Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Response to Amendment
The amendment presents claims 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13, and 15 as amended and claims 3, 6, and 12 as cancelled. Claims 1-2, 4-5, 7-11, and 13-15 remain pending examination.
The amendment is sufficient in addressing the previously indicated objections.
While the amendment to claim 13 addresses the previously indicated objection to the same, no additional amendment, or clarifying arguments, address the rejection under 35 USC 112 (b). Such rejection is maintained.
The cancellation of claim 3 overcomes the previously indicated rejection under 35 USC 112 (d).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 07/07/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Claim Rejections-35 USC 112
Applicant states that, with respect to claim 13, the claim “has been amended accordingly.” However, the amendment presented in claim 13 appears to have only addressed the typographical error indicated in the objections of the previous Office action. As such, the rejection of claim 13 under 35 USC 112 (b) is maintained and repeated herein.
Claim Rejections-35 USC 102 (a)(1) to Johnson
Applicant traverses the rejection of independent claim 9 in that:
Johnson's AOMs provide only binary path switching-either directing the beam to a beam dump or to a single working beam path. Johnson does not teach "generating the plurality of laser pulses at discrete intervals," nor does Johnson teach "deflecting the plurality of laser pulses within a two-dimensional deflection range," as stated in amended claim 9. In contrast, Johnson's system teaches binary gating between a working path and a beam dump-it does not teach deflecting a plurality of laser pulses within a two-dimensional deflection range as recited in amended claim 9. Johnson's system is designed to achieve "full extinction" to prevent unwanted laser energy from reaching the workpiece, not to deflect pulses to variable positions within a deflection range.
In response, the Examiner respectfully disagrees. Johnson teaches operating AOM 601 and 602 to change the direction of the laser beam and that the AOM’s have an “on” state and an “off state.” As such, Johnson teaches creating discrete intervals at which the laser beam passes to the workpiece 80, thereby creating “pulses.” In this case, “pulse,” under broadest reasonable interpretation, is defined as “a brief sudden change in a normally constant quantity” (www.thefreedictionary.com/pulse, viewed on 07/22/2026). Accordingly, Johnson teaching cycling the AOM’s on and off, creates a sudden change in a normally constant beam. Further, this cycling on and off deflects the laser beam along distinct first and second axes (X and Y axes) such that the laser beam impinges the workpiece 80 in discrete pulses.
Additionally, Johnson teaches in paragraph 0081:
“…AOM 60.sub.1 may in the "OFF" state transmit the laser light along an optical path 72b.sub.1 to a beam dump 94.sub.1 and in the "ON" state may diffract the laser light along an X axis (with respect to optical path 72b.sub.1) to a working beam optical path 72a.sub.1. The working beam optical path 72a.sub.1 intersects the AOM 60.sub.2, which may in the "OFF" state transmit the laser light along an optical path 72b.sub.2 to a beam dump 94.sub.2 and in the "ON" state may diffract the laser light along a Y axis (with respect to the optical path 72b.sub.2) to the working beam optical path 72a.sub.2 to eventually reach the workpiece 80. Skilled persons will appreciate that even though AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 are shown and described to alter the beam path along perpendicular axes, AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may be adapted and positioned along the same axis or along transverse axes that are not perpendicular. Skilled persons will also appreciate that AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may both be adapted and positioned to have the reverse "ON"/"OFF" state configurations (such as with the zero order being the working beam path), or may be adapted and positioned to have different "ON"/"OFF" state configurations. Additionally, the AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may both be controlled through the same or separate RF drivers 66b (not shown).”
Here, the AOM’s deflecting the beam along discrete axes (X and Y axes) amounts to the beam being deflected in a two-dimensional deflection range as the X and Y axes define two separate dimensions. Applicant’s traversal does not clearly indicate why the deflection of the laser beam in the X and Y directions detailed by Johnson does not amount to a deflection within a two dimensional deflection range. Applicant says that Johnson does not teach deflecting pulses to “variable positions within a deflection range” (page 6 of Remarks). However, the claim language is not limited to the two dimensional deflection range having or including variable positions (as this is not claimed), nor is the claim language limited to the two-dimensional deflection range referring to locations at which the laser impinges the workpiece. The Examiner maintains that Johnson teaching operating the AOM’s to deflect the laser beam so that it follows the X and Y axes reads on the claim language of deflecting the pulses within a two dimensional deflection range.
Claim Rejections-35 USC 103
With respect to claim 1, Applicant traverses the Johnson reference for the same reasons detailed above.
The Examiner’s response is the same as detailed above.
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 5 and 13 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.
Claim 5 recites “wherein the at least one processor is configured to operate the first AOD and the second AOD to deflect the laser beam along the first axis and the second axis at discrete intervals such that the plurality of laser pulses are generated from the laser beam.” Claim 5 depends directly from claim 1, which has been amended to recite that the processor is “configured to operate the first AOD and the second AOD to deflect the plurality of laser pulses within a two-dimensional deflection range” such that the deflection occurs along the first and second axis. As such, claim 1 already requires the processor to cause the first and second AOD to deflect the laser beam along the first and second axis at the discrete intervals of the laser pulses. It is unclear in what way, if any, claim 5 further limits, or defines, the subject matter of claim 1.
Claim 13 recites “after generating the plurality of laser pulses, deflecting the generated plurality of laser pulses” which renders the claim indefinite as it is unclear if the laser pulses are intended to be deflected by the same deflectors (i.e., the pulses are deflected back to the first and/or second AOD to be deflected again) recited in claim 9 or by some other means (such as mirrors or an X-Y scanner downstream of the first and second AOD that receives the pulses from the second AOD).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claim(s) 9-11 and 13 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US2005/0270629).
Regarding claim 9, Johnson teaches a method (laser system 50d carrying out a laser process, Fig. 14) comprising:
during a period of time, receiving a continuous wave laser beam (laser 64 can be a pulsed laser beam or a continuous wave laser beam-para. 0058) at an acousto-optic deflector having a first AOD and a second AOD (AOMs 601 and 602),
generating a plurality of laser pulses from the received laser beam, wherein the act of generating the plurality of laser pulses at discrete intervals includes:
using a first acousto-optic deflector (601), deflecting the laser beam along a first axis (X-axis-para. 0081); and
using a second acousto-optic deflector (602), deflecting the laser beam deflected by the first AOD (601) along a second axis (Y-axis-para. 0081); and
deflecting the plurality of laser pulses within a two-dimensional deflection range (see above and para. 0081; 601 and 602 deflect the laser beam along X and Y axis.).
The instant application, in paragraph 0080, details that the AOD generates laser pulses from the CW laser beam by deflecting the process beam 512 at discrete (“pulse”) intervals.
Johnson, in para. 0081, states:
“…AOM 60.sub.1 may in the "OFF" state transmit the laser light along an optical path 72b.sub.1 to a beam dump 94.sub.1 and in the "ON" state may diffract the laser light along an X axis (with respect to optical path 72b.sub.1) to a working beam optical path 72a.sub.1. The working beam optical path 72a.sub.1 intersects the AOM 60.sub.2, which may in the "OFF" state transmit the laser light along an optical path 72b.sub.2 to a beam dump 94.sub.2 and in the "ON" state may diffract the laser light along a Y axis (with respect to the optical path 72b.sub.2) to the working beam optical path 72a.sub.2 to eventually reach the workpiece 80. Skilled persons will appreciate that even though AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 are shown and described to alter the beam path along perpendicular axes, AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may be adapted and positioned along the same axis or along transverse axes that are not perpendicular. Skilled persons will also appreciate that AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may both be adapted and positioned to have the reverse "ON"/"OFF" state configurations (such as with the zero order being the working beam path), or may be adapted and positioned to have different "ON"/"OFF" state configurations. Additionally, the AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may both be controlled through the same or separate RF drivers 66b (not shown).”
In this case, Johnson teaches operating the AOMs to change the direction of the laser beam and that the AOM’s have an “on” state and an “off state.” As such, Johnson teaches creating discrete intervals at which the laser beam passes to the workpiece 80, thereby creating “pulses.”
Regarding claim 10, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches generating the continuous wave laser beam using a continuous wave laser source (laser source 64).
Regarding claim 11, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the second axis (para. 0081; X and Y-axis).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, and further teaches after generating the plurality of laser pulses, deflecting the generated plurality of laser pulses (Fig. 14, using mirrors 76 downstream of 601 and 602).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 1-2, 4-5, 7, and 14 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson (US2005/0270629).
Regarding claim 1, Johnson teaches a system (laser system 50d, Fig. 14) comprising:
an acousto-optic deflector subsystem (AOMs 601 and 602) operative to deflect a continuous wave laser beam of a period of time (laser 64 can be a pulsed laser beam or a continuous wave laser beam-para. 0058), the AOD subsystem including:
a first AOD (601) arranged and operative to deflect the laser beam along a first axis (X-axis-para. 0081); and
a second AOD (602) arranged to receive the laser beam deflected by the first AOD (601) and operative to deflect the laser beam along a second axis (Y-axis-para. 0081); and
at least 1 and 602 may be controlled through the same or separate driver 66b) to deflect the laser beam along the first axis and the second axis at discrete intervals such that a plurality of laser pulses are generated from the continuous wave laser beam (para. 0081; “…AOM 60.sub.1 may in the "OFF" state transmit the laser light along an optical path 72b.sub.1 to a beam dump 94.sub.1 and in the "ON" state may diffract the laser light along an X axis (with respect to optical path 72b.sub.1) to a working beam optical path 72a.sub.1. The working beam optical path 72a.sub.1 intersects the AOM 60.sub.2, which may in the "OFF" state transmit the laser light along an optical path 72b.sub.2 to a beam dump 94.sub.2 and in the "ON" state may diffract the laser light along a Y axis (with respect to the optical path 72b.sub.2) to the working beam optical path 72a.sub.2 to eventually reach the workpiece 80. Skilled persons will appreciate that even though AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 are shown and described to alter the beam path along perpendicular axes, AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may be adapted and positioned along the same axis or along transverse axes that are not perpendicular. Skilled persons will also appreciate that AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may both be adapted and positioned to have the reverse "ON"/"OFF" state configurations (such as with the zero order being the working beam path), or may be adapted and positioned to have different "ON"/"OFF" state configurations. Additionally, the AOMs 60.sub.1 and 60.sub.2 may both be controlled through the same or separate RF drivers 66b (not shown).”) [The instant application, in paragraph 0080, details that the AOD generates laser pulses from the CW laser beam by deflecting the process beam 512 at discrete (“pulse”) intervals. In this case, Johnson teaches operating the AOMs to change the direction of the laser beam and that the AOM’s have an “on” state and an “off state.” As such, Johnson teaches creating discrete intervals at which the laser beam passes to the workpiece 80, thereby creating “pulses.”].
Johnson further teaches the driver being further configured to operate the first AOD and the second AOD to deflect the plurality of laser pulses within a two-dimensional deflection range (see above and para. 0081; 601 and 602 deflect the laser beam along X and Y axis.).
While Johnson, with respect to the embodiment of Figure 14, teaches that the AOMs are controlled by drivers 66b, Johnson does not disclose at least one processor.
However, in the embodiment of Figure 13 (which shows driver 66b), Johnson discloses using a controller (62) operatively coupled to the driver (66b) (para. 0058 states that controller 62 provides control signals to the driver 66 to control the AOM) (para. 0088 states that the controller 62 functions to send corrective signals to the driver 66 or adjust existing amplitude or frequency control signals delivered to the driver 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Johnson, by adding to the AOM control of the laser system of Figure 14, with the system controller taught in Figure 13, for in doing so would provide a means for automatically controlling the driver(s) operating the AOMs, which would provide greater control over the beam positioning by allowing for correction signals.
Regarding claim 2, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as detailed in claim 1, and further teaches a laser source (Fig. 14; laser 64) operative to generate, during the period of time, the continuous wave laser beam (see claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 4, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as detailed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the first axis is perpendicular to the second axis (X and Y axis direction change detailed in para. 0081).
Regarding claim 5, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as detailed in claim 1, and further teaches wherein the at least one processor is configured to operate the first AOD and the second AOD to deflect the laser beam along the first axis and the second axis at discrete intervals such that the plurality of laser pulses are generated from the laser beam (as detailed in claim 1, above).
Regarding claim 7, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as detailed in claim 1, and further teaches a positioner (Fig. 14; mirrors 76) operative to deflect the plurality of laser pulses along at least one axis (as shown in Fig. 14), wherein the AOD subsystem is arranged within a path along which the laser beam is propagatable at a location between the laser source and the positioner (601 and 602 are positioned along a propagation path, 72, and between laser 64 and mirrors 76).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, except for at least one processor for implementing the method of claim 9.
While Johnson, with respect to the embodiment of Figure 14, teaches that the AOMs are controlled by drivers 66b, Johnson does not disclose at least one processor.
However, in the embodiment of Figure 13 (which shows driver 66b), Johnson discloses using a controller (62) operatively coupled to the driver (66b) (para. 0058 states that controller 62 provides control signals to the driver 66 to control the AOM) (para. 0088 states that the controller 62 functions to send corrective signals to the driver 66 or adjust existing amplitude or frequency control signals delivered to the driver 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Johnson, by adding to the AOM control of the laser system of Figure 14, with the system controller taught in Figure 13, for in doing so would provide a means for automatically controlling the driver(s) operating the AOMs, which would provide greater control over the beam positioning by allowing for correction signals.
Claim 8 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson (US2005/0270629) in view of Gross (US2003/0019854).
Regarding claim 8, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 7, including the positioner (mirrors 76) downstream of the acousto-optic elements.
Johnson is silent on the positioner (mirrors 76) being a galvanometer-driven subsystem.
Gross relates to a laser processing system (para. 0002-0003; Fig. 1A) and teaches a positioner (52) downstream of an acousto-optical device (30).
Gross teaches that the positioner is a galvanometer-driven subsystem (para. 0077-0078).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Johnson with Gross, by modifying the stationary positioner of Johnson, with the galvanometer driven positioner of Gross, for in doing so would provide greater control over directing the laser beam to selectable locations on the workpiece (Gross, para. 0079).
Claim 15 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Johnson (US2005/0270629) in view of Nomaru (US2007/0138156).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson teaches the claimed invention, as applied in claim 9, except for a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by at least one processor coupled to an acousto-optic deflector (AOD) subsystem having a first AOD and a second AOD, cause the at least one processor to AOD subsystem to perform the method of claim 9.
While Johnson, with respect to the embodiment of Figure 14, teaches that the AOMs are controlled by drivers 66b, Johnson does not disclose at least one processor.
However, in the embodiment of Figure 13 (which shows driver 66b), Johnson discloses using a controller (62) operatively coupled to the driver (66b) (para. 0058 states that controller 62 provides control signals to the driver 66 to control the AOM) (para. 0088 states that the controller 62 functions to send corrective signals to the driver 66 or adjust existing amplitude or frequency control signals delivered to the driver 66).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Johnson, by adding to the AOM control of the laser system of Figure 14, with the system controller taught in Figure 13, for in doing so would provide a means for automatically controlling the driver(s) operating the AOMs, which would provide greater control over the beam positioning by allowing for correction signals.
The combination, as detailed above, teaches using a processor to control the respective acousto-optic elements. The type of processor is not described in Johnson. As such, Johnson does not teach a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon.
Nomaru relates to a laser processing machine for forming a plurality of holes in a workpiece (para. 0001) (Figs. 1-2) and teaches using first and second acousto-optic devices (811 and 821) for deflecting the laser beam in respective X and Y directions (para. 0041 and 0042) (such devices are optical components included in laser application means 52).
Nomaru teaches a non-transitory computer-readable medium having instructions stored thereon (para. 0047; “control means 10 is composed of a computer which comprises a central processing unit (CPU) 101 for carrying out arithmetic processing based on a control program, a read-only memory (ROM) 102 for storing the control program, etc., a read/write random access memory (RAM) 103 for storing data on the design values of the workpiece and the results of operations both of which will be described later, a counter 104, an input interface 105 and an output interface 106. Detection signals from the above processing-feed amount detection means 374, the first indexing-feed amount detection means 384, the second indexing-feed amount detection means 433, the image pick-up means 11, etc. are input to the input interface 105 of the control means 10. Control signals are output from the output interface 106 of the control means 10 to the pulse motor 372, the pulse motor 382, the pulse motor 432, the pulse motor 532, the laser beam application means 52, etc. The above random access memory (RAM) 103 has a first storage area 103a for storing data on the design values (later described) of the workpiece, a second storage area 103b for storing data on the detection values (later described), and other storage area.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone with ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to modify Johnson with Nomaru, by replacing the processor of Johnson, with the processor executing instructions stored on non-transitory computer-readable medium of Nomaru, for in doing so would provide an alternative processor for controlling the operation of the acousto-optic elements. Additionally, using the processor of Nomaru, that can carry out execution of instructions stored in a memory, would allow for the instructions to be stored, retrieved, and altered in a desired manner.
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 JUSTIN C DODSON whose telephone number is (571)270-0529. The examiner can normally be reached Mon.-Fri. 12:00-8:00 PM (ET).
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.
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights