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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to because figs. 1 and 8 feature unclear and unreadable text within its largely black or grey graphics.
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the mutually adjoining surface elements and extensive grating structure of claim 13 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification.
Claim Objections
Claims 6, 9, and 18–23 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 6 has a closing parenthesis on line 3 that should be struck.
Claim 9, line 1, should be amended to put a space between “distribution” and “of.”
Claim 18 has a closing parenthesis on line 2 that should be struck.
Claim 19 has a random “s” on line 3, which it seems should be an “a.”
Claim 19, line 9, should be amended to put a space between “distribution” and “to.”
Claim 19, line 25, recites “compensates” in an ungrammatical way. The Office’s best quick guess is that this should be amended to recite “compensates for.” Line 29 also has the same issue and seems to warrant the same recommended amendment.
Claims 20–23 are objected to due to dependency upon an objected-to claim.
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 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) 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):
(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). The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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). The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) 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), 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), except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
Comment: Although the “optical beam shaping system” of claims 1 and 19 are formulated as a limitation to be interpreted under § 112(f), it is not, since one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand the types of structures known to modify a laser beam’s irradiance and phase profile. The same applies to the “beam adjustment optical unit” of claim 14 and structures known to change a beam diameter. See MPEP § 2181.I.C.: “Examiners will apply 35 U.S.C. 112(f) to a claim limitation that uses the term ‘means’ or generic placeholder associated with functional language, unless that term is (1) preceded by a structural modifier, defined in the specification as a particular structure or known by one skilled in the art, that denotes the type of structural device (e.g., ‘filters’), or (2) otherwise modified by sufficient structure or material for achieving the claimed function.”
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.
Claims 9, 11, 13, 15, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Claim 9 mentions “the optical axis,” but this limitation lacks antecedent basis because it’s introduced in claim 2, but claim 9 depends from claim 1.
Claim 11 recites “the optical axis” twice and is indefinite for the same reason as claim 9.
The term “extensive” in claim 13 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “extensive” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Applicant should either strike the term, define it more clearly (with support from the original disclosure), or provide proof that the limitation is known in the art.
Claim 15 recites, “the phase is further set so that laser radiation is guided at a plurality of angles from the entry angle range to at least one position of the plurality of positions such that an intensity threshold for a nonlinear absorption is exceeded at the plurality of positions in the partly transparent material despite the intensity losses.” The language renders the claim indefinite because it first defines limitations with respect to “at least one position of the plurality of positions,” but then seems to explain that the “intensity threshold for a nonlinear absorption is exceeded at the plurality of positions” rather than “the at least one of the plurality of positions.” It’s unclear if the last recitation of “the plurality of positions” is shorthand for the “at least one,” or means for all of the plurality of positions.
Claim 22 provides for “a Fresnel-axicon-like diffractive optical element.” The limitation renders the claim indefinite because the bounds of what would constitute something “Fresnel-axicon-like” is not clear.
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, 4-6, 8, 11, 12, 14, 15, 17, 19–21, and 23 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Comstock, II et al. (US Pub. 2018/0062342).
Claim 1: Comstock discloses a method for material processing of a workpiece, the method comprising:
radiating a pulsed raw laser beam (from 5, see ¶ 68) into an optical beam shaping system (3; ¶ 82 explains that “a phase modifying element such as a spatial light modulator” could be used in place of a refractive or reflective axicon 3) in order to form a quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (¶ 69, “a quasi-non-diffracting beam”) with a focal zone extending in a longitudinal direction for the material processing of the workpiece (¶ 174, “substrate 7 (or the glass composite workpiece) is aligned perpendicular to the longitudinal beam axis”), wherein the optical beam shaping system is configured to impose a phase onto a beam cross section of the raw laser beam for forming phase-imposed laser radiation (¶ 82, “phase modifying element”), and
focusing the phase-imposed laser radiation into the workpiece so that the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam is formed and the focal zone has an intensity distribution that is adjustable along the longitudinal direction (via optical system 6), wherein the workpiece comprises a material that is partly transparent to the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (¶ 104 provides that the workpiece absorption is as much as less than 20% per millimeter of material depth, corresponding to Applicant’s own definition of 90% to 10% transmission per millimeter of material thickness (¶ 4 of the submitted specification)) and exhibits an intensity-independent linear absorption in a frequency range of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (the absorption rates described in ¶ 104 indicate intensity-independent linear absorption similar to how Applicant discloses the feature), and wherein the phase imposed on the beam cross section of the raw laser beam is set so that the intensity distribution of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam in the focal zone is at least approximately constant in the longitudinal direction (¶ 116, “the focal line 4′ has a uniform intensity profile, such that the peak intensity of the laser beam focal line along its optical axis does is not vary by more than 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, or 15%, or 10% or even 5%, for at least 90% of the length L of the defect line 120,” which comports with Applicant’s disclosure of deviations of “up to 10%” (¶ 66 of the submitted specification)).
Claim 4: Comstock discloses that the phase is set by setting phase increases in a radial direction in beam cross-sectional regions of the raw laser beam (this results from the surface 3a′ of the optical component 3′ (see figs. 8A and 8B), just as it does for Applicant’s modified axicon 15C).
Claim 5: Comstock discloses that the beam cross-sectional regions comprise at least two beam cross-sectional regions formed in a ring-shaped or ring-segment-shaped fashion, and the phase increases for the two beam cross-sectional regions are set in such a way that laser radiation from the two beam cross-sectional regions is fed to a joint position of the plurality of positions at two different cone angles (this is effectively shown in fig. 8A).
Claim 6: The method as claimed in claim 4, further comprising setting intensity components of a raw laser beam intensity, wherein the intensity components are assigned to the beam cross-sectional regions, so as to bring about the intensity distribution of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam in the focal zone (is effectively described in at least ¶ 126 where it discusses how “the Gaussian energy distribution of beam 2 is subdivided into annular rings of equal power”).
Claim 8: Comstock discloses that the phase is set so that an intensity decrease of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam on account of the linear absorption in the partly transparent material is compensated for in at least one portion (this is effectively shown with fig. 5A with its modified Gaussian beam distribution compensating for linear absorption along the optical axis).
Claim 11: Comstock discloses that the raw laser beam has a Gaussian transverse intensity profile (¶ 81, “a Gaussian laser beam”), and the optical beam shaping system is configured to shape the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam as a Bessel-Gaussian beam (¶ 81, “a Gaussian laser beam provided by a laser 5 to an optical system 125 (described in detail further in the specification) in which creates a focal line 4′ via a modified Gauss-Bessel beam (MGB beam)”), and/or
wherein a transverse extent of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam in the focal zone changes along the optical axis (see 4′ in fig. 2), and/or
wherein the transverse extent of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam at a position in the focal zone depends on angles of incidence with which laser radiation is incident on the optical axis at the position in the focal zone for forming the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (angles of incidence are clearly, even if subtly, illustrated with fig. 8A, with modified axicon 3′, in light of fig. 2).
Claim 12: Comstock discloses setting beam parameters of the raw laser beam so that the partly transparent material of the workpiece is modified (¶ 68, “Within this volume of high energy density the material of the workpiece 7 is modified via nonlinear effects”), and/or
positioning at least one portion of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam in the workpiece (see 7 in fig. 2), and/or
bringing about a relative movement between the workpiece and the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam, wherein the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam is moved along a scanning trajectory in the workpiece such that strung-together modifications are written into the workpiece along the scanning trajectory (this is shown in figs. 15A and 15B, described in ¶ 167).
Claim 14: Comstock discloses a laser processing apparatus for material processing of a workpiece using a quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (¶ 69, “a quasi-non-diffracting beam”), the workpiece having a material that is partly transparent to the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (¶ 104 provides that the workpiece absorption is as much as less than 20% per millimeter of material depth, corresponding to Applicant’s own definition of 90% to 10% transmission per millimeter of material thickness (¶ 4 of the submitted specification)) and exhibits a laser radiation intensity-independent linear absorption in the frequency range of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (the absorption rates described in ¶ 104 indicate intensity-independent linear absorption similar to how Applicant discloses the feature), the laser processing apparatus comprising:
a laser beam source (5) configured to emit a pulsed laser beam (¶ 68, “pulsed laser beam”), and
an optical beam shaping system (3, 6; see also ¶ 82) for beam shaping of the laser beam for forming the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam with a focal zone extending in a longitudinal direction (¶ 174, “substrate 7 (or the glass composite workpiece) is aligned perpendicular to the longitudinal beam axis”), the optical beam shaping system comprising:
a beam adjustment optical unit (6) configured to output the laser beam as a raw laser beam with a beam diameter (evident from ¶ 83, “optical system 6 simply magnify (or de-magnify)”), and
a beam shaping element (3; ¶ 82 explains that “a phase modifying element such as a spatial light modulator” could be used in place of a refractive or reflective axicon 3) configured to impose a phase on a beam cross section of the raw laser beam (¶ 82, “phase modifying element”) in order to form phase-imposed laser radiation for a specified beam diameter of the raw laser beam so that, as the phase-imposed laser radiation is focused into the partly transparent material of the workpiece, the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam is produced with a resultant intensity distribution that is at least approximately constant in the longitudinal direction in the focal zone (¶ 116, “the focal line 4′ has a uniform intensity profile, such that the peak intensity of the laser beam focal line along its optical axis does is not vary by more than 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, or 15%, or 10% or even 5%, for at least 90% of the length L of the defect line 120,” which comports with Applicant’s disclosure of deviations of “up to 10%” (¶ 66 of the submitted specification)),
the laser processing apparatus further comprising a workpiece mount for mounting the workpiece (¶ 184, “a constantly moving stage”), with the optical beam shaping system and/or the workpiece mount being configured to bring about a relative movement between the workpiece and the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (¶ 184, “the glass is translated”), wherein the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam is positioned along a scanning trajectory in the material of the workpiece (¶ 68, “scanning the focal line formed by the laser beam over a desired line or path”).
Claim 15: Comstock discloses that the phase imposed on the beam cross section of the raw laser beam is set so that laser radiation of the raw laser beam is guided to a plurality of positions in the workpiece along an optical axis (see 4′ in fig. 1; see also fig. 7), in an entry angle range with respect to the optical axis, and forms the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam at the plurality of positions (ibid.), and
wherein intensity losses occur due to the linear absorption during propagation of the laser radiation to the plurality of positions in the partly transparent material (linear absorption described in ¶ 104), and the phase is further set so that laser radiation is guided at a plurality of angles from the entry angle range (set by 3′, see fig. 8A) to at least one position of the plurality of positions such that an intensity threshold for a nonlinear absorption is exceeded at the plurality of positions in the partly transparent material despite the intensity losses (¶ 68, “Within this volume of high energy density the material of the workpiece 7 is modified via nonlinear effects. It is important to note that without this high optical intensity, nonlinear absorption is not triggered”).
Claim 17: Comstock discloses that the beam shaping element is a diffractive optical element, a spatial light modulator, or a modified refractive or reflective axicon (¶ 132, “the optical component 3′ is a modified axicon”, “modified inverted axicon (either refractive or reflective)”).
Claim 19: Comstock discloses a method for forming a beam shaping element of an optical beam shaping system (3; ¶ 82 explains that “a phase modifying element such as a spatial light modulator” could be used in place of a refractive or reflective axicon 3) for beam shaping of a quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (¶ 69, “a quasi-non-diffracting beam”) from a raw laser beam (via 5), the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam for material processing of a workpiece (7) having a material that is partly transparent to the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (¶ 104 provides that the workpiece absorption is as much as less than 20% per millimeter of material depth, corresponding to Applicant’s own definition of 90% to 10% transmission per millimeter of material thickness (¶ 4 of the submitted specification)) and exhibits a laser radiation intensity-independent linear absorption in a frequency range of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (¶ 116, “the focal line 4′ has a uniform intensity profile, such that the peak intensity of the laser beam focal line along its optical axis does is not vary by more than 35%, 30%, 25%, 20%, or 15%, or 10% or even 5%, for at least 90% of the length L of the defect line 120,” which comports with Applicant’s disclosure of deviations of “up to 10%” (¶ 66 of the submitted specification)), the method comprising:
providing a linear absorption parameter of the partly transparent material in the frequency range of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (the absorption of the workpiece depending on the frequency is acknowledged in ¶ 104);
defining a target intensity distribution as a resultant intensity distribution to be obtained in the workpiece along an optical axis of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (examples of this are provided in ¶ 109), wherein an intensity of the target intensity distribution is, in at least one portion, above an intensity threshold for a nonlinear absorption (¶ 68, “Within this volume of high energy density the material of the workpiece 7 is modified via nonlinear effects. It is important to note that without this high optical intensity, nonlinear absorption is not triggered”), for modifying the material of the workpiece at a plurality of positions along the optical axis (clearly shown at 4′ in fig. 2);
specifying a transverse beam profile of the raw laser beam, onto which a two-dimensional phase distribution is imposed (¶ 82, “A Gauss-Bessel beam can be formed, for example, by providing a typical laser beam with a Gaussian intensity profile to an optical component such as a refractive or reflective axicon, a phase modifying element such as a spatial light modulator”);
calculating the two-dimensional phase distribution for the transverse beam profile by:
subdividing the transverse beam profile into beam cross-sectional regions with a ring-shaped form (see e.g. figs. 3 and 11B; this is also reflected in the “optical axis crossing points” discussed in ¶¶ 133 and 134),
assigning phase increases in a radial direction over the beam cross-sectional regions as an initial phase distribution (this is what results from 3a as exemplified in fig. 1), and
iteratively adjusting the phase increases in the beam cross-sectional regions and calculating the intensity distribution along the optical axis setting-in in the workpiece after the raw laser beam has passed through the optical beam shaping system while taking account of linear absorption specified by the linear absorption parameter, until a two-dimensional phase distribution that compensates the linear absorption is present, so that the target intensity distribution along the optical axis in the workpiece arises as the resultant intensity distribution (this process is discussed in ¶¶ 132–134, resulting in a properly modified optical component 3′ with surface 3a′); and
providing the beam shaping element with the two-dimensional phase distribution that compensates the linear absorption (ibid.).
Claim 20: Comstock discloses that the iteratively adjusted phase increases, in conjunction with intensity components of the raw laser beam present in the beam cross-sectional regions, bring about a redistribution along the optical axis of the laser radiation contributing to the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam in order to form the target intensity distribution (¶ 132, “surface 3a′ of the optical component 3′ has slight undulations (slope changes shown in cross-section), which keeps the peak intensity of light beam substantially uniform within the focal line 4′ for a distance z”).
Claim 21: Comstock discloses that a phase increase corresponds to an angle at which laser radiation is guided with respect to the optical axis (resulting from modified axicon 3′ surface 3a′), and wherein the two-dimensional phase distribution that compensates the linear absorption is determined iteratively so that laser radiation is guided at a plurality of angles to at least one position of a plurality of positions along the optical axis (this is clearly evident from the non-uniform slope or slope change for surface 3a′, and by fig. 8A).
Claim 23: Comstock discloses deriving a height profile from the two-dimensional phase distribution that compensates the linear absorption (this is evident with surface 3a′), with a local height corresponding to a local phase shift value (see fig. 8A), and forming a refractive or reflective axicon optical unit (3′) with the height profile as the beam shaping element.
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.
The factual inquiries 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 2, 3, 7, 9, 16, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Comstock.
Claim 2: Comstock discloses that the phase imposed on the beam cross section of the raw laser beam is set so that the phase-imposed laser radiation is guided to a plurality of positions in the workpiece along an optical axis in an entry angle range with respect to the optical axis in the partly transparent material of the workpiece (see this shown at 4′ in fig. 2), and that the intensity distribution at the plurality of positions results from intensity losses due to the linear absorption during a propagation of the phase-imposed laser radiation to the plurality of positions in the partly transparent material (linear absorption described in ¶ 104), and wherein the phase imposed on the beam cross section of the raw laser beam is set so that the phase-imposed laser radiation is guided at a plurality of angles from the entry angle range at at least one position of the plurality of positions such that an intensity threshold for a nonlinear absorption is exceeded at the plurality of positions in the partly transparent material despite the intensity losses (¶ 68, “Within this volume of high energy density the material of the workpiece 7 is modified via nonlinear effects. It is important to note that without this high optical intensity, nonlinear absorption is not triggered”), wherein a nonlinear absorption in the partly transparent material depends on a respectively present intensity of the phase-imposed laser radiation (ibid.).
Comstock does not explicitly disclose its entry angles ranging from 5° to 25° in the partly transparent material.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would readily understand that the point of these angles is to position intersecting portions of the laser beam at certain positions in the thickness of the material (as for example shown at 4′ in fig. 2), and would have found it obvious to select an angle that would achieve impact and material modification at these positions, including with an angle of 5° to 25° as claimed.
Claim 3: Comstock discloses that the phase imposed on the beam cross section of the raw laser beam is set so that the phase-imposed laser radiation is guided rotationally symmetrically to the plurality of positions so that each of the plurality of angles represents a local cone angle (ascertainable from figs. 2, 3, 7, 8A, and 11B).
Claim 7: Comstock discloses that the phase is set for a specified transverse intensity distribution of the raw laser beam (described in ¶ 82 with respect to the Gauss-Bessel beam), and for a specified linear absorption of the partly transparent material of the workpiece (it goes without saying that the linear absorption is considered when determining how to achieve the intensity distribution at each location along the thickness of the workpiece), and wherein, in an unchanged phase imposition, the transverse intensity distribution of the raw laser beam is adjusted for a material with a linear absorption that deviates from the specified linear absorption of the partly transparent material, in order to increase or decrease an intensity component of a raw laser beam intensity fed to a position of the plurality of positions (this is accomplished by the reimaging optical system 6).
Claim 9: Comstock does not explicitly discloses that the intensity distribution of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam or an envelope of the intensity distribution along the optical axis comprises deviations from an average intensity of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam of an order of up to 10%, with the average intensity referring to a part of the focal zone in which there is a nonlinear interaction with the material of the workpiece, and wherein the intensity distribution or the envelope of the intensity distribution is substantially constant.
However, Comstock strongly suggests this given its disclosure of ranges for intensity variability including values as low 0% (see ¶ 109). ¶ 109 speaks to regions of focal line 4′ that have 80% or 90% of the total optical energy, and this corresponds to the nonlinear interaction resulting from the top-hat distribution (¶ 95). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, using Comstock’s own structure and teachings, would arrive at intensity distribution deviations from an average intensity of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam of an order of up to 10% as claimed.
Claim 10: Comstock discloses that the partly transparent material is modified due to nonlinear absorption at the plurality of positions in the focal zone despite the intensity losses (¶ 68, “Within this volume of high energy density the material of the workpiece 7 is modified via nonlinear effects”), and modification of the partly transparent material extends over a length of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam or comprises a stringing of modification zones along the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam (this is plainly shown at 7 in fig. 2).
Claim 16: Comstock discloses its beam adjustment optical unit configured to set the beam diameter at the beam shaping element to larger or smaller than the specified beam diameter so as to compensate for variations in the linear absorption (this is an inherent effect of the operation of optical system 6 since its diameter-adjusting effects can affect the resulting linear absorption).
Comstock does not disclose any controller institute for setting the beam optical adjustment unit.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated that ¶ 83 clearly provides that the optical system can be adjusted, and would have understood that this adjustment is facilitated by an element that qualifies as a controller.
Claim 18: Comstock does not explicitly disclose that the phase is designed so that the resultant intensity distribution or an envelope of the resultant intensity distribution comprises deviations from an average intensity of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam of an order of up to 10%, with the average intensity referring to a part of the focal zone in which there is a nonlinear interaction with the material of the workpiece, and wherein the resultant intensity distribution or the envelope of the resultant intensity distribution is substantially constant.
However, Comstock strongly suggests this given its disclosure of ranges for intensity variability including values as low 0% (see ¶ 109). ¶ 109 speaks to regions of focal line 4′ that have 80% or 90% of the total optical energy, and this corresponds to the nonlinear interaction resulting from the top-hat distribution (¶ 95). Therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art, using Comstock’s own structure and teachings, would arrive at intensity distribution deviations from an average intensity of the quasi-non-diffractive laser beam of an order of up to 10% as claimed.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 13 and 22 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter:
Each of claims 13 and 22 require that a diffractive optical beam shaping element that has mutually adjoining surface elements that construct an extensive grating structure. As best understood, such a construction is not shown in Comstock, nor is it found in nearby analogous art for solving a problem like that discussed in Comstock.
Mikutis (US Pub. 2018/0345419) is cited as relevant prior art.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John J. Norton whose telephone number is (571) 272-5174. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00 AM to 5:00 PM EST.
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, Edward (Ned) F. Landrum 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.
/JOHN J NORTON/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761