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 .
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statements filed on January 19, 2026, and August 26, 2026 fail to comply with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.98(a)(4) because they lack the appropriate size fee assertion. It has been placed in the application file, but the information referred to therein has not been considered as to the merits.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Para. 147 says, “achieved as in Figures 4D and E. In Figure 4E, the laser beam 30 of the laser 3 is circularly polarized. The circular polarization may be converted into a linear polarization by a λ/4 plate 40. In Figure 4E, conversely, the laser beam 30 of the laser 3 already has a linear polarization. It is represented in both Figures 4D and 4E that…” It is understood that the first sentence is meant to be “In Figure 4D, the laser beam 30….”
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Objections
Claims 1, 6 and 12 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Regarding Claims 1 and 6, the limitation “laser” is understood to mean a laser device or laser emitting device, as laser is an acronym for the light created by the device.
Regarding Claim 12, the limitation “focussing lens,” is misspelled.
Regarding Claim 19, Applicant is kindly requested to present the sequential grouping of claimed structures in a clearer manner, where each alternative is clearly demarked, as it is confusing where each alternative ends and where the next begins.
Appropriate correction is required.
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: beamforming element in claim 13.
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.
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.
The limitation, “beamforming element” does not provide sufficient structure to perform the claimed function, and must rely upon the Specification to disclose further structure that will perform the recited function. The Specification discloses the beamforming element is, “preferably a diffractive optical element or a microlens array, which is adapted to convert a first intensity distribution of the laser beam into a second intensity distribution of the laser beam. [Para. 80] Accordingly, the beamforming element will be understood to describe a diffractive optical element (DOE), microlens array and any equivalents thereof.
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, 15 and 20 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 Claims 1, and 20, the limitation that the first and second lasers beams have a first and second offset is unclear because an offset is only in relation to a reference point. Mutually offset points is definite because it is clearly in relation to each other, however a first and second offset without a reference point is not. Particularly, as Figs. 2A-2D illustrate that polarizing beam splitter only offsets one of the points in relation to the beam propagation direction, both beams do not have an offset, only one of the beams is offset in relation to the original direction. Accordingly, Claims 1 and 20 are indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, the limitation is understood to require mutually offset laser beams.
Regarding Claim 15, the limitation that the “second intensity distribution is a multi-spot distribution,” is unclear because it confuses spatial distribution with intensity distribution. Although beam shaping can affect the spatial distribution of the laser, the multi-spot distribution is understood to be formed by offset the lasers, and thus a spatial relationship unrelated to laser intensity. Accordingly, Claim 15 is indefinite. In the interest of compact prosecution, Claim 15 is understood to require a multi-spot spatial distribution where the intensity distribution of each split beam is Gaussian, nondiffractive or a flat-top profile.
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.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 5-8, 10, 17 and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Odanaka (US 2019/0101443).
Regarding Claim 1, Odanaka discloses, A device for processing a workpiece with a laser beam [Fig. 1], the device comprising
a laser [Laser oscillator 601, Fig. 2] configured to emit the laser beam [Laser LB, Fig. 2],
a polarization switch [Half wave plate 630, Fig. 3] configured to switch the polarization of the laser beam between two polarization states and/or to rotate the polarization of the laser beam [paras. 28-29] (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses a half-wave plate is rotated to switch the polarization state of the laser beam.),
a polarization beam splitter [Polarizing beam splitter 631, Fig. 3] configured to split the laser beam into a first partial laser beam [LB1, Fig. 3] and a second partial laser beam [LB2, Fig. 3], the first partial laser beam having a first polarization state [Polarization of LB1, Fig. 3], the second partial laser beam having a second polarization state [Polarization of LB2, Fig. 3] orthogonal to the first polarization state (Examiner Note: S and P Polarizations are mutually orthogonal and thus meets this limitation.) , the first partial laser beam having a first offset after passing through the polarization beam splitter, and the second partial laser beam having a second offset after passing through the polarization beam splitter [Position Offset between LB1 and LB2, Figs. 2-3] (Examiner Note: An offset is only defined in reference to another position, and thus this limitation is understood to require that the partial beams are offset from each other (angularly or positionally). Odanaka discloses the partials beams LB1 and LB2 are positionally offset from each other, and thus discloses this limitation.), and
processing optics [Condensing lens 640, Figs. 2-3] configured to introduce the first partial laser beam into the workpiece in a first focal zone [Irradiation Zone of LB1, Figs. 2-3] and the second partial laser beam into the workpiece in a second focal zone [Irradiation Zone of LB2, Figs. 2-3], in order to process the workpiece (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses the partial beams pass through the condenser lens 640 and then irradiated upon the processing face of the workpiece in 2 different locations offset from each other and thus discloses this limitation,
wherein the polarization switch is arranged before the polarization beam splitter in a beam propagation direction [Fig. 3, paras. 27-29], the switching and/or the rotation of the polarization by the polarization switch alternately maximize intensities of the first partial laser beam and the second partial laser beam. [Paras. 28-29] (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses that the laser beam is polarized by the switching of the polarization switch (i.e. half wave plate 630) such that the partial beams LB1 and LB2 polarization states correspond to the basis polarization state of the polarizing beam splitter. As the Specification discloses that, “the intensity of the two partial beams is thus maximized… by the selection of the polarization state by the polarization switch,” Odanaka is understood to disclose this limitation. (Specification, para. 44))
Regarding Claim 5, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses, a degree of polarization of the laser beam before the polarization switch is more than 50%. [Para. 26] (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses that the laser oscillator emits a linearly polarized laser beam that is directed to the polarizing switch, and thus construed to disclose a laser beam that is 100% polarized before the switch.)
Regarding Claim 6, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the laser [Irradiation head 609, Fig. 1] comprises the polarization switch. [Para. 27] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, Odanaka discloses the branching unit, which comprises the polarization switch, are disposed in the irradiation head (609) of the laser casing (600) and thus understood to disclose this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 7, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the polarization switch is a Pockels cell, and/or a rotating λ/4 plate, and/or a rotating λ/2 plate [Half-wave plate 630, Fig. 3, paras. 28-29]
Regarding Claim 8, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the polarization beam splitter [Polarizing beam splitter 631, Fig. 3] is configured to spatially split the laser beam into the first partial laser beam and the second partial laser beam having an angle offset and/or a position offset with respect to one another after passing through the polarization beam splitter [Position Offset between LB1 and LB2, Fig. 3], wherein the first polarization state and the second polarization state are two mutually orthogonal linear polarization states [Polarization States of LB1 and LB2, Fig. 3] (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses that the laser is split into S and P polarized beams LB1 and LB2 and thus meets this limitation as S and P are mutually orthogonal linear polarization states)
Regarding Claim 10, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the first polarization state and the second polarization state are two mutually orthogonal linear polarization states, behind the polarization beam splitter in the beam propagation direction [Fig. 3] (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, Odanaka discloses the laser beam is split into 2 mutually orthogonal linear polarization states by the half-wave plate disposed behind the beam splitter in the beam propagation direction, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 17, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses further comprising a feed device [Moving Units 20, 21, Fig. 1] configured to move the workpiece and the laser beam relative to one another with a feed along a trajectory. (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses a Y-axis moving unit (20) that moves the workpiece in an indexing feeding direction, and a X-axis moving unit (21) that moves the workpiece in a processing feeding direction. As both moving units move the workpiece and laser beam relative to another with a feed (guiderails) along a trajectory, it is understood to disclose this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 20, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses a method for processing a workpiece with a laser beam (Examiner Note: A prior art device will anticipate a method claim if it would necessarily perform the method claimed in its normal and usual operation. [MPEP 2112.02-I] As Odanaka discloses a device with the claimed structure, it necessarily discloses a method for using it to process a workpiece.), the method comprising:
providing a laser beam [Laser LB, Fig. 2] using a laser [Laser oscillator 601, Fig. 2],
switching a polarization of the laser beam and/or rotating the polarization of the laser beam between two polarization states using a polarization switch [Half wave plate 630, Fig. 3, paras. 28-29],
splitting the laser beam into a first partial laser beam [LB1, Fig. 3] and a second partial laser beam [LB2, Fig. 3] using a beam splitter [Polarizing beam splitter 631, Fig. 3], the first partial laser beam having a first polarization state [Polarization of LB1, Fig. 3] and a first offset after passing through the polarization beam splitter [Position Offset between LB1 and LB2, Figs. 2-3], and the second partial laser beam having a second polarization state orthogonal to the first polarization state [Polarization of LB2, Fig. 3] a second offset [Position Offset between LB1 and LB2, Figs. 2-3] after passing through the polarization beam splitter, (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, this limitation is understood to require that the beams are mutually offset, and thus Odanaka discloses this limitation.) and
introducing, using processing optics [Condensing lens 640, Figs. 2-3], the first partial laser beam and the second partial laser beam into two focal zones [Irradiation Zones of LB1 and LB2, Figs. 2-3] in the workpiece, so that the workpiece is processed (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Odanaka discloses the partial beams pass through the condenser lens 640 and then irradiated upon the processing face of the workpiece in 2 different locations offset from each other and thus discloses this limitation.) ,
wherein the intensities of the first partial laser beam and the second partial laser beam are alternately maximized by the switching and/or the rotation of the polarization by the polarization switch [Paras. 28-29] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Odanaka discloses rotating of the polarization switch (i.e. half wave plate 630) such that the partial beams LB1 and LB2 polarization states correspond to the basis polarization state of the polarizing beam splitter, and thus discloses this limitation.)
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.
Claims 2, 9 and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Kim et al. (KR 20120039221).
Regarding Claim 2, Odanaka discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Odanaka further discloses wherein the polarization beam splitter is configured as a birefringent polarizing beam splitter [Polarizing beam splitter 631, Fig. 3] (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses a beam splitter that splits the laser into 2 linearly polarized rays and thus discloses a birefringent beam splitter.)
Odanaka does not disclose the polarization beam splitter is in a form of a birefringent crystal.
However, Kim teaches the polarization beam splitter is in a form of a birefringent crystal. [Birefringent material 101, Fig. 1, paras. 51-59] (Examiner Note: Kim teaches a birefringent material in the form of crystal (calcite specifically) and thus teaches this limitation.)
Kim is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to polarized laser processing devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Odanaka teaches a polarizing beam splitter that differs from the claimed beam splitter because it is not a birefringent crystal. The polarizing beam splitter of Odanaka and the birefringent crystal of Kim both perform the function of polarizing birefringent of the laser beam. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the polarizing beam splitter of Odanaka with the birefringent crystal of Kim to achieve predictable results because both references deal with beam splitters that function in the same manner in the environment of a laser processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Odanaka by replacing the polarizing beam splitter of Odanaka with the birefringent crystal of Kim because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Claim 2 is rejected as obvious over Odanaka in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 9, Odanaka discloses all of the limitations of Claim 10. Odanaka further discloses a plate [Half-wave plate 630, Fig. 3] arranged before the polarization beam splitter in the beam propagation direction (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses a wave plate before the polarizing beam splitter to change the polarization of the laser beam, but does not disclose a quarter phase polarization.)
Odanaka does not disclose a λ/4 plate configured to convert a circularly polarized laser beam into a linearly polarized laser beam. (Examiner Note: As Odanaka discloses a half-wave plate, it only discloses linear polarization of the light source.)
However, Kim teaches a λ/4 plate [Wave plate 108, Fig. 3] configured to convert a circularly polarized laser beam into a linearly polarized laser beam. [Paras. 69-70] (Examiner Note: Kim teaches that a quarter-wave plate can be used to, “make a linearly polarized light into a circularly polarized light or vice versa by creating a quarter-wave phase difference,” and thus teaches this limitation. (Para. 70, emphasis added))
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odanaka with the teachings of Kim to provide quarter phase shifting of the laser beam. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kim and Odanaka could be combined with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to polarized laser processing devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the quarter wave plate taught in Kim to provide quarter phase shift polarization of the laser beam. Accordingly, Claim 9 is rejected as obvious over Odanaka in view of Kim.
Regarding Claim 11, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 10, and further discloses a plate arranged behind the polarization beam splitter in the beam propagation direction. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Odanaka discloses a half wave plate before the polarizing beam splitter to change the polarization of the laser beam.)
Odanaka does not disclose a λ/4 plate configured to convert the two mutually orthogonal linear polarization states into two mutually orthogonal circular polarization states.
However, Kim teaches a λ/4 plate [Wave plate 108, Fig. 3] configured to convert the two mutually orthogonal linear polarization states into two mutually orthogonal circular polarization states. [Paras. 69-70] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Kim discloses a quarter wave plate configured to convert linear polarized light into circularly polarized light.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Odanaka with the teachings of Kim to provide circular polarization of the laser beam. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Kim and Odanaka could be combined with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to polarized laser processing devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the quarter wave plate taught in Kim to provide circular polarization of the linearly polarized laser beam. Accordingly, Claim 11 is rejected as obvious over Odanaka in view of Kim.
Claims 12, 18 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Takahashi (US 2013/0301096).
Regarding Claim 12, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Odanaka does not disclose wherein the processing optics comprise a collimation lens and a focusing lens.
However, Takahashi teaches wherein the processing optics comprise a collimation lens [Collimating lens 16, Fig. 5] and a focusing lens [Converging lens 21, Fig. 5]. [Paras. 53, 69-72] (Examiner Note: Takahashi discloses a converging lens and collimating lens that form the processing optics of the device, and thus teaches this limitation.
Takahashi is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to polarized laser processing devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Odanaka with the processing optics taught in Takahashi to provide control of the offset between spots. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Odanaka and Takahashi could be combined with a reasonable degree of success as they are both related to laser processing devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi because the processing optics allows the offset between laser spots to be adjusted before being applied to the workpiece by controlling the distance between the lens. Furthermore, Takahashi teaches that, “since the optical paths of the split beams have the same optical-path length, the positions onto which the beams are focused by an objective lens become the same in the depth direction, which is advantageous in that an imaging plane can be readily formed.” (para. 72) Accordingly, Claim 12 is rejected as obvious over Odanaka in view of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 18, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Odanaka does not disclose a scanner unit configured to scan the laser field over the workpiece.
However, Takahashi teaches a scanner unit [Scanner 5, Fig. 5] configured to scan the laser field over the workpiece. [Paras. 40-44]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Odanaka with the scanner taught in Takahashi to provide spatial control of the laser propagation direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Odanaka and Takahashi could be combined with a reasonable degree of success as they are both related to laser processing devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi because the scanner allows for control of the beam propagation direction of the laser so that it can be moved along the workpiece to perform a laser processing operation. Accordingly, Claim 18 is rejected over Odanaka in view of Takahashi.
Regarding Claim 19, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1 and further discloses, wherein the polarization switch is arranged before or after fiber guiding or free-space guiding, and/or before or after a collimation lens [Fig. 3] (Examiner Note: Odanaka discloses the switch after the free space guiding laser. This is an alternative limitation and thus met by Odanaka.) and the polarization beam splitter is arranged before the collimation lens and after the polarization switch. [Fig. 3] (Examiner Note: Odanaka disclose the polarizing beam splitter is arranged after the polarization switch, and before the condensing lens. It merely does not specifically disclose a collimating lens.)
Odanaka does not disclose, but Takahasi teaches a collimation lens. [Beam-angle setting unit 16, Fig. 5] [Paras. 53, 68-72] (Examiner Note: Takahashi teaches a laser processing device wherein the polarization switch is arranged before the collimating lens, and the beam splitter is arranged before the collimation lens and after the polarization switch. Furthermore, Takahashi teaches that the collimating lens is used as a “beam angle setting unit,” that allows the offset (i.e. displacement distance 2d, Fig. 5) between beams to be selectively controlled by the focal distance.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Odanaka with the scanner taught in Takahashi to provide spatial control of the laser propagation direction. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Odanaka and Takahashi could be combined with a reasonable degree of success as they are both related to laser processing devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Takahashi because the arrangement with the collimating lens allows the displacement distance between beams to be selectively controlled. Accordingly, Claim 19 is rejected over Odanaka in view of Takahashi.
Claims 3-4, 13-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Grapov et al. (WO 2016205805).
Regarding Claim 3, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Odanaka does not disclose wherein a wavelength of the laser beam is between 200 nm and 2000 nm
However, Grapov teaches wherein a wavelength of the laser beam is between 200 nm and 2000 nm [Para. 36] (Examiner Note: Grapov teaches a laser with a range of 1060-1080 nm and thus discloses this limitation.)
Grapov is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to laser processing devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention for a laser wavelength of 200-2000nm. Under MPEP 2144.05, a prima facie case of obviousness exists where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art." [MPEP 2144.05-I] The claimed range of 200-2000 nm overlaps with the range disclosed by Grapov, and Applicant provides no evidence of criticality of the range. Accordingly, Claim 3 is rejected as obvious over Odanaka in view of Grapov.
Regarding Claim 4, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1, and further discloses wherein the laser is a free-space-guided laser. [Fig. 2-3] (Examiner Note: Although Odanaka does not specifically disclose the mode or wave-type, Odanaka discloses mirror guided laser and thus discloses a free space guided laser.)
Odanaka does not disclose wherein the laser is a continuous-wave laser or a pulsed laser, and is a single-mode laser or a multimode laser
However, Grapov teaches wherein the laser is a continuous-wave laser or a pulsed laser, and is a single-mode laser or a multimode laser. [Para. 36] (Examiner Note: Grapov teaches that the laser device is fiber laser and may be “a single mode or multi-mode continuous wave,” and thus teaches this limitation.)
It is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach a device (method) which differs from the claimed device (method) by the substitution of some component or step with another component (step), (2) teach that the substituted components and their functions were known, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill could have substituted one known element for another to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(B).
In this case, Odanaka teaches a laser device that differs from the claimed laser because it is a free space guided laser. The free-space laser device of Odanaka and the fiber laser of Grapov both perform the function of forming the laser beam. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the laser device of Odanaka with the fiber laser of Grapov to achieve predictable results because both references deal with laser generation devices that function in the same manner in the environment of a laser processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Odanaka by replacing the laser of Odanaka with the fiber laser of Grapov because the substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Odanaka in view of Grapov.
Regarding Claim 13, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Odanaka does not disclose wherein the processing optics comprise a beamforming element [Shaping Diffractive Optical Element 1682, para. 64], configured to convert a first intensity distribution of the laser beam into a second intensity distribution of the laser beam. [Para. 64] (Examiner Note: Grapov discloses a shaping diffractive optical element that converts a Gaussian intensity profile into a flat top profile, and thus teaches this limitation.)
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify Odanaka with the beam-shaping optics taught in Grapov to improve uniformity of the intensity distribution of the laser. One of ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Odanaka and Grapov could be combined with a reasonable degree of success as they are both related to laser processing devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Grapov to provide a uniform square beam profile
Regarding Claim 14, Odanaka in view of Grapov discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, and further discloses wherein the beamforming element is configured to impart a Gaussian beam profile, or a nondiffractive beam profile, or a flat-top beam profile to the laser beam. [Grapov: Para. 64] (Examiner Note: Grapov discloses the diffractive element 1682 converts a Gaussian intensity profile into a flat top profile, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 15, Odanaka in view of Grapov discloses all the limitations of Claim 13, and further discloses wherein the second intensity distribution is a multi-spot distribution (Examiner Note: Noting the 112(b) rejection above, Odanaka discloses a laser that creates a muti-spot spatial distribution. As the intensity profile does not affect the spatial profile of each beam, the first and second spatial distributions will remain the same as their intensity profile is shaped, and thus Odanaka discloses this limitation.) each individual spot of the multi-spot distribution having a Gaussian beam profile, or a nondiffractive beam profile, or a flat-top beam profile. [Para. 64] (Examiner Note: Grapov teaches the diffractive element converts the intensity profile of each beam into a flat top profile. Thus, Grapov is understood to teach a diffractive element (1682) that shapes the intensity profile of the each spot of the multi-spot spatial distribution into a flat top profile with a multi-spot spatial distribution, and thus teaches this limitation.)
Claims 16 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Odanaka as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Flamm et al. (WO 2019197423)
Regarding Claim 16, Odanaka discloses all the limitations of Claim 1.
Odanaka does not disclose, wherein the workpiece is separated by the processing along a separating line, or the workpiece comprises two parts that are joined together by the processing. [Paras. 21-26] (Examiner Note: Although Odanaka discloses a laser processing apparatus configured to move in the processing feeding direction to irradiate a workpiece (Wa), the processing direction is in the x direction (perpendicular to the beam spot axis) it is configured to make 2 processing grooves rather than a single separating line.)
However, Flamm teaches wherein the workpiece is separated by the processing along a separating line [Processing direction V, Fig. 1], or the workpiece comprises two parts that are joined together by the processing. [Para. 25] (Examiner Note: Flamm teaches a laser processing device that produces 2 oppositely polarized partial beams to irradiate the workpiece, where the feeding direction and beam spot axis are the same, and thus teaches separating a workpiece along a separating line.)
Flamm is in the same field of invention as the application because they are both related to laser processing devices, and thus qualifies as analogous art. [MPEP 2141.01(a)]
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the application to modify the teachings of Odanaka with the teachings of Flamm to configure the laser for separation processing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize the teachings of Odanaka and Flamm could be combined with a reasonable degree of success as they both relate to polarizing laser processing devices. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the teachings of Flamm to configure the device for separation processing with the laser. Accordingly, Claim 16 is rejected as obvious over Odanaka in view of Flamm.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Nomaru et al. (CN 105397284) discloses a laser processing device with a polarization switch before the beam splitter that provides a multi-spot spatial distribution of full-polarized beamlets upon the workpiece.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 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, 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.
/J.M.C./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761 5
