DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This is the first office action in response to Claims filed on 10/31/2023.
Claims 1-20 are pending.
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.
Claims 1-6, and 8-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma (US 2022/0274870) in view of Bohme (US 10, 280,108).
Regarding Claim 1: Azuma discloses a method of forming a ring structure (ring in Figs. 5-6), the method comprising: forming an inner contour (42b; Fig. 5) and an outer contour (42a; Fig. 5) comprising a plurality of perforations ([0006]) by directing a pulsed laser beam focal line ([0006]; Fig. 2A) into a substrate (20; Fig. 5) at a plurality of locations (see perforations along lines 42b and 42a), the pulsed laser beam focal line generating an induced absorption (the substrate will absorbs the laser energy) within the substrate at each of the locations, the induced absorption producing one of the plurality of perforations ([0006]); heating the outer contour with a heating device (50,52; Fig.4) such that an article (ring in Fig. 5) separates from the substrate at the outer contour [0018]; heating a region of the article between an outer edge of the article and the inner contour with the heating laser beam ([0019]); and removing an inner portion of the article at the inner contour to form the ring structure ([0020]).
Azuma is silent regarding the heating device being a heating laser beam,
However, Bohme teaches a method for cutting substrate (Title) wherein the substrate is heated via a heating laser beam (Col. 10 L. 1-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating element of Azuma to have the heating device being a heating laser beam, as taught by Bohme.
Such a modification would enable to provide thermal stress and thus crack formation for separation, as recognized by Bohme (see Col. 10 L. 1-20).
Regarding Claim 2: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Azuma further discloses wherein the substrate has a thickness within the range of 0.3 mm and 5.0 nm, including endpoints ([0021]).
Regarding claim 3: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Azuma further discloses wherein the substrate is glass (Title).
Regarding Claim 4: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bohme further teaches wherein the heating laser beam is a CO2 laser beam (see Col. 10 L. 1-20).
Regarding claim 5: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bohme further teaches wherein the heating laser beam has a power of 50 W to 500 W (Col. 3 L. 38-48, Col. 4 L. 33-47).
Regarding Claim 6: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bohme further teaches the heating laser beam heats the region to a temperature at a certain temperature (the glass is necessarily heated to a certain temperature), but is silent regarding the certain temperature being in the range of 50 °C to 200 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have range being in between 50 °C to 200 °C since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding Claim 8: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Bhome further teaches wherein the heating laser beam is operated at a power within a range of 50 W to 500 W (Col. 3 L. 38-48, Col. 4 L. 33-47), a frequency within a certain frequency range (the pulse laser has necessarily a frequency), a spot size diameter within a certain spot size range (the pulse laser has necessarily a frequency), and a translation speed within a certain speed range (the pulse laser has necessarily a certain speed) , but is silent regarding the frequency range being from 5 kHz to 50 kHz, the spot; the spot size range being from 2 mm to 10 mm; and the speed range being from 4 mn/min to 30 mn/min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the frequency range being from 5 kHz to 50 kHz, the spot; the spot size range being from 2 mm to 10 mm; and the speed range being from 4 mn/min to 30 mn/min since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding Claim 9: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Azuma further discloses wherein the spacing between perforations is in a certain spacing range (a spacing between perforations is necessarily present), but is silent regarding the spacing range being from 4.0 µm to 25 µm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the spacing range being from 4.0 µm to 25 µm, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding Claim 10: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Azuma further discloses wherein individual perforations of the plurality of perforations have a diameter in a certain diameter range (the perforations have necessarily a certain diameters), but is silent regarding the diameter range being from 50 µn to 500 nm.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the diameter range being from 50 µm to 500 nm since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding Claim 11: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Azuma further discloses wherein removing the inner portion from the article comprises applying a force to the inner portion ([0083])
Claims 12-14, 16-17, and 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma (US 2022/0274870) in view of Lin (US 2021/0387287).
Regarding Claim 12: Azuma discloses a system (system implementing the method, see tittle) for forming a ring structure (ring in Figs. 5-6), having a substrate (20; Fig. 5); an actuator (see [0100] wherein the movement is controlled and thus actuator is present) for moving a perforation laser source ([0006]; 30; Fig. 2A); a perforation laser assembly (([0006]; Fig. 2A) comprising a perforation laser source (30; Fig. 2A) and at least one lens (0093); a heating assembly (elements operatively coupled to 50, 52; Fig. 4) comprising a heating laser source (50; 52; Fig. 4); and a controller (see [0100] wherein since controlling is performed a controller is necessarily present) programmed to control the actuator, the perforation laser source, and the heating device (see [0100]) to: form an inner contour (42b; Fig. 5) and an outer contour (42a; Fig. 5) comprising a plurality of perforations ([0006]) by directing a pulsed laser beam focal line ([0006]; Fig. 2A) from the perforation laser source into the substrate at a plurality of locations (see perforations along lines 42b and 42a), the pulsed laser beam focal line generating an induced absorption (the substrate will absorbs the laser energy) within the substrate at each of the locations, the induced absorption producing one of the plurality of perforations ([0006]); and heat the outer contour with the heating device such that an article separates from the substrate at the outer contour ([0019]), and heat a region of the article between an outer edge (edge of the substrate) of the article and the inner contour with the heating laser beam such that an inner portion of the article is removable at the inner contour to form the ring structure (0019-20).
Azuma is silent regarding a carrier having a surface for receiving the substrate; an actuator for translating the carrier in at least two directions; the heating device assembly being a heating laser beam assembly comprising a heating laser source and at least one focusing lens.
However, Lin teaches a system (system implementing the method, see tittle) for forming a ring structure (ring in Fig. 4), comprising a carrier (16, 18, 19; Fig. 1) having a surface (surface of 16 in contact with 90) for receiving a substrate (90); an actuator ([0023]) for translating the carrier in at least two directions ([0023]); a heating laser beam assembly (21; Fig. 2) comprising a heating laser source (laser source in 21; Fig. 2) and at least one focusing lens (22; Fig. 2).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the system of Azuma to have a carrier having a surface for receiving the substrate; an actuator for translating the carrier in at least two directions; and the heating device assembly being a heating laser beam assembly comprising a heating laser source and at least one focusing lens, as taught by Lin. Such a modification would enable to provide motion to the subtract as well as to use precise way to heat the subtract via a laser.
Regarding Claim 13: Azuma in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, and Azuma further discloses wherein the substrate has a thickness within the range of 0.3 mm and 5.0 nm, including endpoints ([0021]).
Regarding claim 14: Azuma in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, and Azuma further discloses wherein the substrate is glass (Title).
Regarding Claim 16: Azuma in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, and Lin further teaches the heating laser beam has a certain power range (the laser has necessarily a power value), but is silent regarding the certain power range being in the range of 50W to 500W.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the power range being between 50W to 500W since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding Claim 17: Azuma in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, and Lin further teaches the heating laser beam heats the region to a temperature at a certain temperature (the subtract is necessarily heated to a certain temperature), but is silent regarding the certain temperature being in the range of 50 °C to 200 °C.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have range being in between 50 °C to 200 °C since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding Claim 19: Azuma in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, and Lin further teaches wherein the heating laser beam is operated at a power within a range of 50 W to 500 W (Col. 3 L. 38-48, Col. 4 L. 33-47), a frequency within a certain frequency range (the pulse laser has necessarily a frequency), a spot size diameter within a certain spot size range (the pulse laser has necessarily a frequency), and a translation speed within a certain speed range (the pulse laser has necessarily a certain speed), but is silent regarding the frequency range being from 5 kHz to 50 kHz, the spot; the spot size range being from 2 mm to 10 mm; and the speed range being from 4 mn/min to 30 mn/min.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have the frequency range being from 5 kHz to 50 kHz, the spot; the spot size range being from 2 mm to 10 mm; and the speed range being from 4 mn/min to 30 mn/min. Since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art.
(“[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955) (Claimed process which was performed at a temperature between 40°C and 80°C and an acid concentration between 25% and 70% was held to be prima facie obvious over a reference process which differed from the claims only in that the reference process was performed at a temperature of 100°C and an acid concentration of 10%.); See also In re Peterson, 315 F.3d at 1330, 65 USPQ2d at 1382 (“The normal desire of scientists or artisans to improve upon what is already generally known provides the motivation to determine where in a disclosed set of percentage ranges is the optimum combination of percentages.”).
Regarding Claim 20: Azuma in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, and Lin further teaches the carrier comprises a recess such that the inner portion, upon separation, is disposed within the recess (recess between both elements 24; Fig. 2).
Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma (US 2022/0274870) in view of Bohme (US 10, 280,108), and further in view of Muehlke (US 2016/0031736).
Regarding Claim 7: Azuma in view of Bohme teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, but is silent regarding traversing a focus of the heating laser beam along multiple closed loop passes within the region i.e. forming multiple closed lines with the laser on the subtract.
However, Muehlke teaches a method for heating a subtract (“glass”; [0020]) with a laser (“laser”[0010]), by forming multiple closed lines with the laser on the subtract ([0020])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating step of Azuma in view of Bohme to have forming multiple closed lines with the laser on the subtract i.e. traversing a focus of the heating laser beam along multiple closed loop passes within the region, as taught by Muehlke. Such a modification would enable heat more uniformly.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma (US 2022/0274870) in view of Lin (US 2021/0387287), and further in view of Bohme (US 10, 280,108).
Regarding Claim 15: Azuma in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, as stated above, but is silent regarding the heating laser beam is a CO2 laser.
However, Bohme teaches a method for cutting substrate (Title) wherein the substrate is heated via a heating laser beam being a CO2 laser beam (Col. 10 L. 1-20).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating laser beam of Azuma in view of Lin to have the heating device being a CO2 laser, as taught by Bohme. Such a modification would enable to provide a high power and precise beam.
Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Azuma (US 2022/0274870) in view of Lin (US 2021/0387287), and further in view of Muehlke (US 2016/0031736).
Regarding Claim 18: Azuma in view of Lin teaches all the limitations of Claim 12, but is silent regarding traversing a focus of the heating laser beam along multiple closed loop passes within the region i.e. forming multiple closed lines with the laser on the subtract.
However, Muehlke teaches a method for heating a subtract (“glass”; [0020]) with a laser (“laser”[0010]), by forming multiple closed lines with the laser on the subtract ([0020])
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the heating step of Azuma in view of Lin to have forming multiple closed lines with the laser on the subtract i.e. traversing a focus of the heating laser beam along multiple closed loop passes within the region, as taught by Muehlke. Such a modification would enable heat more uniformly.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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 on (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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights