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 .
Priority
Acknowledgment is made of applicant’s claim for foreign priority under 35 U.S.C. 119 (a)-(d). The certified copy has been filed in parent Application No. DE10 2021 119 195.5, filed on 07/23/2021.
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
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.
Claims 1-2, 6-9, and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Neiheisel (US 5948172 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Neiheisel discloses a method for processing a workpiece with a laser beam (Section 1, lines 12-16, “More specifically, the invention includes using a pulsed laser to produce electromagnetic radiation having a very short pulse width, a very high pulse repetition rate and a high average power to descale the metal by vaporizing molecular layers of the oxide with each pulse.”), the method comprising:
guiding the laser beam by a scanner optical unit of an optical system (Section 5, lines 47-49, “a refractive flat field lens raster scanning system for focusing laser radiation into a spot to remove the scale from metal strip”, and Section 5, lines 53-55, “a telecentric reflective mirror raster scanning system for focusing laser radiation into a spot to remove the scale from metal strip”),
wherein the laser beam has a linear cross section with an aspect ratio of a long side to a short side of more than 2 when impinging on the workpiece (Section 12, lines 63-67, “For example, if a 100 kW raw beam 14 from laser 54 is split into 10 sub-beams of 10 kW each and it is desired to descale a 1 meter wide metal strip, then each of the 10 focused lines will be 10 cm long and will be focused to a width of approximately 2 mm for each.”, where the aspect ratio of the long side to the short side of the laser is 10 cm to 2 mm, which is an aspect ratio of 50).
Regarding claim 2, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the aspect ratio of the long side to the short side is more than 5 when impinging on the workpiece (Section 12, lines 63-67, “For example, if a 100 kW raw beam 14 from laser 54 is split into 10 sub-beams of 10 kW each and it is desired to descale a 1 meter wide metal strip, then each of the 10 focused lines will be 10 cm long and will be focused to a width of approximately 2 mm for each.”, where the aspect ratio of the long side to the short side of the laser is 10 cm to 2 mm, which is an aspect ratio of 50).
Regarding claim 6, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the laser beam moves in a raster form over the workpiece (Neiheisel, Section 5, lines 46-55, “FIG. lOAis a perspective view of another embodiment of a laser descaling optical system of the invention illustrating a refractive flat field lens raster scanning system for focusing laser radiation into a spot to remove the scale from metal strip, FIG. lOB is a perspective view of still another embodiment of a laser descaling optical system of the invention illustrating a telecentric reflective mirror raster scanning system for focusing laser radiation into a spot to remove the scale from metal strip”, where both scanning systems of the laser beam use a raster scanning system, where this raster scanning would go over the entire workpiece).
Regarding claim 7, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the laser beam is guided before the scanner optical unit through a collimator (Section 14, lines 33-34, “A scanning focused spot optical beam delivery method
can also be used to remove the oxide layer (scale).”, and Section 14, lines 39-41, “One beam 57 then is passed through an upcollimator 134 which increases the beam diameter and decreases the beam divergence.”, and Section 14, lines 47-51, “Upcollimated ( or down-collimated) beam 136 is passed through a pair of mirrors 138 and 140 that direct a beam 142 at the proper angle into a scanning mechanism 144 that may be a rotating polygon or oscillating mirror 146.”) and after the scanner optical unit through a focusing optical unit (Section 14, lines 51-54, “Abeam 148 then is passed though a flat field focusing lens 150 focusing collimated beam 148 to a desired spot size 154 onto the surface of metal strip 40 to be descaled.”), the collimator shaping the laser beam asymmetrically (Fig. 10B, where a similar scanning system is shown to include a collimator in 134, where Fig. 10 C shows that the final laser beam 174 is not symmetrical, where the collimator similar to Fig. 5 allows for the creation of an asymmetrical laser beam).
Regarding claim 8, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the laser beam is pulsed (Section 1, lines 12-15, “More specifically, the invention includes using a pulsed laser to produce electromagnetic radiation having a very short pulse width, a very high pulse repetition rate and a high average power to descale the metal”).
Regarding claim 9, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the laser beam is introduced into the optical system via a fibre-optic cable (Section 3, lines 51-53, “a step-index optical fiber and a lens for focusing the radiation beam into one end of the fiber.”).
Regarding claim 12, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses a device for processing a workpiece with a laser beam, for carrying out a method according to claim 1 (Section 3, lines 1-5, “A principal object of the invention is to provide a process and apparatus for using laser radiation to remove the surface oxide of a metal with a minimum of input energy per volume of oxide (scale) removed.”),
wherein the device comprises the optical system with the scanner optical unit, wherein the laser beam is guided by the scanner optical unit (Section 14, lines 50-51, “a scanning mechanism 144 that may be a rotating polygon or oscillating mirror 146.”), and
wherein the optical system is configured to shape the laser beam so that the laser beam has a linear cross section with the aspect ratio of the long side to the short side of more than 2 when impinging on the workpiece (Section 12, lines 63-67, “For example, if a 100 kW raw beam 14 from laser 54 is split into 10 sub-beams of 10 kW each and it is desired to descale a 1 meter wide metal strip, then each of the 10 focused lines will be 10 cm long and will be focused to a width of approximately 2 mm for each.”, where the aspect ratio of the long side to the short side of the laser is 10 cm to 2 mm, which is an aspect ratio of 50, where there is an optical system to shape the laser beam to achieve the cross section, Section 9, lines 41-53, “A divergent electromagnet radiation beam 24 then is passed through a first cylindrical lens 26 for collimating beam 24 into a collimated beam 28 in a vertical x-direction 48. Vertically collimated beam 28 then passes through a second cylindrical lens 30 for collimating beam in a horizontal y-direction 50 into a beam 32. Beam 32 is now collimated in both the horizontal and vertical directions by the anamorphic upcollimator created by the combination of lenses 22, 26, and 30. By judicious choice of focal lengths and spacings of these three lenses, it is possible to independently adjust the horizontal size and degree of horizontal collimation and the vertical size and degree of vertical collimation of beam 32 exiting element 30.”).
Regarding claim 13, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above, discloses wherein the device comprises a collimator upstream of the scanner optical unit for asymmetric shaping of the laser beam (Section 14, lines 33-34, “A scanning focused spot optical beam delivery method can also be used to remove the oxide layer (scale).”, and Section 14, lines 39-41, “One beam 57 then is passed through an upcollimator 134 which increases the beam diameter and decreases the beam divergence.”, and Section 14, lines 47-51, “Upcollimated ( or down-collimated) beam 136 is passed through a pair of mirrors 138 and 140 that direct a beam 142 at the proper angle into a scanning mechanism 144 that may be a rotating polygon or oscillating mirror 146.”, and Fig. 10B, where a similar scanning system is shown to include a collimator in 134, where Fig. 10 C shows that the final laser beam 174 is not symmetrical, where the collimator similar to Fig. 5 allows for the creation of an asymmetrical laser beam).
Regarding claim 14, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 13, as set forth above, discloses wherein the collimator, for individual collimation of the laser beam, is configured symmetrically with respect to two mutually perpendicular spatial directions (Section 14, lines 39-41, “One beam 57 then is passed through an upcollimator 134 which increases the beam diameter and decreases the beam divergence.”, where Fig. 10A shows that the collimator 134 appears to be symmetrical in the X, Y, and Z axes; where it has been held that mere changes in shape are obvious modifications to make. In re Dailey, 357 F.2d 669, 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). It is the Examiner’s position that even if the collimator in Neiheisel was not symmetrical, it would be a mere matter of altering the shape of the collimator in order to make it symmetrical, where the end function of the internal structure of the collimator would remain the same. As a result, altering a collimator’s shape would be a mere matter of user design choice).
Regarding claim 15, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 12, as set forth above, discloses wherein the device comprises a spherical focusing optical unit downstream of the scanner optical unit (Section 14, lines 51-54, “A beam 148 then is passed though a flat field focusing lens 150 focusing collimated beam 148 to a desired spot size 154 onto the surface of metal strip 40 to be descaled.”, and Fig. 10A, where the focusing lens 150 is shown to be a spherical focusing optical unit that is downstream the scanner optical unit 144).
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.
Claims 3-5 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neiheisel (US 5948172 A1) in view of Abramov et al. (KR 20190124324 A, hereinafter Abramov).
Regarding claim 3, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above.
Neiheisel does not disclose:
wherein the laser beam moves in a longitudinal direction and a repeating scan transverse direction, the scan transverse direction being aligned transversely with respect to the longitudinal direction, a movement speed of the laser beam in the scan transverse direction being greater than in the longitudinal direction, and the long side of the linear cross section extending in the longitudinal direction.
However, Abramov discloses, in the similar field of methods for processing workpieces with laser beams (Abstract, “exposing the separation path on the glass web to a laser beam”), where the laser beam moves in a longitudinal direction and a repeated scan transverse direction, where the scan transverse direction is aligned transversely with respect to the longitudinal direction (Page 7, Para. 2, “As the polygon reflector 215 continuously rotates counterclockwise 217 with respect to the first axis of rotation 218, the angle of the first reflective surface segment 219a changes to cause the laser beam spot 209. ) Moves along the direction 225 extending from the first outer edge portion 211a of the glass ribbon 103 toward the second outer edge portion 211b.”, and Page 15, Para. 2, “As such, the laser beam spot 209 remains on the same separation path 151 even if the glass ribbon 103 moves in the conveying direction 1001 (eg, the draw direction). Continuously heating 151 and consequently increasing thermal stress along the separation path 151 continuously.”, where the movement of the laser beam across the substrate in the direction 225 is construed as the scan transverse direction, where the movement of the laser beam due to the substrate’s rotation in the conveying direction 1001 is construed as the longitudinal direction, where these directions are perpendicular or transverse each other), where the movement speed of the laser beam in the scan transverse direction is greater than in the longitudinal direction (Page 7, Para. 2 from end, “The laser beam spot may move along the single direction 225 at various speeds depending on the rotational speed of the polygon reflector 215. For example, the laser beam spot may range from about 0.5 km / s to about 6 km / s, such as from about 1 km / s to about 5 km / s, such as from about 2 km / s to about 4 km / s, along the separation path 151. It can travel at about 3km / s.”, and Page 19, Para. 3 from end, “The controller compares this position with the position of the separation path and presently the second rotation of the second rotating surface 206, 1402 such that the laser beam spot continuously intersects with the corresponding major surface of the glass ribbon. The actuator can be operated to increase, decrease or maintain the rotational speed about the axes 227, 1403.”, and where the goal is to heat the separation line 151, Page 6, Para. 1, “As discussed below, the laser beam may heat the separation path 151 on the glass ribbon.”, where this means that the laser beam traveling across the direction 225 or scan transverse direction needs to have a greater speed than the laser beam traveling across the conveying direction 1001 in order to heat up the separation path 151). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser beam with a long and short side from Neiheisel to be positioned within the separation line 151 traveling in the two directions 225 and 1001 with the speeds as taught by Abramov, where the positioning of the laser beam from Neiheisel into the separation line 151 can have the long side being in the longitudinal direction as there are only two different configurations to place the laser beam in.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to allow for the scan transverse movement to create repeated stress on the substrate, which can help with creating a desired ablation, as stated by Abramov, Page 18, Para. 1, “Also as described above, repeatedly passing the laser beam spot may optionally include repeatedly passing the laser beam spot in a single direction (eg, the direction 225). Repetitive passing of the laser beam spot in a single direction may involve quickly separating the glass sheet 104 from the glass ribbon 103 as soon as a defect is created on the separation path as described in more detail below. Can help.”.
Regarding claim 4, modified Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 3, as set forth above, discloses wherein the long side of the linear cross section extends perpendicularly to the scan transverse direction (Teaching from Abramov, Page 7, Para. 2, “As the polygon reflector 215 continuously rotates counterclockwise 217 with respect to the first axis of rotation 218, the angle of the first reflective surface segment 219a changes to cause the laser beam spot 209. ) Moves along the direction 225 extending from the first outer edge portion 211a of the glass ribbon 103 toward the second outer edge portion 211b.”, and Page 15, Para. 2, “As such, the laser beam spot 209 remains on the same separation path 151 even if the glass ribbon 103 moves in the conveying direction 1001 (eg, the draw direction). Continuously heating 151 and consequently increasing thermal stress along the separation path 151 continuously.”, where the movement of the laser beam across the substrate in the direction 225 is construed as the scan transverse direction, where the movement of the laser beam due to the substrate’s rotation in the conveying direction 1001 is construed as the longitudinal direction, where these directions are perpendicular or transverse each other; Neiheisel, where the long side would be aligned with the longitudinal direction and then the short side would be aligned with the scan transverse direction, where the long and short sides are perpendicular).
Regarding claim 5, modified Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 3, as set forth above, discloses wherein the long side of the linear cross section and the short side of the linear cross section respectively extend in directions of principal axes of the optical system (Neiheisel, Fig. 5, where the long side of the laser beam extends in the principal Y-axis of the optical system and the short side of the laser beam extends in the principal X-axis of the optical system).
Claims 10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neiheisel (US 5948172 A1) in view of Yoo et al. (WO 2019245715 A1, hereinafter Yoo) and Patil (US 20210139321 A1).
Regarding claim 10, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the laser beam has a wavelength of between 300 nm and 380 nm (Section 1, lines 53-56, “Scale or rust on the steel is irradiated with a laser beam in a UV wavelength region of the electromagnetic spectrum such as an excimer laser beam having a 100-400 nm wavelength”); and/or
a gaussian or top-hat profile in cross section (Section 10, lines 22-24, “a beam 62 having a uniform energy intensity distribution across the spatial extent of the beam. This is a square or top hat distribution 64.”).
Neiheisel does not disclose:
a fluence of between 0.1 J/cm2 and 40 J/cm2;
a beam quality M2 of between 1 and 1.6 in single mode or of up to 100 or more in multimode.
However, Yoo discloses, in the similar field of methods for laser processing workpieces (Abstract, “profile of optical energy applied to the metal layer may be controlled to substantially ablate the metal layer to create a vaporized metal layer.”), where the fluence is between 0.1 J/cm2 and 40 J/cm2 (Para. 0021, “a 50um scale bar showing the resulting morphology after single pulse irradiation at peak laser fluences of 0.3 J/cm2 and 0.4 J/cm2”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser beam in Neiheisel to include the fluence values as taught by Yoo.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to select a fluence value that is capable of ablating a film, where different thickness in the film can require different fluence values, as stated by Yoo, Para. 0029, “Therefore, the fluence range selected will preferably be greater than about 0.1 J/cm2. Thicker film will typically require higher fluence to initiate complete ablation.”.
Further, Patil discloses, in the similar field of methods for laser processing workpieces (Abstract, “A laser micro-machining process called laser-assisted material phase-change and expulsion (LAMPE) micromachining that includes cutting features in a cutting surface of a piece”), where the beam quality M2 of between 1 and 1.6 in single mode (Para. 0161, “The mode of the laser beam is TEMOO and the beam quality M2 <1.2.”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the laser beam in modified Neiheisel to include the beam quality values as taught by Patil.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a specific laser beam for machining different types of materials, where a user can select different beam quality values depending on their desired use case in terms of materials machined, as stated by Patil, Para. 0160, “The laser source is an important component of a laser micromachining system and determines the feature size and type of materials that can be processed.”.
Claims 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Neiheisel (US 5948172 A1) in view of Meehan et al. (EP 3078760 A1, hereinafter Meehan).
Regarding claim 11, Neiheisel teaches the method according to claim 1, as set forth above, discloses wherein the workpiece has a metallic material (Section 1, lines 10-11, “process and apparatus for using electromagnetic radiation for removing oxide from metal.”) or a nonmetallic material as a basic material; and/or
grease, oil, a silicone, cooling lubricant, an oxide, an eloxal layer and/or powder deposits as a substance to be cleaned (Section 3, lines 7-9, “a descaling process and apparatus capable of completely removing an oxide film from a metal.”).
Neiheisel does not disclose:
a powder coating, a dip coating, a film and/or a spray coating as a coating.
However, Meehan discloses, in the similar field of methods for laser processing workpieces (Abstract, “laser cleaning a surface of the metal part to remove undesirable oxides and residues from the surface of the part.”), where a coating is applied to the metal substrate afterwards (Abstract, “Laser cleaning a surface of the bondcoat to remove oxides and debris from the surface forms an alpha aluminum oxide layer on the bondcoat. A ceramic topcoat is then deposited on the alpha aluminum oxide layer at a temperature above 1800°F (982°C).”). It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to have modified the metallic substrate in Neiheisel to include a coating as taught by Meehan.
One of ordinary skill in the art would have been motivated to make this modification in order to gain the advantage of being able to use a coating to protect a metal substrate from further oxidation, as stated by Meehan, Para. 0003, “The bond between the TGO and the topcoat is typically stronger than the bond that would form directly between the TBC topcoat and the bondcoat. The TGO also acts as an oxidation resistant layer, or an "oxidation barrier", to help protect the underlying substrate from damage due to oxidation.”.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to KEVIN GUANHUA WEN whose telephone number is (571)272-9940 and whose email is kevin.wen@uspto.gov. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 10:00 am - 6:00 pm.
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 on 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.
/KEVIN GUANHUA WEN/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
07/10/2026
Prosecution Insights