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 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 following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
(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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, 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) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action.
This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: “a processing optical unit” in claim 10, wherein the generic place holder “optical unit” is preceded by functional limitations “a processing” without sufficiently reciting what the “optical unit” structurally entails. Further, “a feed device” in claim 10 and “an axis device” in claim 11, wherein the generic place holder “device” is preceded by functional limitations without sufficiently reciting what the “device” structurally entails.
Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
Structural support for “a processing optical unit” can be found in ¶ 0089 of the specification and is described as an optical imaging system comprising one or more lens or an optically imaging free-form surface. Thus, “a processing optical unit” is interpreted to mean any lens system or assembly for guiding a laser beam from a laser source onto a surface and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “feed device” can be found in ¶ 0090, 0100, 0118 and 0160 – 0166 of the specification, wherein the “feed device” is described as a table or a workpiece holder, a robot or a spatially resolving encoder that can relatively move the laser beam and the workpiece in different axis rotationally or translationally. Thus, “feed device” is interpreted to mean any table, workpiece holder, robot or encoder that relatively move or rotate move the laser beam and the workpiece in different axis and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
Structural support for “axis device” can be found in ¶ 0100 - 0104 of the specification, wherein the “axis device” is described as a robotic arm or rotational shaft that guides the relative movement of the laser beam and the workpiece in different axis. Thus, “axis device” is interpreted to be any robotic arm or shaft that guides the relative movement of the laser beam and the workpiece along axes and equivalent thereof for the purpose of this examination.
If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
Further, claims 1, 3 – 7, 10 – 12 and 15 – 16 all have limitations connected by “and/or” and the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the claims is considered to be any one or more of the limitations from the list connected by “and/or” as discussed in ¶ 0163 of the specification. The examiner notes that in the rejection of the claims herein, if a limitation from a list connected by “and/or” is not mapped to a prior art then it is considered optional.
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 – 10, 12 – 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov et al. (US 2020/0361037 A1) and hereinafter “Ivanov”.
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 using the laser pulses (introducing modification 172, 472a, 472b into the transparent workpieces 160, 460 along a separation line using the laser pulses (0052, 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 the separation line, (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 laser beam is directed along the 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 I and/or Type II modifications associated with a change in a refractive index of the material of the workpiece (the formation of the first and second cracks (defects) 472a, 472b includes first forming regions having a modified refractive index relative to surrounding unmodified regions of the transparent workpiece, (0052, see annotated FIG.9A and 9B),*Note here- “Type I and/or Type II modification” is interpreted to mean forming a region having a modified refractive index, along the line of separation, relative to surrounding unmodified regions of the transparent workpiece before the formation of the cracks along a separation line in the transparent workpiece as discussed in the specification ¶ 0027 and 0032), 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)), wherein 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)).
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 10,000µm, (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 30o = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 50µm and 5000µm).
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 5000µm 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.
Regarding claim 2, Ivanov teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the material modifications are introduced into the material by an accumulation of heat (the formation cracks 472a, 472b is due to of the induced heat by the laser pulses and rapidly increases the temperature of the transparent workpiece 160 along the separation contour, (0127)).
Regarding claim 3, Ivanov teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein separating the
material of the workpiece comprises a mechanical separation, and/or a chemical separation,
and/or an application of heat, (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, (0127)).
Regarding claim 4, Ivanov teaches the method as claimed in 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, (0056 – 0057)), and/or
the laser beam has a non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution (laser beams of oblong angular spectrum or non-radially symmetric transverse intensity are used, (0090 – 0092 and see FIG.3A)), 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 (the transverse intensity is elongate along the focal line axis where maximum intensity of the laser beam is extending, (0049)).
Regarding claim 5, Ivanov teaches the method as claimed in claim 4, wherein:
a projection of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece appears to have a same size along the first axis and along the second axis as a result of the work angle (the oblong angular spectrum laser beam is refracted at the transparent
workpiece surface to form a circular or almost circular spectrum inside the transparent workpiece 160, (0092 and see FIG.3A), thus, the oblong angular beam (FIG.3A) appears to have the same size along the first and second axis (circular) due to the refractive angle), and/or
the projection of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece is elongated in a feed direction (the transverse intensity is elongate along the focal line axis where maximum intensity of the laser beam is extending, (0049)),
Regarding claim 6, Ivanov teaches the method as claimed in 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, (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 30o = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 100 µm and 200 µm).
Regarding claim 7, Ivanov teaches the method as claimed in 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 transparentworkpiec3, (0123)) and/or
a mean laser power is between 1W and 1kW (average laser power can be from 10 W to
about 1000 W, (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, (0119)), the laser burst comprising 2 to 20 laser pulses (a laser burst can have 2 or more sub-laser pulses, (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, (0120)), and/or
a wavelength of the laser is between 300nm and 1500nm (suitable wavelengths may
include from 215 nm – 1064nm, (0084 and 0115)).
Regarding claim 8, Ivanov teaches the method as claimed in claim 1, wherein:
the material modifications comprise material modifications running parallel to a surface normal of the material introduced into the material in a first method step, and material modifications running at an angle to the surface normal of the material introduced into the material in a second method step (a plurality of contours 170 extend into the transparent workpieces 160 before the formation of the cracks (472a, 472b), that includes normal material modification to the surface (parallel to a surface normal of the transparent material) and “angled” material modifications that are in the direction normal to the impingement surface 162 at impingement location 115, (0080, please see FIGS 1A – 1C and 7A –9B)),
a material modification area of the second method step intersects a material modification area of the first method step (the aggregate modification of the materials results in the cracks (472a, 472b), (see annotated FIGS 9A – 9B) thus, the modifications intersect),
wherein separating the material of the workpiece is carried out after the second method step ((separating the material from the transparent workpiece is a subsequent step of separating, (0127 and see annotated FIGS 9A – 9B))
Regarding claim 9, Ivanov teaches the method as claimed in 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, (0104)).
Regarding claim 10, 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 with
a feed 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 I and/or Type II modifications associated with a change in refractive index of the material of the workpiece(the formation of the first and second cracks (defects) 472a, 472b includes first forming regions having a modified refractive index relative to surrounding unmodified regions of the transparent workpiece, (0052, 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)).
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 10,000µm, (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 30o = 200 µm /hypotenuse, would yield the hypotenuse to be 100 µm, which is in the range between 50µm and 5000µm).
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 5000µm 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.
Regarding claim 12, Ivanov teaches the device as claimed in claim 10, 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, (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 13, Ivanov teaches the device as claimed in claim 10, further comprising a
polarization optical unit (optical element 120, see 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 120 is a plate comprising, additional optical component, such as a polarizer configured to S-polarize or P-polarize the laser beam 112, (0104 and see FIG.2A)),
Regarding claim 14, Ivanov teaches the device as claimed in claim 13, 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, (0104)).
Regarding claim 15, Ivanov teaches the device as claimed in claim 10, 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, (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, (0093 – 0094, 0107, and
0112)).
Claim(s) 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov
in view of Lee et al. (KR 100800565 B1) and hereinafter “Lee”.
Regarding claim 11, Ivanov teaches the device as claimed in claim 10, 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, (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, (0108, 0114, see FIGS.2A and 2B)).
Ivanov 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 (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.
Claim(s) 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ivanov in view
of Lee in further view of Almer et al. (US 20220258285 A1, foreign priority Nov. 5, 2019) and hereinafter “Almer”.
Regarding claim 16, Ivanov in view of Lee teaches the device as claimed in claim 11.
Ivanov in 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 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.
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claim 1 of the current application is provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 18/336, 031 in view of Ivanov, US 2020/0361037. Claim 1 of the current application No.18/336,045 is different from claim 1 of the reference, copending Application No. 18/336, 031 only in that, the material modification introduced to the transparent workpiece being “Type I and/or Type II modifications associated with a change in a refractive index” for the current application and “Type III modifications associated with a formation of cracks” in the copending application. However, Ivanov discusses that the laser pulses into the transparent workpiece first introduce a refractive index change along a separation line and then induce a crack formation along the separation line of the transparent material, please see (0052). In other words, The cracks forms are as a result of the change in the refractive index along a separation line of the transparent workpiece. Therefore, claim 1 of the current application is obvious over claim 1 of the copending Application No. 18/336, 031 in view of Ivanov.
Similarly, claims 3 – 7 and 9 – 16 of the current application No.18/336,045 are obvious over claims 2 – 8 and 10 – 13 and 15 – 16 of the copending Application No. 18/336, 031 of the same row of the inserted table herein. Please see claims of the same row for comparison.
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claims of current application No.18/336,045
Claims of copending application No.18/336,031
Claim 1. A method for separating a workpiece having a transparent material, the method comprising: providing ultrashort laser pulses using an ultrashort pulse laser, introducing material modifications into the transparent material of the workpiece along a separation line using the laser pulses, and separating the material of the workpiece along the separation line, wherein the laser pulses form a laser beam that is incident onto the workpiece at a work angle, the material modifications are Type I and/or Type II modifications associated with a change in a refractive index of the material of the workpiece, the material modifications penetrate two sides of the workpiece that are located in intersecting planes, wherein separating the material of the workpiece produces a chamfer and/or a bevel, and a length of a hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 50µm and 500µm.
Claim 1. A method for separating a workpiece having a transparent material, the method comprising: providing ultrashort laser pulses using an ultrashort pulse laser, introducing material modifications into the transparent material of the workpiece along a separation line, and separating the material of the workpiece along the separation line, wherein the laser pulses form a laser beam that is incident onto the workpiece at a work angle, the material modifications are Type III modifications associated with a formation of cracks in the material of the workpiece, the material modifications penetrate two sides of the workpiece that are located in intersecting planes, separating the material of the workpiece produces a chamfer and/or a bevel, and a length of a hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 50µm and 5000µm.
*Note, this claim limitations above and Ivanov render claim 1 obvious, see explanations above.
Claim 3. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein separating the material of the workpiece comprises a mechanical separation, and/or a chemical separation, and/or an application of heat.
Claim 2. 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.
Claim 4. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein: the laser beam is a non-diffractive laser beam, and/or 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.
Claim 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam is a non-diffractive laser beam, and/or 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.
Claim 5. The method as claimed in claim 4, wherein: a projection of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece appears to have a same size along the first axis and along the second axis as a result of the work angle, and/or the projection of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the material is elongated in a feed direction.
Claim 4. The device according to claim 3, wherein a projection of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece appears to have a same size along the first axis and along the second axis as a result of the work angle, and/or the projection of the non-radially symmetric transverse intensity distribution onto the workpiece is elongated in a feed direction, (*Note- the bold italicized limitations anticipates claim 5) and/or 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.
Claim 6. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the length of the hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 100 µm and 200 µm.
Claim 5. 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.
Claim 7. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein a pulse energy of the laser pulses is between 10µJ and 5nJ, and/or a mean laser power is between 1W and 1kW, and/or the laser pulses are individual laser pulses or part of a laser burst, the laser burst comprising 2 to 20 laser pulses, and the laser pulses of the laser burst having a temporal spacing of 10ns to 40ns, and/or a wavelength of the laser pulses is between 300nm and 1500nm.
Claim 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein: a pulse energy of the laser pulses is between 10µJ and 5mJ, and/or a mean laser power is between 1W and 1kW, and/or the laser pulses are individual laser pulses or part of a laser burst, a laser burst comprising 2 to 20 laser pulses, and the laser pulses of the laser burst having a temporal spacing of 10ns to 40ns, and/or a wavelength of the laser pulse is between 300nm and 1500nm.
Claim 9. The method as claimed in claim 1, wherein the laser beam is polarized parallel to a plane of incidence
Claim 7. The method according to claim 1, wherein the laser beam is polarized parallel to a plane of incidence.
Claim 10. A device for separating a workpiece comprising a transparent material, the device comprising: an ultrashort pulse laser configured to provide ultrashort laser pulses, a processing optical unit configured to introduce the laser pulses into the material of the workpiece, and a feed device configured to move a laser beam formed by the laser pulses and the workpiece relative to one another with a feed along a separation line, 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 beam is incident into the workpiece at a work angle, material modifications are introduced in the material of the workpiece by the laser pulses, the material modifications are Type I and/or Type II modifications associated with a change in a refractive index of the material of the workpiece, the material modifications penetrate two sides of the workpiece that are located in intersecting planes, a separation step separating the material of the workpiece in a modification zone produces a chamfer and/or a bevel, a length of a hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 50µm and 500µm.
Claim 8. A device for separating a workpiece comprising a transparent material, the device comprising: an ultrashort pulse laser configured to provide ultrashort laser pulses, a processing optical unit configured to introduce the laser pulses into the material of the workpiece, and a feed device configured to move the laser beam formed by the laser pulses and the workpiece relative to one another with a feed along a separation line, 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, 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 penetrate two sides of the workpiece that are located in intersecting planes, a separation step separating the material of the workpiece produces a chamfer and/or a bevel, a length of a hypotenuse of the chamfer and/or bevel is between 50µm and 5000µm.
*Note, this claim limitations above and Ivanov render claim 10 obvious, see explanations above
Claim 11. The device as claimed in claim 10, 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, and/or the feed device comprises an axis device and a workpiece holder that are configured to move the processing optical unit and the workpiece relative to one another along three spatial axes in translational fashion and about at least two spatial axes in rotational fashion.
Claim 10. 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, and/or the feed device comprises an axis device and a workpiece holder that are configured to move the processing optical unit and the workpiece relative to one another along three spatial axes in translational fashion and about at least two spatial axes in rotational fashion.
Claim 12. The device as claimed in claim 10, wherein the work angle of the processing optical unit is between 0 and 60°, 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.
Claim 11. The device according to claim 8, wherein: the work angle of the processing optical unit is between 0 and 60°, 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.
Claim 13. The device as claimed in claim 10, further comprising a polarization optical unit, the polarization optical unit comprising a polarizer and a waveplate configured to adjust a polarization of the laser beam relative to a plane of incidence of the laser beam.
Claim 12. The device according to claim 8, further comprising a polarization optical unit, 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.
Claim 14. The device as claimed in claim 13, wherein the polarization optical unit is configured to adjust the polarization parallel to the plane of incidence of the laser beam.
Claim 13. 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.
Claim 15. The device as claimed in claim 10, 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, 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.
Claim 15. 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, 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.
Claim 16. The device as claimed in claim 11, wherein the workpiece holder has a surface that does not reflect and/or does not scatter the laser beam.
Claim 16. The device according to claim 10, wherein the workpiece holder has a surface that does not reflect and/or scatter the laser beam.
Conclusion
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
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761