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 .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1-13 rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-14 of U.S. Patent No. 12515978 in view of Bankaitis (US 20170008793 A1).
Instant claims
Reference claims
Claim 1. A method for severing an at least partially transparent material, the method comprising:
focusing ultrashort laser pulses, as individual laser pulses and/or as pulse trains, in the material so that a resulting modification zone elongated in a beam propagation direction enters the material and penetrates at least one surface of the material,
wherein each pulse train comprises multiple sub-laser pulses, introducing a plurality of material modifications along a severing line into the material via the laser pulses. (limitation is repeated below to show that reference claim 10 discloses it)
severing the material along the severing line,
wherein a pulse energy of the individual laser pulses or a sum of pulse energies of the sub-laser pulses is in a range from 500 µJ to 50 mJ, and
a length of the modification zone in the beam propagation direction is greater than a thickness of the material LM.
wherein each pulse train comprises multiple sub-laser pulses, introducing a plurality of material modifications along a severing line into the material via the laser pulses.
Claim 1. A method for separating an glass using laser pulses of an a pulse laser, the method comprising:
focusing the laser pulses into the glass such that a resulting focal zone is elongated in a beam direction and extends over an entire thickness of the glass,
wherein a laser beam formed by the laser pulses have a non-radially symmetric beam cross section perpendicular to a beam propagation direction, and
wherein secondary maxima situated nearest to a principal maximum of the laser beam are positioned on an axis perpendicular to a long axis of the non-radially symmetric beam cross section and have an intensity of more than 17% relative to a maximum intensity,
introducing material modifications into the glass along a separating line using the laser pulses focused into the glass, and separating the glass along the separating line.
Claim 13. ….a pulse energy of each laser pulse is less than 100 µJ
Claim 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein a length of the focal zone elongated in the beam direction is longer than twice or ten times of the thickness of the glass.
Claim 10: The method according to claim 1, wherein each material modification is introduced into the glass by a single laser pulse or by a single burst of laser pulses.
The reference claim 1 does not disclose “ultrashort” laser pulses.
Bankaitis discloses laser cutting glass wherein the laser pulses are “ultrashort” (par. 69).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the reference claims to incorporate the teachings of Bankaitis and use ultrashort laser pulses. Doing so would have the benefit of being able to process and cut the workpiece with the laser pulses.
Claim 2
Claim 3
Claim 4
Claim 5
Claim 6
Claim 7
Claim 10
Claim 11
Claim 12
Claim 13
Claim 2
Claim 4
Claim 2
Claim 1
Claim 14
Claim 13
Claim 5
Claim 1
Claim 9
Claim 7
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 1-17 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 “ultrashort” in claim 1 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ultrashort” is defined in the specification as between 500 ps and 1fs or between 100ps and 10 fs in paragraph 20 which encompasses a very broad range of values. One of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claims 2-17 are rejected due to dependency.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-5, 7, 9, and 14-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Bankaitis (US 20170008793 A1).
Claim 1. Bankaitis disclose a method for severing an at least partially transparent material (glass, par. 8), the method comprising:
focusing ultrashort laser pulses (focused ultra short pulsed laser, par. 69), as individual laser pulses (pulsed laser beam, par. 10) and/or as pulse trains (burst pulse laser, par. 30), in the material so that a resulting modification zone elongated in a beam propagation direction enters the material and penetrates at least one surface of the material (laser beam is directed into the material generating an induced absorption within the material which produces a defect line along the laser focal line, par. 11),
wherein each pulse train comprises multiple sub-laser pulses (burst pulse laser can have 2-25 pulses, par. 30), introducing a plurality of material modifications along a severing line into the material via the laser pulses, and severing the material along the severing line (induced absorption occurs over a line that can be the length of the material’s thickness, par. 81),
wherein a pulse energy of the individual laser pulses or a sum of pulse energies of the sub-laser pulses is in a range from 500 µJ to 50 mJ (40 mJ per burst mm thickness of workpiece, wherein the thickness of the glass can be 0.7mm, resulting in a total 28 mJ per burst, par. 115), and
a length of the modification zone in the beam propagation direction is greater than a thickness of the material LM (length of the focal line where induced absorption occurs is greater than a thickness of the workpiece, Fig. 3B-1, par. 80).
Claim 2. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the length of the modification zone is greater than 1.5× LM (focal line 2b can exceed the thickness d by a factor of 2, par. 80).
Claim 3. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the length of the modification zone is greater than 2×(200 µm)+ LM (thickness of the workpiece can be 700 um, par. 109, and the focal line 2b can be the length of 2 times the thickness of the workpiece, i.e. 1400 um, which is greater than 2x(200 um)+700um).
Claim 4. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein severing the material comprises applying a thermal stress along the severing line (high temperature salt bath to induce thermal stress to cause the glass to separate along the fault line, par. 148) and/or applying a mechanical stress, and/or performing etching using at least one wet-chemical solution.
Claim 5. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the material comprises a glass substrate (glass, abstract), and/or a stacked substrate system, and/or a silicon wafer.
Claim 7. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the laser pulses have a wavelength between 0.3 µm and 1.5 µm (laser wavelength can be 1064 nm or 1.064 um, par. 103), and/or
a pulse length of the individual laser pulses and/or of the sub-laser pulses is in a range from 0.01 ps to 50 ps, and/or
an average power of a laser output is between 150 W and 15 kW.
Claim 9. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a maximum diameter of a beam cross section perpendicular to the beam propagation direction in the modification zone is between 1 µm and 50 µm (average diameter of the laser beam is between 0.1 um to 5 um, par. 71).
Claim 14. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a laser beam formed by the laser pulses is incident at a processing angle on the at least one surface of the material (laser beam forms a defect line at an angle, Fig. 7b), wherein the processing angle is not a right angle.
Claim 15. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 14, wherein the processing angle is less than 20° for the thickness of the material being less than 2 mm (glass thickness is 700 um, par. 109, and the defect line’s angle can be between 0 – 90 degrees with respect to the normal of the flat surface of the glass substrate par. 99).
Claim 16. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 14, wherein the processing angle is less than 10° for the thickness of the material being
Claim 17. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein the individual laser pulses and/or the pulse trains are triggered by a position-controlled pulse triggering from a laser system,
wherein the position-controlled pulse triggering is based on a position of a laser beam formed by the laser pulses on the material (a plurality of laser pulses form a plurality of defect lines that are positioned next to each other to create a plane that forms the boundaries of the chambered edges, par. 99 and 110, Fig. 7A; where the broadest reasonable interpretation of “pulse triggering is based on a position of laser beam” includes a plurality of laser beams pulsed based on lateral spacing (position) between each pulse).
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.
Claim(s) 8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bankaitis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kumkar (US 20170252859 A1).
Claim 8. Bankaitis disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a laser beam formed by the laser pulses and the material are displaceable relative to one another with a feed in order to introduce the plurality of the material modifications into the material along the severing line (workpiece and laser beam can be translated relative to each other, claim 2),
wherein the laser beam and the material are alignable in relation to one another at an angle (defect line formed at an angle, Fig. 7B)
Bankaitis does not disclose that the laser beam and material are alignable via tilting and/or rotation.
Kumkar discloses a laser processing apparatus that can tilt the laser beam with respect to the workpiece that is being irradiated (Fig. 2, par. 64).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bankaitis to incorporate the teachings of Kumkar and have a boon arrangement that have multiple degrees of freedom. Doing so would have the benefit of being able to process and cut the workpiece at different angles.
Claim(s) 6 and 10-13 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Bankaitis as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Piech (EP 3311947 A1)
Claim 6. Bankaitis does not disclose the method according to claim 5, wherein the thickness of the material LM is greater than 1 mm.
Piech discloses an apparatus for laser cutting transparent workpieces wherein the laser may cut a stack of glass workpiece that is several millimeters thick (par. 98).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bankaitis to incorporate the teachings of Piech and cut a stack of workpieces that are several millimeters thick. Piech demonstrates that one of ordinary skill in the art would be able to cut workpieces that are several millimeters thick.
Claim 10. Bankaitis does not disclose the method according to claim 1, wherein a laser beam formed by the laser pulses comprises a quasi-non-diffracting beam at least in the elongated modification zone.
Piech discloses an apparatus for laser processing transparent workpieces wherein the laser beam is a quasi non-diffracting beam (par. 60).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bankaitis to incorporate the teachings of Piech and have a quasi non-diffracting beam. Doing so would have the benefit producing a cleaner cutting line and increasing the repeatability and reliability of cutting glass substrates (par. 3, Piech).
Claim 11. Bankaitis does not disclose the method according to claim 10, wherein the laser beam has a non-radially symmetric beam cross section perpendicular to the beam propagation direction, wherein the beam cross section or an envelope of the beam cross section has an elliptical shape.
Piech discloses an apparatus for laser processing transparent workpieces wherein the laser beam has an elliptical cross-section (Fig. 2).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Bankaitis to incorporate the teachings of Piech and have an elliptical cross-section. Doing so would have the benefit of improving the cutting by directing crack orientation along the trajectory of cutting (par. 42, Piech).
Claim 12. Bankaitis in view of Piech discloses the method according to claim 11, wherein a long axis of the non-radially symmetric beam cross section is oriented perpendicular to the beam propagation direction along the severing line and/or along the feed direction (long axis of the ellipse is perpendicular to the defect line, Fig. 2, Piech).
Claim 13. Bankaitis in view of Piech discloses the method according to claim 12, wherein the elliptical quasi-non-diffracting beam has a non-negligible interference contrast of less than 0.9 along the long axis (the specification in par. 96 disclose that “in particular can have an interference contrast Imax-Imin/(Imax+Imin)<0.9, so that the beam transports laser energy everywhere along the long main axis,” Piech shows in that their elliptical beam transport energy everywhere along the main axis Fig. 2).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is (571)272-6422. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 8-5.
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, 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.
/SIMPSON A CHEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/ELIZABETH M KERR/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761