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 .
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 5 recites the limitation "Claim 2" in line 1. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim depends form recites a photonic grating, but depends form claim 3, not claim 3, and claim 2 recites a diffraction grating. Examiner will examine as if depended from claim 3.
Claim 12 recites the limitation "one diffraction grating" in 2. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. This claim depends form claim 10, not claim 9, Examiner presumes Applicant intended this to recite “one photonic lantern” given the claim 10 line of language was directed to the photonic lantern, and not the differential grating. Given the differential grating will be rejected already in claim 11, examiner will provide the claim as if interpreted into a photonic lantern for compact prosecution.
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.
Claim(s) 1-2, 8-9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0001264to Szini et al. (S1) and US 5,029,243 to Dammann et al. (D1).
In Re Claim 1:
S1 teaches:
An optical system(Abstract) for writing of antenna arrays comprising: [Per the Abstract this is a laser, i.e. optical system. Per Page 2, ¶20-23 notes an antenna array is formed, by laser etching as noted in ¶22, Page 4, ¶33, and Page 5, ¶35-37.]
A light source (Fig. 1, 104) configured to transmit light; [Page 2, ¶22 and Page 4, ¶33 and Page 5, ¶33-37 disclose laser beams for cutting.]
S1 does not teach:
Parallel writing of antenna arrays, using a light dividing element to receive said transmitted light, and dividing said light into a predetermined pattern comprised of a plurality of spots with equal intensities.
D1 teaches:
It is known to use lasers(Fig. 6, 30) through a light dividing element(32) as a diffraction grating after dividing said light into multiple beams of equal intensity. [Abstract notes the pattern. Col. 4, ll. 12-41 discloses cutting performed by the lights. Col. 3, ll. 7-16 notes gratings are producing diffractions.] This system permits the performing of multiple cutting steps simultaneously reducing manufacture/production method time and steps.
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 invention of S1 such that the laser etching is performed with a light dividing system as taught by D1, with the expectation of producing the final antenna array in fewer steps and in less time. This would yield the limitation of a light dividing producing a plurality of spots with equal intensities.
In Re Claim 2:
S1 as modified by D1 teaches:
The optical system of claim 1, wherein said light dividing element is at least one diffraction grating. [Per D1, Col. 3, ll. 7-16, the gratings diffract.]
In Re Claim 8:
S1 teaches:
A method of creating an array of antennas: [Per the Abstract this is a laser, i.e. optical system. Per Page 2, ¶20-23 notes an antenna array is formed, by laser etching as noted in ¶22, Page 4, ¶33, and Page 5, ¶35-37.]
Providing a workpiece; [Fig. 1, 110, Page 2, ¶9]
Creating an array of antennas on said workpiece by illuminating said workpiece, [Per Abstract, laser, per Page 2, ¶20-23 notes antenna array and laser/illuminating.]
A light source(Fig. 1, 104) [Page 2, ¶9.]
S1 does not teach:
Creating the arrays with a predetermined pattern comprised of a plurality of light spots with equal intensities, said predetermined patterns comprised of a plurality of light spots with equal intensities, said predetermined pattern created by a light source configured to transmit light to a light dividing element; said light dividing element configured to divide said received light into said predetermined pattern.
D1 teaches:
It is known to use lasers(Fig. 6, 30) through a light dividing element(32) and produce a predetermined pattern comprised of a plurality of light spots [Fig. 6] created by a light source(30) with equal intensities, said pattern created by the light source configured to transmit light to a light dividing element(32) to received said light into said predetermined pattern. [Abstract notes the pattern. Col. 4, ll. 12-41 discloses cutting performed by the lights. Col. 3, ll. 7-16 notes gratings are producing diffractions.] This system permits the performing of multiple cutting steps simultaneously reducing manufacture/production method time and steps.
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 invention of S1 such that the laser etching is performed with a light dividing system as taught by D1, with the expectation of producing the final antenna array in fewer steps and in less time. This would yield the limitation of a light dividing producing a plurality of spots with equal intensities in a predetermined pattern.
In Re Claim 9:
S1 as modified by D1 teaches:
The method of claim 9, wherein said light dividing element is at least one diffraction grating. [Per D1, Col. 3, ll. 7-16, the gratings diffract.]
Claim(s) 4 and 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 and D1 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of US 2019/0255660 to Mori (M1).
In Re Claim 4:
S1 as modified by D1 teaches:
The optical system of claim 1, wherein: said light source and said diffraction grating. [See rejection of claim 1.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
The light source and grating are housed in a robotic arm.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.]
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 invention of S1 and D1, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the grating housed and moved for patterning.
In Re Claim 11:
S1 as modified by D1 teaches:
The method of claim 9, with light source and said diffraction grating. [See rejection of claim 9.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
The light source and grating are housed in a robotic arm.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.]
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 invention of S1 and D1, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the grating housed and moved for patterning.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1, D1 and M1 as applied to claim 4 above, and further in view of WO 2007/000717 to Kauwenberg et al. (K1).
In Re Claim 6:
S1 as modified in claim 4 teaches:
A triple axis translation between the laser and workpiece. [M1, Fig. 2B.]
S1 as modified in claim 4 does not teach:
The stage performs the triple axial translation.
K1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a laser system that includes a split beam with rotating a dividing force for aiming a pattern (Page 1, ll. 25-31[ you should also include a driver(30) for moving the stage (38) to make complex paths, in any track desired. As a known method of reducing speed and time during laser pathing. [Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 4.]
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 invention of S1 and M1, such that the worktable can be moved in the X-Y-Z direction by the driver, while the arm rotation is separate, as taught by K1, as a known in the art alternative method of achieving the X-Y-Z to that of M1, which one of ordinary skill would expect to perform as an obvious variant which would be expected to produce similar results. This would yield the limitation of the stage being X-Y-Z moveable.
Claim(s) 13, 15, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 and D1 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of M1 and K1.
In Re Claim 13:
S1 as modified by D1 teaches:
The method of claim 9, with light source and said diffraction grating. [See rejection of claim 9.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
There is a triple axis translation stage.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.]
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 invention of S1 and D1, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the grating housed and moved for patterning and an triple-axis translation between the stage and laser.
S1, D1, and M1 does not teach:
Wherein the stage is the source of the triple axis translation.
K1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a laser system that includes a split beam with rotating a dividing force for aiming a pattern (Page 1, ll. 25-31[ you should also include a driver(30) for moving the stage (38) to make complex paths, in any track desired. As a known method of reducing speed and time during laser pathing. [Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 4.]
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 invention of S1 and M1, such that the worktable can be moved in the X-Y-Z direction by the driver, while the arm rotation is separate, as taught by K1, as a known in the art alternative method of achieving the X-Y-Z to that of M1, which one of ordinary skill would expect to perform as an obvious variant which would be expected to produce similar results. This would yield the limitation of the stage being X-Y-Z moveable.
In Re Claim 15:
S1 as modified by D1 teaches:
The method of claim 9, with light source and said diffraction grating. [See rejection of claim 9.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
There is a triple axis translation stage and robotic arm to move said predetermined pattern on said workpiece.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.]
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 invention of S1 and D1, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the grating housed and moved for patterning and an triple-axis translation between the stage and laser.
S1, D1, and M1 does not teach:
Wherein the stage is the source of the triple axis translation.
K1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a laser system that includes a split beam with rotating a dividing force for aiming a pattern (Page 1, ll. 25-31[ you should also include a driver(30) for moving the stage (38) to make complex paths, in any track desired. As a known method of reducing speed and time during laser pathing. [Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 4.]
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 invention of S1 and M1, such that the worktable can be moved in the X-Y-Z direction by the driver, while the arm rotation is separate, as taught by K1, as a known in the art alternative method of achieving the X-Y-Z to that of M1, which one of ordinary skill would expect to perform as an obvious variant which would be expected to produce similar results. This would yield the limitation of the stage being X-Y-Z moveable and per M1 performing the robotic arm.
In Re Claim 17:
S1 as modified by D1 teaches:
The method of claim 9, with light source and said diffraction grating. [See rejection of claim 9.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
There is a triple axis translation stage, robotic arm, and the robotic arm motion is faster than said triple axis translation.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.] Further that the relative sped of the motions is such faster in rotation (robotic arm) than in translation and said rotation are relative to control pattern shape. [See Page 5, ¶78-79.]
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 invention of S1 and D1, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the grating housed and moved for patterning and an triple-axis translation between the stage and laser, further that the rotation by robotic arm is faster than the translation stage speed.
S1, D1, and M1 does not teach:
Wherein the stage is the source of the triple axis translation.
K1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a laser system that includes a split beam with rotating a dividing force for aiming a pattern (Page 1, ll. 25-31[ you should also include a driver(30) for moving the stage (38) to make complex paths, in any track desired. As a known method of reducing speed and time during laser pathing. [Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 4.] K1 further supports the teaching that the rotation of robotic arm is faster than the translation stage speed, and relative speeds affect rotation patterns. [Page 5, line 5 – Page 6, line 4.]
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 invention of S1 and M1, such that the worktable can be moved in the X-Y-Z direction by the driver, while the arm rotation is separate, as taught by K1, as a known in the art alternative method of achieving the X-Y-Z to that of M1, which one of ordinary skill would expect to perform as an obvious variant which would be expected to produce similar results. This would yield the limitation of the stage being X-Y-Z moveable and similar to M1, that the rotation speed is faster than a movement of the stage.
Claim(s) 1, 3, 8, 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US 2017/0001264to Szini et al. (S1) and US 5,029,243 to US 2017/0299900 to Montoya et al. (M2).
In Re Claim 1:
S1 teaches:
An optical system(Abstract) for writing of antenna arrays comprising: [Per the Abstract this is a laser, i.e. optical system. Per Page 2, ¶20-23 notes an antenna array is formed, by laser etching as noted in ¶22, Page 4, ¶33, and Page 5, ¶35-37.]
A light source (Fig. 1, 104) configured to transmit light; [Page 2, ¶22 and Page 4, ¶33 and Page 5, ¶33-37 disclose laser beams for cutting.]
S1 does not teach:
Parallel writing of antenna arrays, using a light dividing element to receive said transmitted light, and dividing said light into a predetermined pattern comprised of a plurality of spots with equal intensities.
M2 teaches:
It is known to use laser cutting. [Page 10, ¶151.] Further wherein said lasers can be processed through a photonic lantern (752). [Page 11, ¶162 notes that photonic lanterns can be operated in reverse to turn a single laser into multiple.] Fig. 18F shows separating laser into two processing fields. Fig 20 shows using photonic lasers to convert a single laser input (715) into multiple outputs, which Per Fig. 8E can be used to produce a pattern of multiple spots. Per ¶36-40 the system can perform on multiple pieces at once for easier use during cutting. ¶199-200 notes the amplitudes can be set to nearly equal to reduce dynamic controls for the photonic lanterns, further the amplitudes of the photonic lanterns can be set equal, which in reverse would be the multiple outputs.
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 invention of S1 such that the laser etching is performed with a light dividing system as taught by M2, with the expectation of producing the final antenna array in fewer steps and in less time. This would yield the limitation of a light dividing producing a plurality of spots with equal intensities.
In Re Claim 3:
S1 as modified by M2 teaches:
The optical system of claim 1, wherein said light dividing element is at least one photonic lantern. [Per M2, Page 11, ¶162 and Fig. 20 there are photonic lanterns for dividing.]
In Re Claim 8:
S1 teaches:
A method of creating an array of antennas: [Per the Abstract this is a laser, i.e. optical system. Per Page 2, ¶20-23 notes an antenna array is formed, by laser etching as noted in ¶22, Page 4, ¶33, and Page 5, ¶35-37.]
Providing a workpiece; [Fig. 1, 110, Page 2, ¶9]
Creating an array of antennas on said workpiece by illuminating said workpiece, [Per Abstract, laser, per Page 2, ¶20-23 notes antenna array and laser/illuminating.]
A light source(Fig. 1, 104) [Page 2, ¶9.]
S1 does not teach:
Creating the arrays with a predetermined pattern comprised of a plurality of light spots with equal intensities, said predetermined patterns comprised of a plurality of light spots with equal intensities, said predetermined pattern created by a light source configured to transmit light to a light dividing element; said light dividing element configured to divide said received light into said predetermined pattern.
M2 teaches:
It is known to use laser cutting. [Page 10, ¶151.] Further wherein said lasers can be processed through a photonic lantern (752). [Page 11, ¶162 notes that photonic lanterns can be operated in reverse to turn a single laser into multiple.] Fig. 18F shows separating laser into two processing fields. Fig 20 shows using photonic lasers to convert a single laser input (715) into multiple outputs, which Per Fig. 8E can be used to produce a pattern of multiple spots. Per ¶36-40 the system can perform on multiple pieces at once for easier use during cutting. ¶199-200 notes the amplitudes can be set to nearly equal to reduce dynamic controls for the photonic lanterns, further the amplitudes of the photonic lanterns can be set equal, which in reverse would be the multiple outputs.
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 invention of S1 such that the laser etching is performed with a light dividing system as taught by M2, with the expectation of producing the final antenna array in fewer steps and in less time. This would yield the limitation of a light dividing producing a plurality of spots with equal intensities.
In Re Claim 10:
S1 as modified by M2 teaches:
The method of claim 10, wherein said light dividing element is at least one photonic lantern. [Per M2, Page 11, ¶162 and Fig. 20 there are photonic lanterns for dividing.]
Claim(s) 5 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 and M2 as applied to claims 1 and 8 above, and further in view of M1.
In Re Claim 5:
S1 as modified by M2 teaches:
The optical system of claim 3, wherein: said light source and said diffraction grating. [See rejection of claim 1.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
The light source and lantern are housed in a robotic arm.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.]
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 invention of S1 and M2, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the lantern housed and moved for patterning.
In Re Claim 12:
S1 as modified by M2 teaches:
The method of claim 10, with light source and said lantern. [See rejection of claim 10.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
The light source and grating are housed in a lantern.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.]
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 invention of S1 and M2, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the lantern housed and moved for patterning.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1, M2 and M1 as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of K1.
In Re Claim 7:
S1 as modified in claim 5 teaches:
A triple axis translation between the laser and workpiece. [M1, Fig. 2B.]
S1 as modified in claim 5 does not teach:
The stage performs the triple axial translation.
K1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a laser system that includes a split beam with rotating a dividing force for aiming a pattern (Page 1, ll. 25-31[ you should also include a driver(30) for moving the stage (38) to make complex paths, in any track desired. As a known method of reducing speed and time during laser pathing. [Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 4.]
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 invention of S1 and M1, such that the worktable can be moved in the X-Y-Z direction by the driver, while the arm rotation is separate, as taught by K1, as a known in the art alternative method of achieving the X-Y-Z to that of M1, which one of ordinary skill would expect to perform as an obvious variant which would be expected to produce similar results. This would yield the limitation of the stage being X-Y-Z moveable.
Claim(s) 14, 16, and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over S1 and M2 as applied to claim 8 above, and further in view of M1 and K1.
In Re Claim 14:
S1 as modified by M2 teaches:
The method of claim 10, with light source and said lantern. [See rejection of claim 10.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
There is a triple axis translation stage.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.]
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 invention of S1 and M2, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the grating housed and moved for patterning and an triple-axis translation between the stage and laser.
S1, M2, and M1 does not teach:
Wherein the stage is the source of the triple axis translation.
K1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a laser system that includes a split beam with rotating a dividing force for aiming a pattern (Page 1, ll. 25-31[ you should also include a driver(30) for moving the stage (38) to make complex paths, in any track desired. As a known method of reducing speed and time during laser pathing. [Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 4.]
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 invention of S1 and M1, such that the worktable can be moved in the X-Y-Z direction by the driver, while the arm rotation is separate, as taught by K1, as a known in the art alternative method of achieving the X-Y-Z to that of M1, which one of ordinary skill would expect to perform as an obvious variant which would be expected to produce similar results. This would yield the limitation of the stage being X-Y-Z moveable.
In Re Claim 16:
S1 as modified by M2 teaches:
The method of claim 10, with light source and said lantern. [See rejection of claim 10.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
There is a triple axis translation stage and robotic arm to move said predetermined pattern on said workpiece.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.]
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 invention of S1 and M2, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the grating housed and moved for patterning and an triple-axis translation between the stage and laser.
S1, M2, and M1 does not teach:
Wherein the stage is the source of the triple axis translation.
K1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a laser system that includes a split beam with rotating a dividing force for aiming a pattern (Page 1, ll. 25-31[ you should also include a driver(30) for moving the stage (38) to make complex paths, in any track desired. As a known method of reducing speed and time during laser pathing. [Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 4.]
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 invention of S1 and M1, such that the worktable can be moved in the X-Y-Z direction by the driver, while the arm rotation is separate, as taught by K1, as a known in the art alternative method of achieving the X-Y-Z to that of M1, which one of ordinary skill would expect to perform as an obvious variant which would be expected to produce similar results. This would yield the limitation of the stage being X-Y-Z moveable and per M1 performing the robotic arm.
In Re Claim 18:
S1 as modified by M2 teaches:
The method of claim10, with light source and said lantern. [See rejection of claim 10.]
S1 as modified does not teach:
There is a triple axis translation stage, robotic arm, and the robotic arm motion is faster than said triple axis translation.
M1 teaches:
It is known when performing laser machining, to include a robotic arm(12) containing the laser system for aiming and moving said laser relative to the workpiece, including rotation of the gratings, and an x-y-z- movement [See Fig. 2B.] This combination can yield a more favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation by allowing the beam to be rotated as well as the workpiece position adjusted simultaneously. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20.] X and Y directions can control movement of pattern while Z can control focus and intensity/size of beam. [Page 3, ¶50-52.] Further that the relative sped of the motions is such faster in rotation (robotic arm) than in translation and said rotation are relative to control pattern shape. [See Page 5, ¶78-79.]
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 invention of S1 and M2, such that the laser(and downstream gratings being directed toward the workpiece) are on a robotic arm, for moving said beam in a pattern as taught by M1, with the expectation of successfully providing a favorable speed and degree of laser irradiation, performing the cuts more effectively, which includes using z movement to control focus/intensity/beam size. [Page 1, ¶10-Page 2, ¶20, Page 3, ¶50-52.] This would yield the robotic arm and the lantern housed and moved for patterning and an triple-axis translation between the stage and laser, further that the rotation by robotic arm is faster than the translation stage speed.
S1, M2, and M1 does not teach:
Wherein the stage is the source of the triple axis translation.
K1 teaches:
It is well-known when using a laser system that includes a split beam with rotating a dividing force for aiming a pattern (Page 1, ll. 25-31[ you should also include a driver(30) for moving the stage (38) to make complex paths, in any track desired. As a known method of reducing speed and time during laser pathing. [Page 4, line 25 – Page 5, line 4.] K1 further supports the teaching that the rotation of robotic arm is faster than the translation stage speed, and relative speeds affect rotation patterns. [Page 5, line 5 – Page 6, line 4.]
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 invention of S1 and M1, such that the worktable can be moved in the X-Y-Z direction by the driver, while the arm rotation is separate, as taught by K1, as a known in the art alternative method of achieving the X-Y-Z to that of M1, which one of ordinary skill would expect to perform as an obvious variant which would be expected to produce similar results. This would yield the limitation of the stage being X-Y-Z moveable and similar to M1, that the rotation speed is faster than a movement of the stage.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. US 2009/0188901 to Dantuys teaches an XYZ movable table and performing multiple parallel laser cuttings (Fig. 10.) US 6,737,605 to Kern teaches an arm with diffraction gratings and a moveable table. EP 3,572,857 to Minardi teaches photonic lanterns splitting a laser in sensing. US 2017/0113303 to Rockstroh et al. teaches parallel processing of laser work. US 6,008,914 to Sasawaga et. Al. teaches simultaneous etching by laser.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JOSHUA R BEEBE whose telephone number is (571)272-9968. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-6.
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.
/JOSHUA R BEEBE/Examiner, Art Unit 3745
/NATHANIEL E WIEHE/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3745