least one acoustic signal generator is further configured to: apply the first acoustic signal to the AOD to output a deflected laser beam ([0014], [0059], [0060]); and apply the second acoustic signal to the AOD to adjust the deflected laser beam to a modified profile ([0014], [0059], [0060]).
Bechtold does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first acoustic signal has a periodic waveform and the second acoustic signal has a freeform waveform. Bechtold also doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that after applying the first acoustic signal to the AOD, the outputted deflected laser beam has a Gaussian profile; and applying the second acoustic signal to the AOD will adjust the Gaussian profile of the deflected laser beam to the modified profile.
However, Bechtold teaches forming a periodic waveform (see [0003] disclosing a periodic and anisotropic refractive index variation is formed equivalent to the induced sound wave. Moreover, see a periodic sound wave SW in Fig. 9) and a freeform waveform (see [0014] disclosing varying the sonic wave frequency so as to result in beam shaping, such as reshaping a Gaussian beam profile into a so-called top-hat beam profile. Note that varying the frequency of the signal results in a freeform waveform). Bechtold further teaches varying the sonic wave frequency so as to result in beam shaping, such as reshaping a Gaussian beam profile into a so-called top-hat beam profile ([0014]). Bechtold further teaches that SFx and SFy are corresponding signals to produce corresponding shapes, and that SFx and SFy signals are frequency-modulated signals according to the desired beam shaping ([0059], [0060]). Also see [0055] teaching using the acoustic signal generator (5) to generate the desired signal shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
After the above modification, Bechtold discloses that applying the second acoustic signal to the AOD will adjust the Gaussian profile of the deflected laser beam to a modified profile, by virtue of the outputted deflected laser beam having a Gaussian profile, and disclosing reshaping the Gaussian beam profile into a so-called top-hat beam profile ([0014]) and using the SFx and SFy signals to produce desired shape profiles ([0059], [0060]).
With regard to claim 11:
Bechtold discloses a method comprising: directing a laser beam (2) toward an acousto-optical deflector (AOD) (6); generating at least two acoustic signals comprising a first acoustic signal and a second acoustic signal (SFx and SFy); applying the first acoustic signal to the AOD to output a deflected laser beam; and applying the second acoustic signal to the AOD to adjust the deflected laser beam to a modified profile ([0014], [0059], [0060]).
Bechtold does not appear to explicitly disclose that the first acoustic signal has a periodic waveform and the second acoustic signal has a freeform waveform. Bechtold also doesn’t appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that after applying the first acoustic signal to the AOD, the outputted deflected laser beam has a Gaussian profile; and applying the second acoustic signal to the AOD will adjust the Gaussian profile of the deflected laser beam to the modified profile.
However, Bechtold teaches forming a periodic waveform (see [0003] disclosing a periodic and anisotropic refractive index variation is formed equivalent to the induced sound wave. Moreover, see a periodic sound wave SW in Fig. 9) and a freeform waveform (see [0014] disclosing varying the sonic wave frequency so as to result in beam shaping, such as reshaping a Gaussian beam profile into a so-called top-hat beam profile. Note that varying the frequency of the signal results in a freeform waveform). Bechtold further teaches varying the sonic wave frequency so as to result in beam shaping, such as reshaping a Gaussian beam profile into a so-called top-hat beam profile ([0014]). Bechtold further teaches that SFx and SFy are corresponding signals to produce corresponding shapes, and that SFx and SFy signals are frequency-modulated signals according to the desired beam shaping ([0059], [0060]). Also see [0055] teaching using the acoustic signal generator (5) to generate the desired signal shape.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
After the above modification, Bechtold discloses that applying the second acoustic signal to the AOD will adjust the Gaussian profile of the deflected laser beam to a modified profile, by virtue of the outputted deflected laser beam having a Gaussian profile, and disclosing reshaping the Gaussian beam profile into a so-called top-hat beam profile ([0014]) and using the SFx and SFy signals to produce desired shape profiles ([0059], [0060]).
With regard to claims 2 and 12, Bechtold further discloses that the modified profile comprises a top hat profile or a multi-pole profile (see the rejection of claims 1 and 11 above, and [0014] of Bechtold. Also see [0059] and [0060] of Bechtold teaching reshaping to any desired beam profile)
With regard to claims 3 and 13:
Bechtold discloses the system and method of claims 1 and 11, as set forth above.
Bechtold does not appear to explicitly disclose that the at least one acoustic signal generator comprises: a first signal generator configured to generate the first acoustic signal; and a second signal generator configured to generate the second acoustic signal; wherein the first signal generator and the second signal generator are configured to apply one of the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal to the AOD at a time.
However, the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to make the at least one acoustic signal generator to comprise a first signal generator configured to generate the first acoustic signal; and a second signal generator configured to generate the second acoustic signal; wherein the first signal generator and the second signal generator are configured to apply one of the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal to the AOD at a time, because the court has held that mere duplication of parts has no patentable significance unless a new and unexpected result is produced (In re Harza, 274 F.2d 669, 124 USPQ 378 (CCPA 1960). See MPEP 2144.04.VI.B.
Regarding applying one of the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal to the AOD at a time, see Bechtold already disclosing applying one signal at a time (see [0059]).
With regard to claims 4 and 14, Bechtold further discloses that the at least one acoustic signal generator comprises: a single signal generator (5) configured to generate both the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal (Bechtold discloses generating SFx and SFy); wherein the single signal generator is configured to apply one of the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal to the AOD at a time (see [0059]).
With regard to claims 5 and 15:
Bechtold discloses the system and method of claims 1 and 11, as set forth above, and further discloses that the laser beam is a pulsed laser beam (see “pulsed laser beam L” in [0051]) having a time period between laser pulses ([0014], [0015], [0050]), and the at least one acoustic signal generator is further configured to: switch between generating the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal during the time period between laser pulses (this is inferred from [0014] and [0050]-[0052]).
Bechtold does not appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that the at least one acoustic signal generator is further configured to: switch between generating the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal during the time period between laser pulses.
However, Bechtold teaches having a time period between laser pulses and teaches switching between generating the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal ([0014] and [0050]-[0052]), and that a sound wave frequency jump is used synchronously to an incoming optical signal. Within a pulse-to-pulse pause, the sound wave frequency jump (|df/dt|>>0) is performed such that the acoustic wave at a set frequency passes through the entire aperture of the AOD before the next pulse enters the AOD crystal. The result is that the subsequent pulse is deflected to a different location when passing through the AOD ([0014]). Bechtold further teaches that SFx and SFy signals are frequency-modulated signals according to the desired beam sharping with a waiting period ([0059], [0060]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely switching between generating the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal during the time period between laser pulses, to improve similar devices in the same way.
With regard to claim 7, Bechtold further discloses a second AOD positioned in the path of the laser beam orthogonal to the AOD (see AOD 7 in Fig. 5, regarding “orthogonal” see [0055]), wherein the at least one acoustic signal generator is further configured to apply the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal to the second AOD (Fig. 5. Note that 5 is a two channel signal source generating SFx and SFy and note that in Fig. 5 it is connected to both AODs hence it is capable of applying the first acoustic signal and the second acoustic signal to the second AOD) to produce two-dimensional beam profiles ([0034]).
With regard to claims 8 and 18, Bechtold further discloses that the AOD comprises a crystal ([0003], [0048], [0049], [0051]), and applying the at least two acoustic signals to the crystal modifies a diffractive grating created in the crystal by acoustic waves to output the deflected laser beam having the Gaussian profile and the modified profile ([0003], [0048], [0049], [0051]. Note that Bechtold already disclosed the deflected laser beam having the Gaussian profile and the modified profile).
With regard to claim 9 and 19, Bechtold further discloses that a frequency of the at least two acoustic signals defines an angle of the deflected laser beam ([0004]), and an amplitude of the at least two acoustic signals defines an intensity of the deflected laser beam (this is common knowledge. It can also be inferred from [0016]).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 6, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtold et al. (DE 102013201968), referred to hereafter as Bechtold in view of Naveh et al. (US 2010/0282726), referred to hereafter as Naveh.
With regard to claims 6 and 16:
Bechtold discloses the system and method of claims 1 and 11, as set forth above.
Bechtold does not appear to explicitly disclose a stage configured to hold a substrate positioned in a path of the deflected laser beam.
However, Naveh teaches a system comprising a laser generator and AOD (Fig. 1), and further teaches using the laser to cut holes on a substrate (44) held on a stage (42) (see abstract and [0022]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique, namely adding a substrate held on a stage and using the laser beam of Bechtold to cut holes in the substrate, to improve similar devices in the same way.
With regard to claim 17, the combination of Bechtold and Naveh further discloses that cutting the hole in the substrate with the deflected laser beam comprises: cutting the hole in the substrate with the deflected laser beam having the Gaussian profile; and cutting the hole in the substrate with the deflected laser beam having the modified profile (by virtue of Bechtold already having Gaussian profile and modified profile)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Claims 10 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bechtold et al. (DE 102013201968), referred to hereafter as Bechtold in view of Bechtold et al. (Beam shaping and high-speed, cylinder-lens-free beam guiding using acousto-optical deflectors without additional compensation optics," Optics Express, June 17, 2013, Vol. 21, No. 12), referred to hereafter as Bechtold2.
With regard to claims 10 and 20:
Bechtold discloses the system and method of claims 9 and 19, as set forth above, and further discloses that the freeform waveform has a non-periodic amplitude ([0016]).
Bechtold does not appear to explicitly disclose in verbatim that the freeform waveform has a non-periodic frequency that is configured to adjust the Gaussian profile of the deflected laser beam to the modified profile.
However, Bechtold2 teaches that the freeform waveform has a non-periodic frequency (“The results shown in Fig. 6 demonstrate the capability of basic beam shaping when using … frequency jump in AOD…”) that is configured to adjust the Gaussian profile of the deflected laser beam to the modified profile (Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to use a known technique to improve similar devices in the same way.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Refer to the attached form PTO-892 for pertinent prior art disclosing similar systems such as US 7804043.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN whose telephone number is (571)270-7558. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri, 7:00am-15:00pm.
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, Courtney D Heinle can be reached at (571) 270-3508. 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.
/BEHNOUSH HAGHIGHIAN/
Examiner
Art Unit 3745
/COURTNEY D HEINLE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745
Prosecution Insights