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 Objections
Claim 4 is objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 4 recites “an areal removal of material” should be changed to “an area removal of the material”.
Appropriate correction is required.
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.
Claim(s) 1-3 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner et al. (US 20160031745) in view of Izumitani et al. (US 3,661,600).
Regarding claim 1, Ortner discloses “a method for separating a workpiece” (abstract, i.e., a method is provided for preparing transparent workpieces for separation),
the method comprising:
“removing material of the workpiece along a separation line by using a laser beam comprising ultrashort laser pulses of an ultrashort pulse laser” ([0064] FIG. 1 shows a laser processing device 1 above a workpiece 2 resting on a workpiece table 3. The laser processing device comprises an ultra-short pulsed laser 10 and a focusing optic system 11 to provide a focused radiation beam 12 having a focal point 13 near the upper surface of the workpiece 2. A cut line or breaking line 20 is indicated on workpiece 2, along which line the workpiece is to be separated or cleaved), “the material of the workpiece being transparent to a wavelength of the laser beam” ([0021] the substrate being transparent in the wavelength range of the laser radiation) and “having a refractive index” (it is inherently and necessarily that the glass has a refractive index because refractive index value inherently emerges when transitioning between two different mediums (e.g., air and glass) ) fig.2 shows the notch 14 (4, 5 and 6 collectively forms a notch). [0066], i.e., the damage formation 14 comprises three filament formations 4, 5, and 6. Claim 11, i.e., a separating device that separates the workpiece along a separation line defined by the material modification).
Examiner noted that Ortner et al. teaches the material of workpiece is glass (Ortner et al., [0053] In a modification of the method for separating a substrate, in particular toughened glass or glass ceramic). However, Ortner et al. is silent regarding the refractive index between 2.0 and 3.5 for the material of the workpiece.
Izumitani et al. teaches “the refractive index between 2.0 and 3.5 for the material of the workpiece” (Col.3, the glasses according to the present invention have specific optical constants such as refractive index as high as 2.0-2.2). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ortner et al. with Izumitani et al., by replacing Ortner et al.’s glass with Izumitani et al.’s glass, to allow user to process similar type of workpiece material.
Regarding claim 2, modified Ortner discloses “the separation of the workpiece comprises mechanical separation” (Ortner, Claim 11, i.e., a separating device that separates the workpiece along a separation line defined by the material modification), and/or an etching operation, and/or an application of heat, and/or a self-separation.
Regarding claim 3, modified Ortner discloses “with a single pass of the laser beam along the separation line, the removal of material of the workpiece causes formation of the notch on an upper side and/or a lower side of the workpiece” (Ortner, fig.2 shows the separation lines 14 includes 4, 5 and 6. [0064], i.e., a focused radiation beam 12 having a focal point 13 near the upper surface of the workpiece 2).
Claim(s) 4 and 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner et al. (US 20160031745) in view of Izumitani et al. (US 3,661,600) as applied in claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Hosseini (US 10,391,588).
Regarding claim 4, Ortner discloses “the removal of material of the workpiece comprises an area removal of material on a surface and a localized depthwise removal of material, wherein the localized depthwise removal of material results in a material modification” ([0065], i.e., a series of line-shaped damage formations 14 is generated in the workpiece 2, which virtually define the intended breaking face. The invention relates to the generation of this series of line-shaped damage formations 14 along the line 20. Fig.2 shows filament formation of the area removal of material).
Ortner is silent regarding a material modification having a width of more than 10 µm perpendicularly to the separation line and a depth of more than 1 µm.
Hosseini teaches “a material modification having a width of more than 10 µm” (Claim 23, i.e., a scribe line that is less than 15 µm in width) perpendicularly to the separation line and “a depth of more than 1 µm” (col.12, i.e., The process requires simultaneously forming the continuous laser filament (220, FIG. 1) within the transparent material. Fig.1 shows the filament at the depth of the workpiece (fig.1 labels 50 µm to 10mm). In this case, the filament is the depth of the workpiece. The depth can be 50 µm which is more than 1µm). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ortner with Hosseini, by modifying Ortner’s modification region according to Hosseini’s modification region, to create good quality edge.
Regarding claim 7, modified Ortner discloses “the workpiece has a thickness between 100 µm and 2000 µm” (Hosseini, col.10 at lines 23-25, i.e., 50 μm up to 5 mm thick transparent material).
Claim(s) 5-6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner et al. (US 20160031745) in view of Izumitani et al. (US 3,661,600) as applied in claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Searight (US 3,419,403).
Regarding claim 5, modified Ortner discloses “the material of the workpiece is greater than 1.5” (Izumitani et al., Col.3, the glasses according to the present invention have specific optical constants such as refractive index as high as 2.0-2.2).
Searight teaches “a difference in refractive index between a surrounding medium and the material of the workpiece is greater than 1.5” (Searight teaches the material of the workpiece is glass having refractive index 2.7. Col.2, i.e., The refractive index 2.7 should be considered the upper limit provided by the glasses of the invention. Examiner noted that it is well known in the art the surrounding medium (hence, i.e., air) has about 1.0 refractive index. In this case, the difference between air and glass is 2.7-1.0 which is 1.7). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ortner et al. with Searight, by replacing Ortner et al.’s glass with Searight et al.’s glass, to allow user to process similar type of workpiece material.
Regarding claim 6, modified Ortner discloses “the material of the workpiece comprises silicon” (Searight, col.5, at lines 45-57, i.e., silicon dioxide), or comprises silicon carbide.
Claim(s) 8-16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ortner et al. (US 20160031745) in view of Izumitani et al. (US 3,661,600) as applied in claims 1-3 above, and further in view of Marjanovic et al. (US 10,442,719).
Regarding claim 8, modified Ortner discloses the laser beam is a non-diffractive laser beam and has a focal zone that is elongate in a beam propagation direction.
Marjanovic et al. teaches “the laser beam is a non-diffractive laser beam and has a focal zone that is elongate in a beam propagation direction” (Claim 1, i.e., focusing a pulsed non-diffractive laser beam into a laser beam focal line. Fig.3A shows laser beam has a focal zone elongate in a beam propagation direction). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Ortner with Marjanovic et al., by modifying Ortner’s laser beam characteristic according to Marjanovic et al.’s laser beam characteristic, to create thermal stress without ablation and without inducing formation of cracks that deviate substantially from the plane containing the defect lines in order to minimizing the size of subsurface damage.
Regarding claim 9, modified Ortner discloses “a length of the focal zone in the beam propagation direction is variable” (Marjanovic et al., Col.13 at lines 8-10, i.e., the length 1 of the focal line 2b can be adjusted in such a way that it exceeds the substrate thickness d (here by factor 2)).
Regarding claim 10, modified Ortner discloses “a diameter of the focal zone in a transversal direction is smaller than 5 µm” (Marjanovic et al., col.11 at lines 25-30, i.e., an average spot diameter in a range of between about 0.1 μm and about 5 μm), and/or a length of the focal zone in the beam propagation direction is greater than 50 µm, and/or the length of the focal zone in the beam propagation direction is less than 1.2 times a thickness of the material.
Regarding claim 11, modified Ortner discloses “the focal zone penetrates an upper side of the workpiece, and/or penetrates a lower side of the workpiece, and/or penetrates both the upper side and the lower side of the workpiece” (Marjanovic et al., fig.3B-1, i.e., Laser beam focal line 2b).
Regarding claim 12, modified Ortner discloses “the non-diffractive laser beam is created by an axicon” (Marjanovic et al., Col.9 at lines 20-25, i.e., The optical method of forming the line focus can take multiple forms, using donut shaped laser beams and spherical lenses, axicon lenses, diffractive elements), or a diffractive optical element, or a reflective or refractive optical free-form surface.
Regarding claim 13, modified Ortner discloses “the non-diffractive laser beam is transferred to the workpiece by a telescope” (Marjanovic et al., Claim 1, i.e., focusing a pulsed non-diffractive laser beam. Col.12 at lines 8-10, i.e., typically achieved by means of beam widening using widening telescopes between laser and focusing optics.).
Regarding claim 14, modified Ortner discloses a pulse duration of the ultrashort laser pulses is between 100 fs and 100 ns, and/or “an average laser power of the laser beam is between 1 W and 1 kW” (Marjanovic et al., col.20, at lines 45-60, i.e., at least a 5 W laser), and/or the wavelength of the laser beam is between 300 nm and 1500 nm, and/or the laser pulses are individual laser pulses or part of a laser burst, with a laser burst comprising between 1 and 20 laser pulses, and/or a repetition rate of the individual laser pulses and/or the laser bursts is 100 kHz, and/or a pulse energy and/or a laser burst energy is between 10 µJ and 50 mJ.
Regarding claim 15, modified Ortner discloses “the workpiece and the laser beam are moved relative to one another at a feed speed, the feed speed being between 0.05 m/s and 5 m/s” (Marjanovic et al., col.20, at lines 18-28, i.e., The process(s) disclosed herein can cut glass at a cutting speed of 0.25 m/sec, or faster).
Regarding claim 16, modified Ortner discloses “the laser pulses are introduced into the material of the workpiece at a spatially constant spacing” (Marjanovic et al., col.19 at 15-30, i.e., they may strike the glass at a spacing sp where 0<sp≤500 nm from one another. Col.19-Col.20, i.e., the defect lines may be separated by larger spacings (e.g. 5 μm pitch or greater) In general, to cut glass materials at high cutting speeds, the defect lines are typically spaced apart by 1-25 μm, in some embodiments the spacing is preferably 3 μm or larger—for example 3-12 μm, or for example 5-10 μm).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights