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 .
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
Paragraph 0050, line 4: "canning galvanometer" should be changed to "scanning galvanometer"
Paragraph 0056, line 2: "canning galvanometer" should be changed to "scanning galvanometer"
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: driving members in claim 5.
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.
Claim 5 recites the term “driving members… for driving the connected reflector of the plurality of reflectors to rotate.” This limitation is being interpreted under 112(f) as a functional mechanism capable of driving the reflector to rotate or deflect, such a motor or memory alloy [Par. 42 of Applicant’s Specification].
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.
Claim 9 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.
Claim 9 recites the limitation "the zoom assembly comprises a beam expander lens group, a collimating and focusing lens group, and a focusing lens group in that sequence" in line 2. The limitation lacks clear continuity to the prior limitation listed in claim 1. Claim 1 states, “a zoom assembly comprising a plurality of lens groups”. It is unclear whether the claim 9 limitation further limits the previously recited lens groups, or requires additional lens groups, rendering this claim indefinite. For the purpose of examination, the limitation has been interpreted as and may be corrected to “the plurality of lenses within the zoom assembly comprises a beam expander lens group, a collimating and focusing lens group, and a focusing lens group in that sequence”
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)(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 1-2, 4-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Uchida (JP 2015000423 A), hereinafter Uchida.
PNG
media_image1.png
595
483
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Figure 3 Uchida
PNG
media_image2.png
826
498
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Figure 9,10 Uchida
Regarding claim 1, Uchida discloses a laser processing device for processing a workpiece, comprising: a laser source (see Fig. 3, 36)(Par. 30: “The laser oscillator 10”)(Par. 33:”The laser irradiation unit 16 includes a scanner housing 38 connected to the end of the transmission optical fiber 36”); a zoom assembly comprising a plurality of lens groups for converging a laser light emitted by the laser source (see Fig. 3, 60,62,56)(Par. 40: “the scanner housing 38 (Figure 1) contains a collimating lens 60, a movable diverging (concave) lens 62, a focusing lens 56”); a scanning galvanometer assembly (see Fig. 3, 52, 54) (Par. 17) for receiving the converged laser light exiting from the zoom assembly and emitting the laser light at a preset angle; and a reflection assembly arranged (see Fig. 3, MR1- – MR8)(see Fig. 9-12)(Claim 2) between the scanning galvanometer assembly and the workpiece, the reflection assembly comprising a plurality of reflectors for reflecting the laser light emitted by the scanning galvanometer assembly to the workpiece to change a direction of the laser light to process the workpiece; wherein a distance between any two lens groups of the plurality of lens groups is adjustable (Interpreted as the distance between least 2 lens groups capable of being adjusted, not necessarily every two) to adjust a position of a principle plane of the zoom assembly, thereby adjusting a focus position reflected to the workpiece. (see Fig. 3) (Par. 45: “and a third-axis focusing control unit 58 for variably controlling the focal length of the focusing lens 56”) (Par. 39)
Regarding claim 2, Uchida discloses the plurality of reflectors are arranged in a ring shape (see Fig. 9,10, MR1- – MR8) (Claim 2).
Regarding claim 4, Uchida discloses each of the plurality of reflectors is arranged obliquely (see Fig. 3: MR1- – MR8)(see Fig. 11,12: 42)(Claim 10).
PNG
media_image3.png
684
508
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Figures 11,12 Uchida
Regarding claim 5, Uchida discloses the reflection assembly further comprises a plurality of driving members, each of the plurality of driving members is connected to one of the plurality of reflectors for driving the connected reflector of the plurality of reflectors to rotate. (see Fig. 11,12) (Par. 82)
PNG
media_image4.png
3507
2478
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Figures 5A, 5B Uchida
Regarding claim 6, Uchida discloses an angle of reflection of the laser light reflected by each of the plurality of reflectors is in a range of 30° to 65° when each of the plurality of reflectors is driven by the connected driving member of the plurality of driving members. (Figs. 5A-5B: θ3, θ5)(Par. 81, 84: “the arrangement (layout) of the annular mirror 42 is such that the inclination angle θ that the annular mirror 42 makes with the horizontal line is constant in the circumferential direction (generally θ = 45°) … the inclination angle θ that the annular mirror 42 makes with the horizontal line is set or adjusted for each individual plate mirror mr so that the laser beam LB is focused onto the seam 104 on the side of the workpiece (outer can 100/lid 102) at each position in the circumferential direction.” The fixed embodiment uses an angle of 45°, and thus the adjustable embodiment is understood to at least include this in the range of angles. When the mirror is at 45° to the horizontal and the light is reflected horizontally, the angle of reflection between the normal to the reflector and the reflected beam is also 45°.)
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows:
1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.
Claims 1-5, 9 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kyohei (US 20190193197 A1), hereinafter Kyohei, in view of Hak Il (KR 100777652 B1), hereinafter Hak Il.
PNG
media_image5.png
342
324
media_image5.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Kyohei
PNG
media_image6.png
396
366
media_image6.png
Greyscale
Figure 7 Hak Il
PNG
media_image7.png
557
320
media_image7.png
Greyscale
Figure 7-8 Kyohei
Kyohei discloses a laser processing device for processing a workpiece, comprising a laser source (See Fig. 1: 1) (Par. 28: “The laser beam L emitted from the oscillating laser oscillator 1”), a zoom assembly (See Fig. 1: 2) (Par 26: “a focus position control mechanism 2”) comprising a plurality of lens groups (See Fig. 1: 20,21,22) for converging a laser light emitted by the laser source (See Fig. 1: 1) (Par. 28), a scanning galvanometer assembly (See Fig. 1: 3) (Par 26: “(Par 26: “a focus position control mechanism 2”) for receiving the converged laser light exiting from the zoom assembly and emitting the laser light at a preset angle (Par. 12: “a galvanometer scanner 3 that deflects the laser beam L”), wherein a distance between any two lens groups of the plurality of lens groups (See Fig. 1: 2) is adjustable to adjust a position of a principle plane of the zoom assembly, thereby adjusting a focus position reflected to the workpiece (See Fig. 1: W) (Par 26: “the workpiece W”).
Kyohei discloses each claimed limitation except for a reflection assembly arranged between the scanning galvanometer assembly and the workpiece, the reflection assembly comprising a plurality of reflectors for reflecting the laser light emitted by the scanning galvanometer assembly to the workpiece to change a direction of the laser light to process the workpiece.
Regarding, Hak Il teaches a reflection assembly (See Fig. 7: R1) (Par. 8: “The first moving part (R1) of the dual laser processing device (200) may include”) arranged between a primary reflector (See Fig. 7: 220) (Par. 9: “The laser beam generated from the laser light source (210) is incident on the sixth reflective mirror (220).”) and the workpiece (See Fig. 7: 12) (Par. 8:” the workpiece (12)”), the reflection assembly (See Fig. 7: R1) comprising a plurality of reflectors (See Fig. 1: 250, 240, 250, 260, 270, 280) (Par. 8: “a first reflective mirror (240), a second reflective mirror (250), a third reflective mirror (260), a fourth reflective mirror (270), a fifth reflective mirror (280)”) for reflecting the laser light emitted by a primary reflector (See Fig. 7: 220) to the workpiece to change a direction of the laser light to process the workpiece. (Abstract) (see Hak Il Figure 7)
Both Kyohei’s refraction lens (See Fig. 1: 4) and Hak Il’s rotating reflection assembly (See Hak Il Fig. 7: R1) placed beyond a primary reflector and are used for deviating the laser light emitted by the primary reflector to the workpiece to change a direction of the laser light to process the workpiece. Kyohei’s assembly is meant to be used for any workpiece with a curved surface, including the inner face of a material (See Kyohei Fig. 7-8). This matches with Hak Il’s intended use for the apparatus, to process the curved inner face of a workpiece (Hak Il Abstract: “the first and second lenses project the first and second laser beams onto an inner surface of a workpiece (12) to form patterns on the inner surface of the workpiece”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute the Kyohei’s refraction lens (4) with Hak Il’s rotating reflection assembly (R1) as they are equivalents sharing the same purpose.
Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and Uchida as applied to claim 1 above, and in view of Yang (CN 107225330 A), hereinafter Yang.
PNG
media_image8.png
315
376
media_image8.png
Greyscale
Figure 8 Yang
Regarding claim 9, Uchida discloses along an emission direction of the laser light emitted by the laser source, the zoom assembly comprises a beam expander lens group (Fig. 3: 62), a collimating (Fig. 3: 60) and focusing lens group (Fig. 3: 56; and the focusing lens group is configured to perform a secondary convergence on the collimated and primary converged laser light, the collimating and focusing lens group and the focusing lens group are movable relative to the beam expander lens group (Fig. 3: 60, 62, 56, 58)(Par. 78: “For example, although the focusing control unit 58 of the first embodiment is a Galileo type using a diverging (concave) lens 62 for the first stage lens, a Kepler type using a focusing (convex) lens for the first stage lens is also possible”) to adjust the position of the principle plane of the zoom assembly.
Uchida does not disclose the zoom assembly comprising a beam expander lens group, a collimating and focusing lens group, and a focusing lens group in that sequence; the beam expander lens group is configured to expand the laser light emitted by the laser source, the collimating and focusing lens group configured to collimate and converge the expanded laser light.
However, Yang teaches the use of a beam expander lens (see Fig. 8: 42) (Par. 33:” a beam expander 42”) directly after an optical fiber laser head (see Fig. 8: 41) (Par. 33:” The laser head 41 receives the laser beam transmitted from the laser 2 through the optical fiber.”) prior to a scanning galvanometer (see Fig. 8: 43) (Par. 33:” The galvanometer 43 is an excellent vector scanning device.”) and focusing lens (see Fig. 8: 44).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to include the beam expander (see Fig. 8: 42) of Yang prior to the collimating lens (see Fig. 3: 60) of Uchida. As Yang teaches, the use of a beam expander allows for the adjustment of the beam diameter and divergence angle, allowing for more fine-tuned laser operations (Par. 33: “The beam expander 42 adjusts the beam diameter and divergence angle for long-distance illumination or projection, as well as for focusing systems.”).
Claims 7, 16-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over and Uchida as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Nasiri (Zahra Nasiri, Hamidreza Fallah, Morteza Hajimahmoodzadeh, Mehdi Mardiha, Investigation of the laser induced damage thresholds of all-dielectric and metal-dielectric mirrors for a continuous wave at 10.6 μm, Optical Materials, Volume 114, 2021, all (Year: 2021)), hereinafter Nasiri, Jan (WO 2021209201 A1), hereinafter Jan, and Mills (US 4093349 A), hereinafter Mills.
PNG
media_image9.png
263
337
media_image9.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 Jan
Regarding claim 7, Uchida does not explicitly disclose that at least one metal film and/or at least one dielectric film are arranged on each of the plurality of reflectors.
However, Nasiri teaches the use of at least one dielectric film (Section 2: “ZnSe, ZnS, Ge, and Si as dielectric materials”) (Table 2) (Section 3.1) and at least one dielectric film and one metal film (Section 2: “ZnSe, ZnS, Ge, and Si as dielectric materials and Cu, Ag, and Au as metal materials”) (Table 3) (Section 3.2) within a reflector.
PNG
media_image10.png
730
493
media_image10.png
Greyscale
Figures 3-7 Mills
Mills teaches the use of alternating gold-copper alloy layers for use in laser reflectors due to the alloy’s properties, such as its hardness, tensile strength and low electrical resistivity. (Figs. 3-7) (Par 26: “alloy possesses properties that are distinctly different from both the base metals and the disordered, random alloy structures. Therefore, these alloys possess ideal properties and characteristics for high power laser mirrors, i.e., hardness for polishing, tensile strength for resistance to thermal shock, and low electrical resistivity for reflectivity.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to arrange at least one metal film and/or at least one dielectric film to comprise the plurality of reflectors in the laser processing apparatus of Uchida. According to Nasiri, the use of just dielectric films allows for a reflectance of up to 99.8% (Section 3.1), greatly improving laser processing efficiency and according to Mills, metallic mirrors alone allow for a polished surface on the scale of 15 A rms, leading to high reflectivity (Par. 1).
Regarding claim 16, Uchida does not explicitly disclose that two metal films and two dielectric films are arranged on each of the plurality of reflectors.
However, Nasiri teaches one metal film (Section 3.2: “used a gold layer on each substrate”) and any number of dielectric films within a reflector (Section 2: “ZnSe, ZnS, Ge, and Si as dielectric”) (Table 2) (Section 3.2).
Jan teaches the use of a blocker layer, made from metals, meant to protect the metal layer from degradation within a reflector. (Par. 36)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to create a plurality of reflectors comprising two dielectric and two metal films in the laser processing apparatus. By including the blocking layer of Jan to the reflector of Nasiri to comprise the plurality of reflectors in Uchida, the reflectors, which according to Nasiri can have a reflectance up to 99.4% (Section 3.2), will be further protected from degradation according to Jan (Par. 36), greatly improving laser processing efficiency and durability.
Regarding claim 17, Uchida does not explicitly disclose a laser processing apparatus comprising three dielectric films or three metal films arranged on each of the plurality of reflectors.
However, Nasiri discloses the use of any number of dielectric films in laser reflectors. (Section 2: “ZnSe, ZnS, Ge, and Si as dielectric”) (Table 2) (Section 3.2)
Mills teaches the use of alternating gold-copper alloy layers for use in laser reflectors due to the alloy’s properties, such as its hardness, tensile strength and low electrical resistivity. (Figs. 3-7) (Par 26: “alloy possesses properties that are distinctly different from both the base metals and the disordered, random alloy structures. Therefore, these alloys possess ideal properties and characteristics for high power laser mirrors, i.e., hardness for polishing, tensile strength for resistance to thermal shock, and low electrical resistivity for reflectivity.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to create a plurality of reflectors comprising either three dielectric or three metal films in the laser processing apparatus. Reflectors containing only dielectric films allow for the mirrors to have high reflectance, up to 99%, according to Nasiri and Mills details the use of alloying multiple layers of the metal’s gold and copper into three metal film layers to improve hardness, tensile strength and electrical resistivity, improving laser processing efficiency (Par 26).
Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, Mills, Jan and Nasiri as applied to claim 7 above, and further in view of Takeo (US 4856019 A), hereinafter Takeo.
Regarding claim 8, neither Uchida nor Nasiri discloses at least one metal film comprises silver, and/or the at least one dielectric film comprises calcium fluoride.
However, Nasiri states the potential qualities of a silver metal reflector material (Material Selection, Par 2: “Among metal films, for this wavelength, silver has the best thermal conductivity and therefore the lowest temperature changes, but because it begins to disintegrate at 200 °C, copper or gold is better than silver [25]”).
Takeo also discloses the use of calcium fluoride for a dielectric reflector (Par 30).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to use silver as the metal material and calcium fluoride as the dielectric material for the plurality of laser reflectors of Kyohei in view of Hak Il. As Field teaches, silver has the best thermal conductivity allowing for little temperature change in laser operation and as Takeo teaches, calcium fluoride has a high reflectance, increase laser operation efficiency.
Claims 10-11, 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida and Yang as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Davidson ("Introduction to Lenses" available online at https://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/optics/lightandcolor/lenses.html since 3/10/2003, last updated 11/13/2015, accessed online 7/27/2026), hereinafter Davidson, and OpenLearn ("How lenses and mirrors work" available online at https://www.open.edu/openlearn/course/view.php?id=10369 since 3/10/2019, last updated 3/10/2019, accessed online 7/27/2026), hereinafter OpenLearn.
Regarding claim 10, Uchida does not disclose the collimating (see Fig. 3: 62) and focusing lens (see Fig. 3: 56) group comprises: a convex lens for collimating the expanded laser light; and a crescent lens for correcting a divergence angle of the collimated laser light to converge the collimated laser light.
However, Davidson teaches a positive (see Davidson Fig 4) meniscus lens, a known synonym for a crescent lens, and how it is a convergent lens capable of focusing light to form a real image. (The Concavo-Convex Lens: “Positive meniscus lenses have a greater curvature radius on the concave side of the lens than on the convex side, which enables the formation of a real image.”)
OpenLearn teaches a convex lenses ability to collimate light (Par 5: “Light paths do not depend on the direction in which light is travelling. So, for example, since parallel rays of light are brought to a focus by a convex lens at a distance f from the lens, then rays of light emanating from a point a distance f away from the lens will be converted into a parallel beam. A lens which is used in such a way is called a collimator, and the beam of parallel light that is produced is said to be collimated”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date within the zoom expander assembly to substitute a crescent lens within Uchida’s focusing lens (see Fig. 3: 56) for correcting a divergence angle of the collimated laser light to converge the collimated laser light and to substitute a convex lens within Uchida’s collimating lens for collimating the expanded laser light.
PNG
media_image11.png
240
163
media_image11.png
Greyscale
Figure 4 Davidson
Regarding claim 11, Uchida does not disclose the beam expander lens group comprises a crescent lens for expanding the laser light emitted by the laser source.
However, Davidson teaches a negative (see Davidson Fig 6) meniscus lens, a known synonym of a crescent lens, and how it is a divergent lens capable of expanding light. (The Convexo-Concave Lens: “This lens is commonly referred to as a negative (divergent) meniscus lens, since its concave surface has a lower curvature radius than its convex surface, as illustrated in Figure 2(f) and in Figure 6. This type of lens can be used to reduce or eliminate spherical aberration in optical systems with which the lens is coupled and can be combined with other lenses to produce increased resolution capabilities.”)
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute a crescent lens for Uchida’s expanding lens (see Fig. 3: 62) for expanding the laser light emitted by the laser source.
PNG
media_image12.png
239
179
media_image12.png
Greyscale
Figure 6 Davidson
Regarding claim 14, Uchida does not disclose the focusing lens group comprises a convex lens for converging the laser light again after the collimation and the primary convergence.
However, Davidson teaches a Bi-convex lens (see Fig 1 Davidson) lens and how it is a convergent lens capable of focusing light (The Bi-Convex Lens: “The simplest magnifying lens is the bi-convex (sometimes called the double-concave) convergent lens that condenses light rays into a focal point, as illustrated in Figure 1(a)”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date within the zoom assembly to substitute a convex lens for a second focusing lens within Uchida’s focusing group (see Fig. 3: 56) for converging the laser light again after the collimation and the primary convergence.
PNG
media_image13.png
191
234
media_image13.png
Greyscale
Figure 1 Davidson
Claim 12 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, Davidson and OpenLearn as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view Hung (Tuan-Yu Hung and Ching-Shen Su, "Fused-silica focusing lens for deep UV laser processing," Applied Optics, Vol. 31, 1992, all (Year: 1992)), hereinafter Hung.
Regarding claim 12, Uchida does not disclose the crescent lens of the beam expander lens group is made of fused silica material.
However, Hung teaches using fused-silica for laser processing (Introduction Par. 4: “In this paper we present a prototype simple fused-silica focusing lens designed and fabricated by using the practical design method.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to substitute fused-silica with the lens material within the zoom assembly of Uchida (see Fig. 3: 56, 60, 62). According to Hung, the use of fused-silica lenses can lead to an optical performance of more than 99.5%, specifically stated to be useful for laser micromachining. (Introduction Par. 2: “Potential advantages of fused-silica focusing lenses with all-spherical lens elements include possibly higher numerical apertures and larger angular fields and an optical performance of > 99.5% transmittance for the incident beam. These advantages are especially useful for laser micromachining.”)
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida, Davidson and OpenLearn as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of Li (US 9329395 B2), hereinafter Li.
Regarding claim 13, Uchida discloses the beam expander lens group is a variable zoom beam expander and a fixed zoom beam expander (See Fig. 3: 58) (Par 37), however, it does not give a specific beam expander range.
Li teaches a zoom beam expanding system expanding a laser for laser processing from 2 to 16 times the initial diameter (Par. 31: “Through the lens of each of the above design, the system can be expanded beam of green laser beam incident on the expansion of the original 2 to 16 times”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to have the zoom assembly of Uchida be capable of achieving the range of 1.5 - 10 times zoom. According to Li, since the beam expanding system has a large zoom range and is more adaptable, the laser processing equipment using the beam expanding system has higher processing precision and higher processing efficiency.
Claims 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Uchida as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Patrick(US 12011785 B2), hereinafter Patrick.
Regarding claim 15, Uchida does not explicitly disclose a beam waist of the converged laser light exiting from the zoom assembly is in a range of 42 μm to 49 μm.
However, Patrick teaches having a range of laser spot sizes from 2 μm to 200 μm for laser processing of a workpiece (Par 34).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill in the art prior to the effective filing date to be able to have the laser processing apparatus of Uchida contain a laser beam with a spot size ranging from 42 - 49 μm. This beam waist range allows for more fine-tuned control of laser width, creating a more efficient processing instrument.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM YONAS whose telephone number is (571)270-7759. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Thursday 7:30 am - 5 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at (571) 270-5569. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/ADAM YONAS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/TOPAZ L. ELLIOTT/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights