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 statement (IDS) submitted on 10/10/2023, 12/13/2023 and 02/06/2026. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Status of the Claims
In the amendment dated 10/10/2023, claims 1-19 are pending.
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:
Claim 1 recites the limitations:
a beam splitting device for splitting the input laser beam into a first component beam having a first defined polarization state and a second component beam having a second defined polarization state,
a polarization changing element for changing the polarization state of one of the polarized component beams, resulting in the first and second component beams having the same defined polarization state,
said focusing element configured to input couple the first and second component beams into said light-guiding element in order to combine the first and second component beams to form an output laser beam while maintaining the defined polarization state.
Claim 18 recites the limitations:
a collimation device for collimating the input laser beam incident in said machining optical unit from said transportation optical fiber;
a focusing device for focusing the polarized output laser beam onto an object to be machined.
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.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “beam splitting device” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0031 discloses “the beam splitting device may include a thin-film polarizer and a mirror”.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “polarization changing element” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0037 discloses “the polarization changing element can be a waveplate, in particular a half-wave plate. In this way, the polarization state of the incident component beam can be rotated through 90°.
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “focusing element” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0039 discloses: “The focusing element can preferably be an optical lens”,
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “collimation device” , Applicant’s Specification, pub. Para.0060 discloses “…a collimation device 132 in the form of a lens…”
With regards to the corresponding structure of the claimed “focusing device” , no corresponding structure is disclosed in the specification.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
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.
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 1-10, 12-16 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as failing to set forth 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 1 recites “the polarized component beams” in line 7. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim. It is unclear whether the term “the polarized component beams” corresponds to the “first and second component beams” previously recited in lines 3-5. For examination purposes, “the polarized component beams” is construed as “the first and second component beams”.
Claim 1 recites the limitation “said focusing element configured to input couple the first and second component beams …” in lines 11-12. It is unclear what is meant by the phase “input couple”. The phase is not a regconixed term of art and is grammatically ambiguous. Accordingly, it is unclear whether the applicant intended the focusing element to (i) “input the first and second component beams …(ii) couple the first and second component beams or (iii) perform some other operation. Therefore, the metes and bounds of the claim cannot be determined with reasonable certainty. For examination purposes, the above limitation is construed as “said focusing element configured to couple the first and second component beams…”
Claim 11 recites the term “thin-film” is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “thin” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention.
Claim 18 recites the limitation “a focusing device for focusing the polarized output laser beam onto an object to be machined” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. The disclosure is devoid of any structure of the claimed “focusing device” that performs the function in the claim. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph.
Applicant may:
(a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph;
(b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)).
If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either:
(a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or
(b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181.
Claims 2-10, 12-16 and 19 are rejected as being dependent on, and failing to cure the deficiencies of, rejected independent claim 1.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 2, 8, 10, 12, 13, 16, and 17 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Lou CN1484065A, cited in 10/10/2023 IDS
Regarding claim 1, Lou discloses
An apparatus (see apparatus shown in fig.1) for polarizing an input laser beam having an undefined polarization state (See abstract and fig.1, light beam at starting point 0. See page 1, lines 14-15: “… for unpolarized light”), the apparatus comprising:
a beam splitting device (1, see fig.1) for splitting the input laser beam into a first component beam (see annotated fig.1 below) having a first defined polarization state and a second component beam (see annotated fig.1 below) having a second defined polarization state (See page 2, lines 27-29: “The birefringent crystal 1 divides the incident beam into two parallel beams which are at a distance from each other and whose polarization directions are perpendicular to each other”) ;
PNG
media_image1.png
489
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.1 of Lou
a polarization changing element (2, see fig.1) for changing the polarization state of one of the polarized component beams (See fig.1 and page 2, lines 28-30: “and one of them passes through the 90° plane rotator 2, thereby obtaining two lines having the same polarization direction and propagation direction”), resulting in the first and second component beams having the same defined polarization state (See fig.1 and page 2, lines 28-30);
a focusing element (3, see fig.1); and
a light-guiding element (4, see fig.1);
said focusing element (3) configured to input couple the first and second component beams (see annotated fig.1 above) into said light-guiding element (4) in order to combine the first and second component beams (see annotated fig.1 above) to form an output laser beam beams (see annotated fig.1 above) while maintaining the defined polarization state (See page 2, lines 34-37: “by adjusting the spacing between the triangular prism 3 and the K-shaped mirror edge 4, to achieve the synthesis of the two polarized beams, to maximize the use of light energy, A high polarization conversion efficiency is achieved, and the device has no effect on the divergence angle and direction of propagation of the beam”).
Regarding claim 2, Lou further discloses said beam splitting device (1, see fig.1) is configured to deflect at least one of the first component beam or the second component beam (see fig.1), resulting in the first and second component beams running substantially parallel to one another (See fig.1).
Regarding claim 8, Lou further discloses said focusing element (3) and said light-guiding element (4) are disposed symmetrically in a beam path of the component beams (See fig.1), to an extent that the component beams are input coupled into said light-guiding element (4) at the same angle (see fig.1).
Regarding claim 10, Lou further discloses said focusing element (3) and said light-guiding element (4) are displaceably disposed at least one of along or across a beam propagation direction (OO’, see fig.1) of the component beams (See fig.1).
Regarding claim 12, Lou further discloses said beam splitting device (1) is a birefringent optical element (See page 2, lines 39-40: “The birefringent crystal 1 is a birefringent sheet”) having different refractive indices in relation to the first defined polarization state and the second defined polarization state (See page 2, lines 28-29: “The birefringent crystal 1 divides the incident beam into two parallel beams which are at a distance from each other and whose polarization directions are perpendicular to each other”), resulting in the input laser beam (see input laser beam in annotated fig.1 above) being split into the first component beam and the second component beam ((see annotated fig.1 above) upon incidence in said birefringent element (1), and the component beams (see annotated fig.1 above) being aligned parallel to one another by refraction effects upon exiting from said birefringent element (1, see fig.1).
Regarding claim 13, Lou further discloses said polarization changing element (2, see fig.1) is a waveplate or a half-wave plate (see page 2, line 57: “plane rotator 2 is a 1/2 wave plate”).
Regarding claim 16, Lou further discloses said light-guiding element (4, see fig.1) has a tapering cross section (upper portion of the element 4 has a tapering cross section, see fig.1 ).
PNG
media_image2.png
475
694
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 17, Lou discloses
A method for polarizing an input laser beam having an undefined polarization state (See abstract and fig.1, light beam at starting point 0), the method comprising the steps of:
splitting the input laser beam into a first component beam having a first defined polarization state and a second component beam having a second defined polarization state (See page 2, lines 27-29: “The birefringent crystal 1 divides the incident beam into two parallel beams which are at a distance from each other and whose polarization directions are perpendicular to each other”);
PNG
media_image1.png
489
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
changing the polarization state of one of the polarized component beams, resulting in the first and second component beams having the same defined polarization state (See fig.1 and page 2, lines 28-30: “and one of them passes through the 90° plane rotator 2, thereby obtaining two lines having the same polarization direction and propagation direction”); and input coupling the first and second component beams into a light-guiding element in order to combine the first and second component beams to form an output laser beam while maintaining the defined polarization state (See page 2, lines 34-37: “by adjusting the spacing between the triangular prism 3 and the K-shaped mirror edge 4, to achieve the synthesis of the two polarized beams, to maximize the use of light energy, A high polarization conversion efficiency is achieved, and the device has no effect on the divergence angle and direction of propagation of the beam”).
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 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 set forth in Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1, 148 USPQ 459 (1966), that are applied 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.
This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 3-7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou.
Regarding claim 3, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said light-guiding element has a length of no more than 500 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of said light-guiding element “of no more than 500 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). Varying the length of said light-guiding element is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so reduces \optical scattering and diffraction, thereby improving reflection uniformity, reducing critical dimension variation, and enhancing the accuracy of optical processing.
Regarding claim 4, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said light-guiding element has a length of no more than 100 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of said light-guiding element “of no more than 100 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). Varying the length of said light-guiding element is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so reduces optical scattering and diffraction, thereby improving reflection uniformity, reducing critical dimension variation, and enhancing the accuracy of optical processing.
Regarding claim 5, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said light-guiding element has a length of no more than 50 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of said light-guiding element “of no more than 50 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). Varying the length of said light-guiding element is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so reduces optical scattering and diffraction, thereby improving reflection uniformity, reducing critical dimension variation, and enhancing the accuracy of optical processing.
Regarding claim 6, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said light-guiding element has a length of at least 15 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of said light-guiding element “of at least 15 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). Varying the length of said light-guiding element is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so improves reflection efficiency and increases tolerance to beam alignment variations.
Regarding claim 7, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said light-guiding element has a length of at least 20 mm.
However, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the length of said light-guiding element “of at least 20 mm” since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05). Varying the length of said light-guiding element is recognized as a result-effective variable which is result of a routine experimentation. Doing so improves reflection efficiency and increases tolerance to beam alignment variations.
Claim 9 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Staver (US 5659415 A)
Regarding claim 9, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said focusing element and said light-guiding element are disposed asymmetrically in a beam path of the component beams, to an extent that the component beams are input coupled into said light-guiding element at different angles.
Staver discloses an optical modulator, comprising:
said focusing element (22, see fig.1) and said light-guiding element (24, see fig.1) are disposed asymmetrically in a beam path of the component beams (output of the mirror 18, see fig.1), to an extent that the component beams (output of the mirror 18, see fig.1) are input coupled into said light-guiding element (24) at different angles (See fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have modified said focusing element and said light-guiding element of Lou to be “disposed asymmetrically in a beam path of the component beams, to an extent that the component beams are input coupled into said light-guiding element at different angles” as taught by Staver. Doing so allows to precise control over beam shape, power distribution, and mode structure, enabling performance that is not achievable with symmetric designs.
Claim 11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Feijun CN2178906Y
Regarding claim 11, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said beam splitting device includes: a thin-film polarizer disposed at an angle in a beam path of the input laser beam causing a first component of the input laser beam, having the first defined polarization state, to be transmitted through said thin-film polarizer as the first component beam and causing a second component of the input laser beam, having the second defined polarization state, to be reflected at a surface of said thin-film polarizer as the second component beam; and a mirror disposed at an angle in a beam path of one of the component beams to reflect an incident component beam and cause the incident component beam to be aligned substantially parallel to another component beam.
Feijun discloses an Optical system, comprising:
said beam splitting device (combo 1-2, see fig.2) includes:
a thin-film polarizer (see annotated fig.2 below) disposed at an angle in a beam path of the input laser beam causing a first component of the input laser beam, having the first defined polarization state, to be transmitted through said thin-film polarizer as the first component beam (see annotated fig.2 below) and causing a second component of the input laser beam, having the second defined polarization state, to be reflected at a surface of said thin-film polarizer as the second component beam (see annotated fig.2 below);
PNG
media_image3.png
383
896
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Annotated fig.2 of Feijun
and a mirror (2, see fig.2) disposed at an angle in a beam path of one of the component beams to reflect an incident component beam (See fig.2) and cause the incident component beam to be aligned substantially parallel to another component beam (See fig.2).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted said beam splitting device of Lou by the one as taught by Feijun, so as “said beam splitting device includes: a thin-film polarizer disposed at an angle in a beam path of the input laser beam causing a first component of the input laser beam, having the first defined polarization state, to be transmitted through said thin-film polarizer as the first component beam and causing a second component of the input laser beam, having the second defined polarization state, to be reflected at a surface of said thin-film polarizer as the second component beam; and a mirror disposed at an angle in a beam path of one of the component beams to reflect an incident component beam and cause the incident component beam to be aligned substantially parallel to another component beam” as claimed, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of splitting the laser beam input into the first and second component beams.
Claim 14 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Eckhard DE102007017364A1, cited in 2/6/26 IDS
Regarding claim 14, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said focusing element is an optical lens.
Eckhard discloses a device and a method for processing components or workpieces, comprising:
said focusing element (3, see fig.1) is an optical lens (see para.0023: “The polarized radiation can be focused onto the processing area of component 7 using the optical element 3” and fig.1).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have substituted said focusing element of Lou by the one as taught by Eckhard, since the substitution one element for another one would yield a predictable result of focusing the laser beam(s) onto the processing area.
Claim 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Andreasch US 20200030909 A1
Regarding claim 15, Lou discloses the claimed limitations as set forth, except said light-guiding element is a step-index fiber.
Andreasch discloses a laser processing machine, comprising:
said light-guiding element (37, see fig.4) is a step-index fiber (see para.0059).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lou’s said light-guiding element to be the “step-index fiber” as taught by Andreasch. Doing so improves power handling, wavelength flexibility, and long-term reliability, especially in high-intensity or pulsed laser applications. It ensures efficient, stable light delivery while minimizing the risk of fiber damage or performance degradation.
Claims 18-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lou in view of Pinard US 20240009758 A1
Regarding claim 18, Lou further discloses
A laser machining system (combo laser source and device as shown in fig.1), comprising:
a laser beam source for generating an input laser beam (see fig.1 and col3. Line 1: “double-clad fiber laser”);
a machining optical unit (device as shown in fig.1) device as shown in fig.1) including:
an apparatus according to claim 1 for polarizing the input laser beam (see rejection of claim 1 above); and
Lou does not expressly disclose
a transportation optical fiber having a length of several meters and having first and second ends, said first end being connected to said laser beam source;
the machining optical unit connected to said second end of said transportation optical fiber;
said machining optical unit including
a collimation device for collimating the input laser beam incident in said machining optical unit from said transportation optical fiber; and
a focusing device for focusing the polarized output laser beam onto an object to be machined.
However, Pinard discloses a handheld laser system, comprising:
a transportation optical fiber (130, see fig.1) having a length of several meters (“the optical fiber 130 has a length of at least 3 meters (m)”, see para.0053 and fig.1) and having first (lower end of 130, see fig.1) and second ends (upper end of 130, see fig.1), said first end (lower end of 130) being connected to said laser beam source (110, see fig.1);
the machining optical unit (120, see fig.1) connected to said second end of said transportation optical fiber (upper end of 130, see fig.1);
said machining optical unit (120, see fig.1) including:
a collimation device (collimating lens, see para.0082) for collimating the input laser beam incident in said machining optical unit (120, see fig.1) from said transportation optical fiber (130, see fig.1); and
a focusing device (129, see fig.3C) for focusing the polarized output laser beam onto an object to be machined (See para.0082: “ a replaceable focus lens (indicated as 129 in FIG. 3C, but located internally), which is used to focus the laser beam 122 onto the workpiece surface”).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Lou to incorporate the features “a transportation optical fiber having a length of several meters and having first and second ends, said first end being connected to said laser beam source; the machining optical unit connected to said second end of said transportation optical fiber; said machining optical unit including a collimation device for collimating the input laser beam incident in said machining optical unit from said transportation optical fiber; and a focusing device for focusing the polarized output laser beam onto an object to be machined” as taught by Pinard. Doing so ensures the laser beam is delivered efficiently, maintained in optimal quality, and concentrated precisely at the workpiece.
Regarding claim 19, Lou in view of Pinard further discloses said transportation optical fiber has a length of more than 10 m.
Pinard further discloses said transportation optical fiber has a length of more than 10 m ( “the optical fiber 130 has a length of at least 3 meters (m)”, see para.0053, which can be overlapped with the claimed range).
In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists (see MPEP2144.05). In addition, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the said transportation optical fiber has a length of more than 10 m since it has been held where the general working conditions of a claim are known it is not inventive to determine optimum or workable ranges through routine optimization (see MPEP 2144.05).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure:
US 7422988 B2 discloses a thermal processing system includes a source of laser radiation having an array of lasers emitting light at a laser wavelength, a substrate support, optics disposed between said source and said substrate support for forming a line beam in a substrate plane of the substrate support from the light emitted by the source of laser radiation, and scanning apparatus for effecting movement of said line beam relative to said substrate support in a direction transverse to the longitudinal axis of said line beam.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TIFFANY T TRAN whose telephone number is (571)272-3673. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday, 10am - 6pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edward Landrum can be reached on (571) 272-5567. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/TIFFANY T TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights