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 .
Response to Arguments
Applicant has amended apparatus claim 20 incorporate a limitation analogous to that of previously pending dependent method claim 6, indicated as having allowable subject matter. The Office finds this limitation to be poorly drafted, and makes a new rejection of claim 20 under § 112(b) below.
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.
Claim 20 is 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 20 has now been amended to recite, “wherein the irradiation optical system is configured to, in the irradiation process, tilt a plane direction of the machining area relative to the optical axis of the pulse laser beam.” Although there is no explicit antecedent basis for “an irradiation process,” it’s clear that the irradiation optical system and excimer laser would necessarily perform an irradiation process. However, the limitation attributes an ability to “tilt a plane direction of the machining area relative to the optical axis of the pulse laser beam” to “the irradiation optical system.” The “irradiation optical system” is best understood as the excimer laser in addition to something like one or more movable or stationary lenses, mirrors, or other optical elements (without limitation in the claim). There is no disclosure of this irradiation optical system facilitating the tilt as disclosed. Instead, the tilt is facilitated by a table 351 which sits on top of movement stage 353 (said movement stage also being claimed here, though this table is clearly different from just the movement stage). The Office does not find that it would be appropriate to consider an element that would perform like table 351 to be a part of an optical system, as it is not at all optical, i.e. involved in the transfer or modification of the laser beam itself. This is better understood as a § 112(b) issue instead of a § 112(a) issue. The Office will understand the claim such that a tilt like what is shown with table 351 must be able to be done with the claimed system, and not so broadly such that a movement stage capable of supporting a workpiece (as an object worked upon under MPEP § 2115) with an inclined surface would read on the claim, but the claim must be amended to attribute this tilt function in a more acceptable way.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1–5, 7–19, and 21 are allowed.
Claim 20 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) set forth in this Office action.
Conclusion
Applicant’s amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, this action is made final. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
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
Prosecution Insights