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 .
Response for Election/Restrictions
Applicant's election without traverse of Group I (claims 1-10) in the reply filed on 0730/2026 is acknowledged. Non-elected Group II (claims 11-20) is withdrawn from consideration. The requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 12/06/2023 and 03/20/2024. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Notification regarding 35 USC § 112f
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 112f:
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.
In claim 1, claim limitations:
“a mirror group controller” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mirror group controller” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“a mirror group” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mirror group” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
“a control unit” has been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “mirror group controller” coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f), claim 1 has been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that, although it is not clear, the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f):
“…mirror group controller 21 may be configured to adjust the guiding angle, direction and position of the mirror group 22 so that a beam spot of the laser beam B generates a scanning trajectory at the transparent material M…” has been described in the Par.0018 of the present Specification, such that “mirror group controller” is well known such as a motor, roller, or conveyor…
“…mirror group 22 may include one or more reflection mirrors (reflectors) and lenses…” has been described in the Par.0018 of the present Specification.
“…control device 4 may include a computer and two time controllers. The computer is connected to the two time controllers, and uses control software to control the scanning speed of the scanning device 2 and the translation speed of the processing platform 3 through the two time controllers …” has been described in the Par.0018 of the present 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 the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f), applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f), or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f).
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter pertains. Patentability shall not be negatived 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 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa (US 6107600).
Regarding claim 1, Kurosawa discloses
A continuous laser processing system (laser machining apparatus 50, fig.4) for internal modification of a transparent material (printed circuit board 66, fig.4, intended use), comprising:
a pulse laser device (laser oscillator 52, fig.4) configured to output a laser beam (laser beam LB, fig.4);
a scanning device (galvanometer scanners 58, 60, deflecting mirrors 54, 56, fig.4) comprising a mirror group controller (galvanometer scanners 58, 60) and a mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56) and controlled to guide the laser beam to the transparent material (printed circuit board 66), wherein the mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56) is disposed at an output path of the laser beam (laser beam LB);
a processing platform (XY table 69, fig.4) configured to carry the transparent material (printed circuit board 66) and controlled to move; and
a control device (NC unit 89, fig.4) electrically connected to the scanning device (galvanometer scanners 58, 60, deflecting mirrors 54, 56) and the processing platform (XY table 69), and configured to control the scanning device (galvanometer scanners 58, 60, deflecting mirrors 54, 56) to form a processing trajectory at the transparent material (printed circuit board 66) at a scanning speed, and to control the processing platform (XY table 69) to move at a translation speed.
However, Kurosawa does not disclose the scanning speed is at least 20 times the translation speed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the scanning speed of Kurosawa, is at least 20 times the translation speed, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
PNG
media_image1.png
628
456
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Kurosawa does not disclose
the scanning speed is at least 100 times the translation speed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the scanning speed of Kurosawa, is at least 20 times the translation speed is at least 100 times the translation speed, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Kurosawa discloses
the mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56, fig.4) has a first rotation axis (rotation of mirror 54, fig.4), and the control device (NC unit 89, fig.4) is configured to control a first scanning angular velocity of the mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56) corresponding to the first rotation axis (rotation of mirror 54) through the mirror group controller (galvanometer scanners 58, 60, fig.4) to periodically generate one-dimensional patterns.
Regarding claim 4, Kurosawa discloses
the mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56, fig.4) further has a second rotation axis (rotation of mirror 56, fig.4) different from the first rotation axis (rotation of mirror 54, fig.4), and the control device (NC unit 89, fig.4) is configured to control the first scanning angular velocity of the mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56) corresponding to the first rotation axis (rotation of mirror 54) and a second scanning angular velocity of the mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56) corresponding to the second rotation axis (rotation of mirror 56) through the mirror group controller (galvanometer scanners 58, 60, fig.4) to periodically generate two-dimensional patterns.
Regarding claim 5, Kurosawa discloses
the control device (NC unit 89, fig.4) is further configured to control the first scanning angular velocity and the second scanning angular velocity of the mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56, fig.4) to have a phase difference therebetween through the mirror group controller (galvanometer scanners 58, 60, fig.4) to periodically generate the two-dimensional patterns.
Regarding claim 6, Kurosawa does not disclose
the scanning speed is a speed greater than 1000 millimeters per second.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the scanning speed of Kurosawa, is a speed greater than 1000 millimeters per second, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Kurosawa discloses
the mirror group (deflecting mirrors 54, 56, fig.4) has a rotation axis and a rotation angle corresponding to the rotation axis (rotation of mirrors, 54, 56, fig.4), and the control device (NC unit 89, fig.4) is configured to control the rotation angle of the mirror group to be within an angular range through the mirror group controller (galvanometer scanners 58, 60, fig.4), wherein the angular range corresponds to a processing width of the processing trajectory formed by the scanning device (galvanometer scanners 58, 60, deflecting mirrors 54, 56, fig.4) guiding the laser beam (laser beam LB, fig.4) to the transparent material (printed circuit board 66, fig.4, intended use), but does not disclose the processing width is greater than 100 micrometers, and a direction of the processing width is perpendicular to a direction of the translation speed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the processing width of Kurosawa, is greater than 100 micrometers, and a direction of the processing width is perpendicular to a direction of the translation speed, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Kurosawa discloses
the control device (NC unit 89, fig.4) is configured to control a direction of the scanning speed to switch back and forth between a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, with each of the first direction and the second direction crossing a direction of the translation speed (rotation of mirrors, 54, 56, fig.4).
Regarding claim 9, Kurosawa discloses
the transparent material (intended use) is a silicon carbide material (intended use) but does not disclose a wavelength of the laser beam belongs to near-infrared.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a wavelength of the laser beam of Kurosawa, belongs to near-infrared, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order suitable for the user application.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida discloses
the transparent material (intended use) is a silicon dioxide material (intended use) but does not disclose a wavelength of the laser beam belongs to ultraviolet or green light.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a wavelength of the laser beam of Kurosawa, belongs to ultraviolet or green light, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order suitable for the user application.
Claims 1-10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Yoshida et al. (US 20160082549 A1) in view of Chung (US 20190255650 A1).
Regarding claim 1, Yoshida discloses
A continuous laser processing system (laser drilling apparatus 100, fig.1) for internal modification of a transparent material (workpiece 7, fig.1, intended use), comprising:
a pulse laser device (laser oscillator 1, fig.1) configured to output a laser beam (laser beam LA, Par.0037 cited: “…laser beam LA emitted from the laser oscillator 1…”);
a scanning device (motors 3, 5, and galvanometer mirror 2, 4, fig.1) comprising a mirror group controller (motors 3, 5) and a mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4) and controlled to guide the laser beam (laser beam LA) to the transparent material (workpiece 7), wherein the mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4) is disposed at an output path of the laser beam (laser beam LA).
PNG
media_image2.png
493
457
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Yoshida does not disclose a processing platform configured to carry the transparent material and controlled to move; a control device electrically connected to the scanning device and the processing platform, wherein the scanning speed is at least 20 times the translation speed.
Chung discloses a continuous laser processing system (laser anneal processing apparatus 1, fig.1) for internal modification of a transparent material (semiconductor substrate 100, intended use), comprising: a processing platform (scanning apparatus 3, fig.1) configured to carry the transparent material (semiconductor substrate 100) and controlled to move [Par.0031 cited: “…scanning apparatus 3 includes a scanning-directional movement section 30 that is movable in an X direction…”]; a control device (controller 16, fig.1) electrically connected to the scanning device (attenuator 11, fig.1) and the processing platform (scanning apparatus 3).
PNG
media_image3.png
408
481
media_image3.png
Greyscale
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify the continuous laser processing system of Yoshida, to including a processing platform and a control device a control device electrically connected to the scanning device and the processing platform, as taught by Chung, in order to carry the transparent material and controlled to move, and to control the scanning device to form a processing trajectory at the transparent material at a scanning speed, and to control the processing platform to move at a translation speed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the scanning speed of Yoshida, is at least 20 times the translation speed, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 2, Yoshida does not disclose
the scanning speed is at least 100 times the translation speed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the scanning speed of Yoshida, is at least 20 times the translation speed is at least 100 times the translation speed, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 3, Yoshida discloses
the mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4, fig.1) has a first rotation axis [Par.0034 cited: “…motor 3 is controlled to rotate so that the galvanometer mirror 2 is rotationally-driven…”], and the control device (motor 3 inherently has a controller) is configured to control a first scanning angular velocity of the mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4) corresponding to the first rotation axis through the mirror group controller (motors 3, 5, fig.1) to periodically generate one-dimensional patterns.
Regarding claim 4, Yoshida discloses
the mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4, fig.1) further has a second rotation axis [Par.0035 cited: “…motor 5 is controlled to rotate so that the galvanometer mirror 4 is rotationally driven…”] different from the first rotation axis, and the control device (motor 5 inherently has a controller) is configured to control the first scanning angular velocity of the mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4) corresponding to the first rotation axis and a second scanning angular velocity of the mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4) corresponding to the second rotation axis through the mirror group controller (motors 3, 5, fig.1) to periodically generate two-dimensional patterns.
Regarding claim 5, Yoshida discloses
the control device (motors 3, 5, fig.1, inherently has a controller) is further configured to control the first scanning angular velocity and the second scanning angular velocity of the mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4, fig.1) to have a phase difference therebetween through the mirror group controller (motors 3, 5, fig.1) to periodically generate the two-dimensional patterns.
Regarding claim 6, Yoshida does not disclose
the scanning speed is a speed greater than 1000 millimeters per second.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the scanning speed of Yoshida, is a speed greater than 1000 millimeters per second, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 7, Yoshida discloses
the mirror group (galvanometer mirror 2, 4, fig.1) has a rotation axis and a rotation angle corresponding to the rotation axis [Par.0034 cited: “…motor 3 is controlled to rotate so that the galvanometer mirror 2 is rotationally-driven…”, Par.0035 cited: “…motor 5 is controlled to rotate so that the galvanometer mirror 4 is rotationally driven…”], and the control device (motors 3, 5, fig.1, inherently has a controller) is configured to control the rotation angle of the mirror group to be within an angular range through the mirror group controller (motors 3, 5, fig.1), wherein the angular range corresponds to a processing width of the processing trajectory formed by the scanning device (motors 3, 5, and galvanometer mirror 2, 4, fig.1) guiding the laser beam (laser beam LA, Par.0037 cited: “…laser beam LA emitted from the laser oscillator 1…”) to the transparent material (workpiece 7, fig.1, intended use), but does not disclose the processing width is greater than 100 micrometers, and a direction of the processing width is perpendicular to a direction of the translation speed.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to control the processing width of Yoshida, is greater than 100 micrometers, and a direction of the processing width is perpendicular to a direction of the translation speed, in order suitable for the user application, since it has been held that discovering an optimum value of a result effective variable involves only routine skill in the art. In re Boesch, 617 F.2d 272, 205 USPQ 215 (CCPA 1980).
Regarding claim 8, Yoshida discloses
the control device (motors 3, 5, fig.1, inherently has a controller) is configured to control a direction of the scanning speed to switch back and forth between a first direction and a second direction opposite to the first direction, with each of the first direction and the second direction crossing a direction of the translation speed [Par.0034 cited: “…motor 3 is controlled to rotate so that the galvanometer mirror 2 is rotationally-driven…”, Par.0035 cited: “…motor 5 is controlled to rotate so that the galvanometer mirror 4 is rotationally driven…”].
Regarding claim 9, Yoshida discloses
the transparent material (intended use) is a silicon carbide material (intended use) but does not disclose a wavelength of the laser beam belongs to near-infrared.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a wavelength of the laser beam of Yoshida, belongs to near-infrared, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order suitable for the user application.
Regarding claim 10, Yoshida discloses
the transparent material (intended use) is a silicon dioxide material (intended use) but does not disclose a wavelength of the laser beam belongs to ultraviolet or green light.
It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filling date of the claimed invention to modify a wavelength of the laser beam of Yoshida, belongs to ultraviolet or green light, as it well known in the art of manufacturing design choice purpose, in order suitable for the user application.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Watatani et al. (US 20100065537 A1) is considered as a relevant prior art in field of a condensing optical system, as shown in fig.1, with a pulse laser device, a scanning device, a mirror group controller, a mirror group, and a controller, but does not disclose a platform…
PNG
media_image4.png
411
581
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to PHUONG T NGUYEN whose telephone number is (571)270-1834. The examiner can normally be reached 9.00am-5.00pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached on 571-270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of 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.
/PHUONG T NGUYEN/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
08/09/2026
Prosecution Insights