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 .
Election/Restrictions
Applicant’s election of Species I and Subspecies 2 (figures 1-2, 3B, 4-6, and 10; claims 1-2, 4-7, 9-10, 13, and 15-18) in the reply filed on 06/08/2026 is acknowledged., wherein claims 8, 11, 12, and 20 are directed to non-elected Species/Subspecies. Because applicant did not distinctly and specifically point out the supposed errors in the restriction requirement, the election has been treated as an election without traverse (MPEP § 818.01(a)).
The requirement is deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Drawings
The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the limitation
“the input coupling optical unit is configured such that a laser beam input coupled into the input coupling optical unit is guided into a corresponding machining plane” in claim 1;
“the machining optical unit comprises a high numerical aperture (NA) objective lens having a numerical aperture greater than 0.1” in claim 11
must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered.
Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
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:
“an input coupling optical unit for input coupling the laser beam” in claim 1.
“a machining optical unit … is configured for guiding the laser beam into or onto the material to be machined” in claim 1.
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.
(i) Paragraphs [0129]-[0130] of application publication “FIG. 2 shows a detailed view of the schematic structure of the device 1, including the beam path. The input coupling system 2 comprises an input coupling optical unit 20. In the exemplary embodiment shown, the input coupling optical unit 20 comprises a beam influencing system 22 which deflects, or modifies, the incident laser beam 70 of the ultrashort pulse laser 7. In another exemplary embodiment, the beam influencing system 22 may also be even further upstream and be arranged outside of the input coupling system 2. The beam influencing system 22 may in particular be an acousto-optic deflector unit. This unit makes it possible to release the position of each pulse or burst within a small operating area precisely for individual pulses and with a deflection rate of up to several megahertz (random access scan). The operating area here is for example between 2 and 500 beam diameters large, with the result that a relatively small change in position can be carried out, but with a very high velocity. The change in position of each pulse in this respect can be observed in the corresponding machining plane.”
(ii) Paragraph [0127] “The rotation of the rotary optical unit 3 makes it possible to achieve machining of the material 6 over a large surface area by means of a machining optical unit 4, which for example has a high numerical aperture. The machining optical unit 4 is guided on a circle, or in the event of a superposed feed on a spiral path, relative to the material by virtue of the rotation of the rotary optical unit 3. The operating area accordingly sweeps over a circular ring into which the laser light can be introduced. Simultaneous displacement with the displacing device 5 thus makes it possible to add further circle segments or spiral segments to the initial circular ring, in order to ensure extensive machining of the material 6.”
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.
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.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claims 1-2, 15, and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Regarding claim 1, the limitation “the input coupling optical unit is configured such that a laser beam input coupled into the input coupling optical unit is guided into a corresponding machining plane” is indefinite. It is unclear how the input coupling optical unit can be configured such that a laser beam input coupled into in the input coupling optical unit. Is the laser beam input belong to the input coupling optical unit?
For the purpose of examination, the limitation “the input coupling optical unit is configured such that a laser beam input coupled into the input coupling optical unit is guided into a corresponding machining plane” is interpreted to “the input coupling optical unit is configured to couple a laser beam input and to guide a laser beam into a machining plane.
The limitation “wherein the rotary optical unit and the machining optical unit are configured such that the corresponding machining plane is guided into a machining plane of the material that is to be machined” is indefinite. 1) It is unclear the difference between corresponding machining plane and machining plane. Is corresponding machining plane is a part of the machining plane, or vice versa? 2) It is unclear how the rotary optical unit and the machining optical unit relate to the corresponding machining plane and the machining plane, wherein the corresponding machining plane and the machining plane appear to the workpiece.
Regarding claim 2, the term “substantially perpendicularly” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “substantially perpendicularly” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Regarding claim 15, the limitation “the telescope or parts of the telescope together with the machining optical unit images the corresponding machining plane of the input coupling system into the machining plane of the material, with a reduction in size” is indefinite. It is unclear what size is reduced, the size of the telescope? The size of the machining optical unit? or the laser beam?
Regarding claim 18, the limitation “the rotary optical unit is configured to compensate for the adaptation of the radius in the rotary system” is indefinite. It is unclear how the rotary optical unit can compensate the radius in the rotary system.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-2, 4-5, 10, 13, and 16-17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Curry (US 2008/0116183).
PNG
media_image1.png
550
800
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 1, Curry teaches a device (system 100) for machining a material using ultrashort laser pulses from a laser beam of an ultrashort pulse laser, the device (system 100) comprising:
an input coupling system (optical element 123) that is stationary in relation to an axis of rotation and comprises an input coupling optical unit (optical element 123) for input coupling the laser beam (LB1, see fig.1),
a rotary system (base portion 121-1) that is connected to the input coupling system (optical element 123) so as to be rotatable about the axis (axis X) of rotation and comprises a rotary optical unit (base portion 121-1), and
a machining optical unit (head portion 121-2) that is connected to the rotary system (base portion 121-1) and capable of being rotated together therewith (see para.[0031] “Rotating member 121 includes a base (first) portion 121-1 disposed to rotate around a central axis X, a head (second) portion 121-2 disposed away from central axis X, and an intermediate portion extending radially between base portion 121-1 and head portion 121-2.”), and is configured for guiding the laser beam into or onto the material to be machined (see fig.1).
wherein the input coupling optical unit (optical element 123) is configured such that a laser beam input coupled into the input coupling optical unit is guided into a corresponding machining plane (see fig.1, optical element 123 is coupled to a laser beam input and guide a laser beam to a workpiece), and
wherein the rotary optical unit (base portion 121-1) and the machining optical unit (head portion 121-2) are configured such that the corresponding machining plane is guided into a machining plane of the material that is to be machined (See fig.1),
the device further comprising a beam influencing system (light source 110) for positioning and/or shaping the laser beam in the corresponding machining plane (laser beam is shaped by light source 110), wherein the beam influencing system (light source 110) is arranged upstream of and/or in the input coupling system (optical element 123) (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 2, Curry teaches a normal of the machining plane of the material is inclined by no more than 10° with respect to the axis of rotation [Examiner’s note: Since the machining plane of the material is merely the workpiece, operator can manipulate the workpiece so that a normal of the machining plane of the material is inclined by no more than 10° with respect to the axis of rotation.]
Regarding claim 4, Curry teaches the beam influencing system enables a redistribution of an intensity distribution in the corresponding machining plane in such a way that a higher intensity is capable of being obtained in partial regions within the machining plane of the material than without the beam influencing system [Examiner’s note: Since the machining plane of the material is merely the workpiece, operator can manipulate the workpiece to receive the beam on a certain regions, and it is inherent that the region that irradiated with laser beam has higher energy intensity than a region without laser beam irradiation.]
Regarding claim 5, Curry teaches the beam influencing system (light source 110) comprises a beam shaping element (light source 110) and/or a beam positioning element, not arranged in the corresponding machining plane (See fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Curry teaches the beam influencing system (light source 110) is configured such that positioning and/or shaping of the laser beam for each pulse is achieved in the corresponding machining plane, and/or focus positioning or beam shaping for each pulse is achieved in the machining plane of the material that is to be machined (light source 110 is capable to shape the laser beam for each pulse is achieved in the corresponding machining plane.)
Regarding claim 13, Curry teaches the rotary system (base portion 121-1) has an areal design in a form of a cylinder, or an arm-shaped design (See figures, base portion 121-1) is in a form of a cylinder).
Regarding claim 16, Curry teaches a feed device (motor 132) configured to displace the laser beam and the material relative to one another (motor132 is capable to the move the laser beam relative to the material.)
Regarding claim 17, Curry teaches a feed device (motor 132) configured to displace the input coupling system (optical element 123) with the rotary system (base portion 121-1) relative to the material parallel to the axis of rotation (motor132 is capable to the move optical element 123 and base portion 121-1 relative to the material.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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) 6-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curry in view of Kiessling (US 2020/0101562).
Regarding claim 6, Curry does not explicitly teach the beam influencing system enables a redistribution of an intensity distribution in the corresponding machining plane in such a way that a higher intensity is capable of being obtained in partial regions within the machining plane of the material than without the beam influencing system.
However, Kiessling teaches in the same field of endeavor of a laser device, comprising a beam influencing system. The beam influencing system (beam source 110) enables a redistribution of an intensity distribution in the corresponding machining plane in such a way that a higher intensity is capable of being obtained in partial regions within the machining plane of the material than without the beam influencing system [Examiner’s note: See para,[0070] “a beam having low beam divergence as mathematically defined below, by propagating the laser beam 112 (e.g., the laser beam 112, such as a Gaussian beam, using a beam source 110, such as a pulsed beam source) through an aspheric optical element 120”. A Gaussian beam has higher intensity in the center.]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Curry by replacing the beam influencing system of Curry with a beam influencing system for shaping a Gaussian beam as taught by Kiessling, in order to provide a Gaussian beam for processing workpieces so that improve the processing quality.
Regarding claim 7, Curry does not explicitly teach the laser is operated in a fundamental mode, and/or the laser beam is a coherent superposition of multiple modes of the laser, wherein a beam quality factor M2 of the laser beam is less than 1.5.
However, Kiessling teaches in the same field of endeavor of a laser device, comprising a beam influencing system for shaping the laser beam, wherein a beam quality factor M2 of the laser beam is less than 1.5 [Examiner’s note: See para,[0070] “a beam having low beam divergence as mathematically defined below, by propagating the laser beam 112 (e.g., the laser beam 112, such as a Gaussian beam, using a beam source 110, such as a pulsed beam source) through an aspheric optical element 120”. A Gaussian beam has beam quality factor M2 is less than 1.5.].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify the device of Curry by replacing the beam influencing system of Curry with a beam influencing system for shaping a Gaussian beam as taught by Kiessling, in order to provide a Gaussian beam for processing workpieces so that improve the processing quality.
Claim(s) 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Curry in view of Kumkar (WO 2020254615)
Regarding claim 9, Curry does not explicitly teach the beam influencing system comprises an acousto-optic deflector unit.
However, Kumkar teaches in the same field of endeavor of a laser device, comprising beam influencing system comprises an acousto-optic deflector unit (acousto-optic deflector 32)
PNG
media_image2.png
278
500
media_image2.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date the claimed invention was made to modify laser device of Curry by adding an acousto-optic deflector as taught by Kumkar, in order to split and deflect with high dynamics and in any sequence, thus avoiding the input of excessively high energies at a single location and reducing the accumulation of stresses (para.[0049] of Kumkar).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CHRIS Q LIU whose telephone number is (571)272-8241. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Fri 9:00-6:00.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. 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.
/CHRIS Q LIU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights