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 .
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 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.
Claims 1, 4, 11, 12, and 15–17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori et al. (JP H06-170563 A, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office) in view of Liu (US Pub. 2004/0016730) and Kinoshita (JP H11-320156 A, cited by Applicant, translation provided by the Office).
Claim 1: Mori discloses a laser machining method of forming a machined portion (12a, 12b, etc.) in a machining area of a machining object (12) by irradiating the machining area with a pulse laser beam (pulse laser light source 11), the laser machining method comprising:
an irradiation process of irradiating the machining area with the pulse laser beam output from an excimer laser apparatus (“a pulse laser light (eg, excimer laser light) 11”) by guiding the pulse laser beam to part of the machining area and moving the guided pulse laser beam through irradiation spots (11b, see fig. 1); and
the irradiation process being performed at a plurality of height positions on the machining object moved in the height direction in the movement process (by distance h; see the process shown in figs. 1(c)–1(f)).
Mori does not disclose a movement process of moving the machining object in a height direction of the machining object. Instead, Mori uses a Z-axis stage 15 and moving table 15a on its condenser lens to shift the focus of the laser beam for the correct depth.
However, it is already known in the art to move a stage (and, thereby, the machining object) in a height direction of the machining object to achieve the same result, as taught by Liu (¶ 24, “Moveable stage 257 is adjusted on a vertical axis to maintain accurate depth of focus and spot size of beam 107 on the contact surface of workpiece 112 during ablation”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the function of the Z-axis stage and moving table of the condenser lens of Mori with the vertically adjustable machining object stage of Liu as an equally functional and known alternative for achieving the same benefit.
Mori does not disclose that at least part of each of the irradiation spots of the pulse laser beam overlapping another irradiation spot adjacent to the irradiation spot in the irradiation process.
However, Kinoshita discloses a similar apparatus where at least part of irradiation spots (depicted in fig. 8) of a laser beam (17c) overlapping another irradiation spot adjacent to the irradiation spot in the irradiation process (see fig. 8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the spot overlap feature taught by Kinoshita in the laser method of Mori to reduce unevenness (“unevenness does not occur in the half-etched portion of the work”).
Claim 4: Mori never seems to explicitly disclose that the irradiation process and the movement process are alternately repeated.
However, Mori teaches that “By repeating similar operations, the surface of the material 12 to be worked is removed or cut by a prescribed depth” (abstract), and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to repeat the irradiation and movement processes to continue to remove material by the height h until the desired depth in the workpiece was achieved.
Claim 11: Mori does not disclose that the machining object has a plurality of the machining areas that are discontinuously positioned, the machined portion is formed in each of the machining areas through irradiation of the machining area with the pulse laser beam, and the irradiation process performed in the machining areas and the movement process are alternately performed.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the groove-making feature of the laser of Mori to process a workpiece to any basic desired specifications, including by having certain machined areas on the workpiece be completely distinct from other machined areas on the workpiece.
Furthermore, similar to what is discussed for claim 4, it would further have been obvious to alternate the irradiation process in the machining areas and the movement process to minimize the number of times that movement would have to be adjusted, aiding in ensuring depth conformity.
Claim 12: Continuing from the discussion from claim 11, it follows naturally that one of ordinary skill in the art would have performed the irradiation in one or more machining areas, followed by performing the irradiation process in other areas, as this would reduce processing time by not having the laser jump around between areas by keeping it proximate one area being irradiated as much as possible.
Claim 15: Mori does not disclose that a diameter of each irradiation spot is 30 µm to 2 mm inclusive.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the irradiation spot diameter is a results-effective variable (dependent upon the material being processed, the desired processing, and other considerations such as acceptable processing speed), and would have determined an appropriate spot diameter, including within the claimed range, by routine experimentation.
Claim 16: Mori does not disclose that pulse energy of the pulse laser beam is 0.1 mJ to 30 mJ inclusive.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to recognize that the pulse laser beam energy was a results-effective variable that would need to be strong enough to remove material from the workpiece, but not so strong as to damage the workpiece, and would have determined an appropriate pulse energy, including within the claimed range, by routine experimentation.
Claim 17: Modified as per claim 1 above, Kinoshita does not disclose that an amount of difference between each irradiation spot and another irradiation spot adjacent to the irradiation spot is 0.5% to 100% inclusive of a diameter of the irradiation spot.
However, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, one of ordinary skill in the art would have appreciated, at least from figs. 8 and 13, that Kinoshita was clearly suggesting a meaningful degree of overlap, and would have at least found it obvious to institute a diameter overlap of greater than 0.5%.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Liu and Kinoshita as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Marti et al. (US Pub. 2018/0318963).
Mori does not disclose that the machining object is disposed in an internal space of a housing in which inert gas flows.
However, Marti discloses a similar system where a machining object (22) is disposed in an internal space of a housing (28) in which inert gas flows (¶ 11, “The fluid used is preferably air but can be in some cases other gases such as nitrogen, helium, neon, argon, krypton, xenon and/or radon”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the housing and inert gas taught by Marti in the laser machining method of Mori to prevent oxidation on the workpiece.
Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mori in view of Liu, Kinoshita, and Rumsby (US Pub. 2011/0259631).
Mori discloses a laser machining system for forming a machined portion (12a, 12b, etc.) in a machining area of a machining object (12) by irradiating the machining area with a pulse laser beam (pulse laser light source 11), the laser machining system comprising:
an irradiation optical system (10, 13, 14) configured to irradiate the machining area with the pulse laser beam output from an excimer laser apparatus (“a pulse laser light (eg, excimer laser light) 11”) by guiding the pulse laser beam to part of the machining area and moving the guided pulse laser beam through irradiation spots (illustrated in fig. 1);
a movement stage (16), and
the irradiation optical system performing irradiation with the pulse laser beam at a plurality of height positions on the machining object moved in the height direction (illustrated in fig. 1).
Mori does not disclose its movement stage being configured to move the machining object in a height direction of the machining object. Instead, Mori uses a Z-axis stage 15 and moving table 15a on its condenser lens to shift the focus of the laser beam for the correct depth.
However, it is already known in the art to move a stage (and, thereby, the machining object) in a height direction of the machining object to achieve the same result, as taught by Liu (¶ 24, “Moveable stage 257 is adjusted on a vertical axis to maintain accurate depth of focus and spot size of beam 107 on the contact surface of workpiece 112 during ablation”).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to replace the function of the Z-axis stage and moving table of the condenser lens of Mori with the vertically adjustable machining object stage of Liu as an equally functional and known alternative for achieving the same benefit.
Mori does not disclose that at least part of each of the irradiation spots of the pulse laser beam overlapping another irradiation spot adjacent to the irradiation spot.
However, Kinoshita discloses a similar apparatus where at least part of irradiation spots (depicted in fig. 8) of a laser beam (17c) overlapping another irradiation spot adjacent to the irradiation spot (see fig. 8).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to employ the spot overlap feature taught by Kinoshita in the laser method of Mori to reduce unevenness (“unevenness does not occur in the half-etched portion of the work”).
Mori does not disclose an fθ lens through which the pulse laser beam from the irradiation optical system is condensed to the machining area.
However, it is well-known in the art that an fθ lens aids in making a focal spot of uniform size and shape within an area of a scanner, as taught by Rumsby (see ¶ 26).
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to add the fθ lens taught by Rumsby to the irradiation optical system of Mori so that when Mori’s reflection mirror 13 (“the reflection mirror 13, for example, a galvano mirror”) is used, the focal spot size is made more uniform.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 2, 3, 5–10, 13, 14, and 19 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including 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:
Regarding claim 2, although processing a workpiece with concentric irradiation lines is known, there is no suggestion to use such a technique with the specifics already provided for in claim 1 with the pulse excimer laser, moving the machining object in a height direction, and overlapping laser spots of Mori in view of Kinoshita, particularly since it’s not clear how Kinoshita’s anti-unevenness feature should be maintained in view of such a movement pattern modification.
Claim 3 depends from claim 2.
Regarding claim 5, there is no suggestion in Mori to perform the irradiation and movement processes at the same time. Indeed, this would seem to disrupt the processing by making the laser energy applied to the workpiece less predictable.
Regarding claim 6, tilting workpieces for laser processing is known (see Tunaboylu et al., US Pub. 2006/0119376). However, there is no sufficient suggestion in the prior art that this be combined with the excimer laser, height direction adjustments, and overlapping laser spots of Mori in view of Kinoshita.
Claims 7–10 depend from claim 6.
Regarding claim 13, it is generally known in the art that laser processing adjacent areas can lead to thermal energy concentration with undesirable side-effects, and that distancing the areas consecutively processed can help keep a temperature of the workpiece low, as for example taught by Talwar et al. (US Pub. 2004/0084427, see ¶ 127 discussing making scan paths run non-adjacently to reduce thermal gradients). However, a reference like Talwar concerns laser processing significantly different from that of Mori and Kinoshita, and further, the reference does not disclose going so far as to process only a portion of different machining areas alternately.
Regarding claim 14, although Mori discloses that it can be used to process ceramics, and although ceramic matrix composite materials are known, ceramic matrix composites are far from a mere variety of ceramic, and there does not seem to be an adequate reason for one of ordinary skill in the art to have particularly chosen a ceramic matrix composite as the material for the machining object.
Regarding claim 19, configuring an excimer laser wavelength to avoid absorption of oxygen is known, as for example taught in Kakizaki et al. (US Pub. 2019/0283179). However, the laser processing in Kakizaki is significantly different from Mori and Kinoshita, and it does not seem that it would have been obvious to combine the references.
Unrath (US Pub. 2019/0001442) is cited as generally 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