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 Amendment
The amendment filed on 05/20/2026 has been entered. As directed by the amendment: Claims 1, 3, 6, 8 – 9 and 14 are amended. Claim 4 is cancelled. Thus, claims 1 – 3, and 5 – 16 are currently pending. Applicant’s arguments regrading the Non-Final Rejection in light of the amendments and the interview conducted on 05/12/2026 have been fully considered (please see “Response to Arguments” section) and the following Final Rejection is made herein.
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.
Claim(s) 1 – 3, 5 – 9, 11 – 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov et al. (US 2020/0361037 A1), hereinafter "Ivanov" in view of Hendricks et al. (US 20170120374 A1) and hereinafter “Hendricks”.
Regarding claim 1, Ivanov discloses a method for separating a workpiece having a transparent material (a method of laser separating a transparent workpiece 160, 460, (0043, 0051 - 0052, 0133 and see annotated FIGS. 9A and 9B) the method comprising:
providing ultrashort laser pulses using an ultrashort pulse laser (providing an ultra-short pulses from laser beam source 110, (0117 and see FIG. 1C)),
introducing material modifications into the transparent material of the workpiece along a separation line (introducing crack propagations 172, 472a, 472b for separation along a separation line of the transparent workpiece 160, 460, (0114, 0133 and see FIGS. 1A, 1B, annotated 9A and 9B)), and
separating the material of the workpiece along the separation line (separating the transparent workpiece 164, 460 along by directing the laser beam focal line 113 along a separation line 113, (0133 and see FIGS. 1C, annotated 9A and 9B)), wherein the laser pulses form a laser beam that is incident onto the workpiece at a work angle (the first and second cracks 472a, 472b are formed by directing the laser beam focal line 113, at an angle, from the impingement surfaces 462, 464 to the edge surface 466, (0133 and see FIGS.9A and 9B)), the material modifications are Type III modifications associated with a formation of cracks in the material of the workpiece (the material modifications forms the first and second cracks (defects) 472a, 472b in the transparent workpiece 460, (0133, see annotated FIG.9A and 9B) *Note here- "Type III modification" is interpreted to mean formation of cracks along a separation line in the transparent workpiece as discussed in the specification ¶ 0088, 0125, 0133), the material modifications penetrate two sides of the workpiece that are located in intersecting planes (the formed cracks 472a, 472b penetrate the upper and lower surfaces 462, 464 and edge surface 466 that are located in intersecting planes, (0133 and please see annotated FIGS.9A and 9B)) separating the material of the workpiece produces a chamfer and/or a bevel (separating the cracks 472a, 472b from the transparent material 460 produces a separated article 460' having beveled edge 468, as depicted in FIG. 9B, (0133)),
wherein the laser beam has a non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution, with the transverse intensity distribution appearing elongate in a direction of a first axis in comparison with a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, and a projection of the non- radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece is elongated in a feed direction (the laser beam may comprise a non-axisymmetric beam intensity distribution, having a long axis and a short axis such that the defects 172 formed using this laser beam focal line 113 comprise a central defect region formed at the intersection of the long axis and the short axis and one or more radial arms formed in the direction of the long axis, the radial arm of the long axis is along the feed or the translation direction 101, (0125 and see FIGS. 1a – 1c, 2a – 2b)).
PNG
media_image1.png
647
954
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Ivanov does not explicitly say a length of a hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 50µm and 5000µm.
However, Ivanov also teaches that the transparent workpiece may have a depth (e.g., thickness) ranging from 50 µm to 10,000pm, (0053 and please see annotated FIG.9A) and the crack angle (θd) can be chosen to be any angle greater than 10 degrees, (0130 and please see annotated FIG.9B). Thus, choosing the crack angle to be 30 degrees, the lower triangle opposite side to be 200 µm and applying basic trigonometry (sin 30° = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 50pm and 5000pm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel to be between 50µm and 5000pm, as Ivanov teaches a thickness of the transparent workpiece that suggests the hypotenuse to be within the claimed range of 50µm and 5000µm and "in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a primafacie case of obviousness exists", see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, the thickness of the transparent workpiece taught by Ivanov suggests the hypotenuse of beveled edge to be in the claimed range, rendering the claimed hypotenuse range obvious.
Ivanov still does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the first axis to the second axis of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution is greater than a reciprocal of cosine of the work angle, and/or the ratio of the first axis to the second axis is greater than √2.
However, Hendricks that relates to method for processing of transparent material by use of a ultrashort pulsed laser (0007 – 0012), also teaches that the beam profile of the pulsed laser for cutting glass materials can be elliptical wherein the ratio of the length of the elongate major axis to the length of the minor axis is at least 1.1,1.2, and a reliable good results regarding cutting quality and processing speed of the glass material is recorded when the ratio of the elongate axis to the sort axis is 2.1, 2.18 or 3.1 (>√2), (0063 – 0064). Hendricks further states that the ratio of the elongate major axis to the minor axis of the beam profile can be chosen according to the type, thickness and the size of the micro-cracks to be affected on the transparent material (0070, 0145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose the ratio of a long axis to a short axis of the non-radially symmetric laser beam profile of Ivanov to be greater than √2 in order to adjust the intensity distribution of the beam profile to affect a reliable good quality cutting and facilitate processing speed as taught in Hendricks.
Regarding claim 2, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein separating the material of the workpiece comprises a mechanical separation, and/or an etching procedure, and/or an application of heat, and/or a self-separation (separating the material from the transparent workpiece also includes a subsequent step of separating by mechanical force or thermal stress induced force or a chemical etching to propagate the crack along a contour, Ivanov (0127)).
Regarding claim 3, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein
the laser beam is a non-diffractive laser beam (the laser beams used are "quasi-non- diffracting beam", example, Gauss-Bessel beams, Airy beams, Weber beams, and Bessel beams, Ivanov (0056 - 0057)).
Regarding claim 5, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the length of the hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 100 µm and 200 µm (the transparent workpiece may have a depth (e.g., thickness) ranging from 50 µm to 10,000µm, Ivanov (0053 and please see annotated FIG.9A) and the crack angle (θ) can be chosen to be any angle greater than 10 degrees, Ivanov (0130 and please see annotated FIG.9B). Thus, choosing the crack angle to be 30 degrees, the lower triangle opposite side to be 200 µm and applying basic trigonometry (sin 30° = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 100 µm and 200 µm).
Regarding claim 6, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein:
a pulse energy of the laser pulses is between 10µJ and 5mJ (the pulse energy of the laser pulse can be from 25 µJ to 600 µJ, depending on the specific composition of the transparent workpiec3, Ivanov (0123)) and/or
a mean laser power is between 1W and 1KW (average laser power can be from 10 W to about 1000 W, Ivanov (0128)) and/or
the laser pulses are individual laser pulses or part of a laser burst (the laser pulses can be pulsing bursts having sub-pulses, Ivanov (0119)); a laser burst comprising
2 to 20 laser pulses (a laser burst can have 2 or more sub-laser pulses, Ivanov (0119)), and the laser pulses of the laser burst having a temporal spacing of 10ns to 40ns (the sub- pulses within the pulse burst may be separated by a duration that is in a range from about 1 ns to about 50 ns, Ivanov (0120)), and/or
a wavelength of the laser is between 300nm and 1500nm (suitable wavelengths may include from 215 nm - 1064nm, Ivanov (0084 and 0115)).
Regarding claim 7, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the method according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam is polarized parallel to a plane of incidence (the laser beams can be S-polarized or P-polarized wherein in P-polarization is the laser beam is polarized parallel to a plane of incidence, Ivanov (0104)).
Regarding claim 8, Ivanov discloses a device for separating a workpiece comprising a transparent material (an optical assembly 100 for separating a transparent workpiece 160, please see FIGS.2A and 2B), the device comprising:
an ultrashort pulse laser configured to provide ultrashort laser pulses (laser beam source 110 configured to provide ultrashort laser pulses (0117, see FIGS.2A and 2B)),
a processing optical unit (lens assembly 130, see FIGS. 2A and 2B) configured to introduce the laser pulses into the material of the workpiece (the lens assembly 130 is configured to introduce laser beam 112 comprising laser pulses into the material of the transparent workpiece 160, (084 - 0086 and see FIGS. 2A and 2B)), and
a feed device (one or more translation stages 190, see FIGS. 2A and 2B) configured to move the laser beam formed by the laser pulses and the workpiece relative to one another in a feed direction along a separation line (the one or more translation stages 190 configured to translate the laser beam focal line 113 relative to the transparent workpiece 160, the plurality of crack lines 172 may be formed in the transparent workpiece 160,(0114, see FIGS.2A and 2B)), and to orient an optical axis of the processing optical unit at a work angle relative to a surface of the workpiece, wherein the laser pulses are introduced into the workpiece at the work angle (wherein each of the plurality of crack lines (defects) 172 are oriented at a crack line ( defect) angle θd (e.g. greater than 10°) of the transparent workpiece 160, (0114, and see FIGS. 1A - 2B)), material modifications are introduced in the material of the workpiece by the laser pulses, the material modifications are Type III modifications associated with a formation of cracks in the material of the workpiece(the material modifications forms the first and second cracks (defects) 472a, 472b in the transparent workpiece 460, (0133, see annotated FIG.9A and 9B)), the material modifications penetrate two sides of the workpiece that are located in intersecting planes (the formed cracks 472a, 472b penetrate the upper and lower surfaces 462, 464 and edge surface 466 that are located in intersecting planes, (0133 and please see annotated FIGS.9A and 9B)), a separation step separating the material of the workpiece produces a chamfer and/or a bevel (separating the cracks 472a, 472b from the transparent material 460 produces a separated article 460' having beveled edge 468, as depicted in FIG. 9B, (0133)),
wherein the laser beam has a non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution, with the transverse intensity distribution appearing elongate in a direction of a first axis in comparison with a second axis perpendicular to the first axis, and a projection of the non- radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece is elongated in a feed direction (the laser beam may comprise a non-axisymmetric beam intensity distribution, having a long axis and a short axis such that the defects 172 formed using this laser beam focal line 113 comprise a central defect region formed at the intersection of the long axis and the short axis and one or more radial arms formed in the direction of the long axis, the radial arm of the long axis is along the feed or the translation direction 101, (0125 and see FIGS. 1a – 1c, 2a – 2b)).
Ivanov does not explicitly say a length of a hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 50µm and 5000pm.
However, Ivanov also teaches that the transparent workpiece may have a depth (e.g., thickness) ranging from 50 µm to 10,000pm, (0053 and please see annotated FIG.9A) and the crack angle (θd) can be chosen to be any angle greater than 10 degrees, (0130 and please see annotated FIG.9B). Thus, choosing the crack angle to be 30 degrees, the lower triangle opposite side to be 200 µm and applying basic trigonometry (sin 30° = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 50µm and 5000pm).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to make the hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel to be between 50µm and 5000µm, as Ivanov teaches a thickness of the transparent workpiece that suggests the hypotenuse to be within the claimed range of 50µm and 5000pm and "in the case where the claimed ranges overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art a prima facie case of obviousness exists", see MPEP 2144.05. In this case, the thickness of the transparent workpiece taught by Ivanov suggests the hypotenuse of beveled edge to be in the claimed range, rendering the claimed hypotenuse range obvious.
Ivanov still does not explicitly teach that a ratio of the first axis to the second axis of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution is greater than a reciprocal of cosine of the work angle, and/or the ratio of the first axis to the second axis is greater than √2.
However, Hendricks that relates to method for processing of transparent material by use of a ultrashort pulsed laser (0007 – 0012), also teaches that the beam profile of the pulsed laser for cutting glass materials can be elliptical wherein the ratio of the length of the elongate major axis to the length of the minor axis is at least 1.1,1.2, and a reliable good results regarding cutting quality and processing speed of the glass material is recorded when the ratio of the elongate axis to the sort axis is 2.1, 2.18 or 3.1 (>√2), (0063 – 0064). Hendricks further states that the ratio of the elongate major axis to the minor axis of the beam profile can be chosen according to the type, thickness and the size of the micro-cracks to be affected on the transparent material (0070, 0145).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to choose the ratio of a long axis to a short axis of the non-radially symmetric laser beam profile of Ivanov to be greater than √2 in order to adjust the intensity distribution of the beam profile to affect a reliable good quality cutting and facilitate processing speed as taught in Hendricks.
Regarding claim 9, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the device according to claim 8, further comprising a beam shaping optical unit configured to shape the laser beam into a non-diffractive laser beam (axicon 124 configured to transform the laser beam into non-diffractive beam, Ivanov (0095)).
Regarding claim 11, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the device according to claim 8, wherein:
the work angle of the processing optical unit is between 0 and 60° (the crack angle (θd) can be chosen to be any angle greater than 10 degrees, Ivanov (0130 and please see annotated FIG.9B), and/or
component laser rays of the laser beam are incident on the workpiece at an angle of incidence of no more than 80° with respect to a surface normal of the workpiece.
Regarding claim 12, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the device according to claim 8, further comprising a polarization optical unit (optical element 120, see Ivanov’s FIG.2A), the polarization optical unit comprising a polarizer and a waveplate, and configured to adjust a polarization of the laser beam relative to a plane of incidence of the laser beam (the optical element 102 is a plate comprising, additional optical component, such as a polarizer configured to S-polarize or P-polarize the laser beam 112, Ivanov (0104 and see FIG.2A)).
Regarding claim 13, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the device according to claim 12, wherein the polarization optical unit is configured to adjust the polarization parallel to the plane of incidence of the laser beam (the laser beams can be S-polarized or P-polarized, wherein in P-polarization is the laser beam is polarized parallel to a plane of incidence, Ivanov (0104)).
Regarding claim 15, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the device according claim 8, further comprising:
a beam guiding device configured to guide the laser beam to the workpiece, the beam guiding device comprising a mirror system and/or an optical fiber (a beam guiding elements 122 communicatively connected to a controller to guide the laser via optical fiber, Ivanov (0093 and FIG.2A)), and/or
control electronics configured to trigger a laser pulse emission of the ultrashort pulse laser based on relative positions of the laser beam and the workpiece (controller 121 configured to control the laser pulses impinging the transparent workpiece 160, Ivanov (0093 - 0094, 0107, and 0112)).
Claim(s) 10 and 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov
in view of Hendricks in further view of Lee et al. (KR 100800565 B1, cited in the IDS filed on 08/14/2025) and hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 10, Ivanov in view of Hendricks teaches the device according to claim 8, wherein:
the processing optical unit comprises a telescope system configured to introduce the laser beam with a reduced and/or increased size into the workpiece (the lens assembly 130 comprises multiple lenses, prisms and collimating space to control the size of the laser beam, Ivanov (0084 - 0086, see FIGS.2A and 2B)), and/or
the feed device comprises and a workpiece holder that are configured to move the processing optical unit and the workpiece relative to one another (the translation stage 190 is a workpiece holder coupled to the transparent workpiece 160 configured to translate the laser beam relative to the transparent workpiece 160, Ivanov (0108, 0114, see FIGS.2A and 2B)).
Ivanov in view of Hendricks does not explicitly teach that the translation stage 190 (feed device) comprises an axis device that is configured to move along three spatial axes in translational fashion and about at least two spatial axes in rotational fashion.
However, Lee that relates a high-speed fiber laser cutting, (page 7), also teaches an axis device (a robotic optical fiber holder arm 100, see FIGS.5 and 6) that is configured to move along three spatial axes in translational fashion and about at least two spatial axes in rotational fashion (the robotic optical fiber holder arm 100 is configured to move with 5-axis translation and rotational freedom, (pages 8, 17 - 18 and see FIGS. 5 and 6)).
This laser robotic arm has the advantage for providing multiple axis movement freedom for high speed fiber laser processing while protecting the optical fiber from damaged due to excessive rotation and impact (pages 12 - 13).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify Ivanov's translational stage to include an axis device (a robotic optical fiber holder arm 100) that is configured to move with 5-axis translation and rotational freedom in order to provide multiple axis movement freedom for high speed fiber laser processing while protecting the optical fiber from damaged due to excessive rotation and impact as taught in Lee.
Regarding claim 14, Ivanov in view of Hendricks in further view of Lee teach the device according to claim 10, wherein the axis device is adjusted for aligning a long axis of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution along a feed direction (the robotic optical fiber holder arm 100 is adjustable to align along multiple axes of laser application the laser processing head, Lee (page 19 and see FIG.6)).
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view of Hendricks in further view of Lee modified by Almer et al. (US 20220258285 A1, foreign priority Nov. 5, 2019) and hereinafter "Almer".
Regarding claim 16, Ivanov in view of Hendricks in further view Lee teaches the device according to claim 10.
Ivanov in view of Hendricks in further view of Lee do not teach the workpiece holder (the translation stage 190) has a surface that does not reflect and/or scatter the laser beam.
However, Almer that relates to a laser cutting method and device for cutting planar glass material (0002 - 0003), also teaches that the carrier plate 4 for holding the glass plate 2 to be cut must have of a diffusing layer 5 that is composed polytetrafluoroethylene material that diffuses laser beam emerging from the glass plate 2 and to prevent interference with the laser cutting process, (0045 - 0046, 0054 and see FIG.1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify the workpiece holder of claim 10 taught by Ivanov in view of Hendricks in further view of Lee to be a surface of non-reflective and/or non-scattering material of a laser beam in order to prevent interference with the laser cutting process as taught in Almer.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Non-Final rejection on 02/23/2026 have been fully considered and the following response is given herein.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b)
The amendment to the claims, cancelled claim 4. Thus, the indefiniteness rejection to claim 4 under 35 U.S.C. 112 (b) is withdrawn.
Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 103
As discussed in the interview on may 12, 2026, Ivanov teaches some of the amended limitation of the independent claims 1 and 8 and was noted that some of the limitation of the cancelled claim 4 may overcome Ivanov. However, upon further search and consideration the amendments are now taught by Ivanov in view of Hendricks as indicated in the rejection herein.
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 DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571)270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights