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 .
Drawings
The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(4) because reference character “130” has been used to designate all of the following beam shaper, dichroic mirror, beam expander, reflective mirror, lens unit, and light refractor. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance.
Specification
The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities:
There are several paragraphs numbered that are blank lines (Paras. 113, 116, 118, 121, etc.) this should not be numbered.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a):
(a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the written description requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to reasonably convey to one skilled in the relevant art that the inventor or a joint inventor, or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the inventor(s), at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
Claim 10 claims a laser irradiation apparatus that can turn off the first laser when the first spot is located in a certain area of the electrode where the active material layer is not present, but the Specification is silent about how this function is carried out. Under MPEP 2163-I-A, “[a]n invention described solely in terms of a method of making and/or its function may lack written descriptive support where there is no described or art-recognized correlation between the disclosed function and the structure(s) responsible for the function. In this case, as claimed there is insufficient structure to carry out this function as the laser alone cannot perform detection of material type or even position of the laser, and the Specification is silent on further structure to carry out this function. Accordingly, claims 10 is rejected under 112(a) for lacking written description. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1-3, 5-7, 10-14, 19-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Mizoguchi (JP 2020104163).
Regarding Claim 1, Mizoguchi discloses A laser notching apparatus comprising: a laser irradiation unit [Fig. 1 (51)] comprising a first laser irradiating a first beam [Fig. 1 (2, Ls2)], a second laser irradiating a second beam [Fig. 1 (1, Ls1)] (Examiner Note: For purposes of examination, first and second beam will be referred to functionally with respect to which beam leads the cutting path. Accordingly, the first beam of Mizoguchi (Ls1) is the second beam and the second beam of Mizoguchi (Ls2) is the first beam as the beam Ls2 performs the initial ablation followed by the beam Ls1.), and an optical member which forms paths of the first beam and the second beam [Fig. 1 (3)] (Examiner Note: Based on the Specification (Paras. 75-86, Fig. 1 (130, 131-36)), an optical member is construed as any optical element in a path of either, or both, the first and second laser. Accordingly, Mizoguchi is construed to disclose an optical member (laser processing head (3)) comprising elements of 31-34 and 7 (lens, mirrors and galvo scanner).);
and a control unit [Fig. 1 (6), Fig. 2 (6)] configured to move a reflective mirror [Fig. 1 (7)] of the laser irradiation unit along a notching line of an electrode [Paras. 11-15, 32] (Examiner Note: For apparatus claims, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a claimed structure is considered intended use, and does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim (MPEP 2115). Accordingly, this claim merely requires a control unit configured to move a reflective mirror along the notching line, in other words, in the cutting direction. Mizoguchi discloses a control unit configured to control a galvo-meter scanner unit (7) to deflect light in the output direction, and thus controls along the cutting line.),
wherein the optical member forms the path of the first beam and the path of the second beam such that a first spot of the first beam and a second spot of the second beam are arranged apart from each other by a first distance on the notching line [Paras. 19-23, 27, Fig. 4] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses that the lasers are focused within, “a predetermined range of an imaginary plane orthogonal to the optical axis of the first laser,” and thus understood as offset by a predetermined distance in the cutting direction. Mizoguchi specifically discloses an operation where the first laser beam (Ls2, Ls2a) is preceded by the second beam (Ls1, Ls1a) in a single pass, and thus disclose this limitation.), and a size of the first spot [Fig. 4 (Ls2a)] is larger than a size of the second spot, [Fig. 4 (Ls1a)] [Para. 24-27] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses that the beam diameter of either beam can be adjusted. Mizoguchi specifically discloses an arrangement where the initial cutting beam (Ls2a) is a larger diameter than the finishing beam (Ls1a) and thus discloses this limitation.)
and the control unit moves the reflective mirror of the laser irradiation unit such that a spot of the second beam follows a moving trajectory of a spot of the preceding first beam. [Fig. 4, Paras. 23, 26] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses the control device controls the position of the beam (Ls2a) through operation of the galvano-scanner unit (7) and “the control device 6 positions the second laser emission light Ls2a in front of the first laser emission light Ls1a in the cutting direction, and at the same time outputs a smaller power and a larger light flux to the workpiece W than the first laser emission light Ls1a.”)
Regarding Claim 2, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the electrode comprises a current collector and an active material layer stacked on the current collector, the first beam ablates the active material layer, and the second beam cuts the current collector exposed by the ablation of the first beam. [Fig. 4, Para. 27] (Examiner Note: For apparatus claims, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a claimed structure is considered intended use, and does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim (MPEP 2115). Accordingly, the immediate claim merely requires that first and second beams are sequentially exposed to the area to be processed. Nonetheless, Mizoguchi specifically discloses the “first laser emission light Ls1a is emitted to the film removing region ARa formed by the preceding second laser emission light Ls2a, and cuts the base material Wa of the workpiece W. Therefore, the laser machining device 51 can cut the workpiece W by moving the laser machining head 3 on the cutting path only once.”)
Regarding Claim 3, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the optical member adjusts one of a focal length of the first beam and a focal length of the second beam such that the size of the first spot [Fig. 4 (Ls2a)] is set to be larger than the size of the second spot [Fig. 4 (Ls1a)]. [Fig. 1 (31, 34), para. 24-27] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses collimating lenses (31, 34) with a drive units (31a, 34a) that moves the lens along the optical axis the adjust the beam size of either beam. Furthermore, Mizoguchi specifically discloses that an operation where the first laser beam spot (Ls2a) is larger diameter than the second laser beam spot (Ls1a).)
Regarding Claim 5, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the optical member comprises a lens unit disposed on the path of the first beam and the path of the second beam and configured to form a spot of the first beam and a spot of the second beam on the notching line [Fig. 1 (33), paras. 19-21] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Mizoguchi discloses a focusing lens (33) in the path of both lasers that forms the spots for the notching line.), and
a light refraction unit disposed on the path of the first beam [Fig 1 (34)], and the light refraction unit refracts the first beam [Fig. 1 (Ls2)] such that an incident angle of the first beam [Fig. 1 (Ls1)] on the lens unit and an incident angle of the second beam on the lens unit differ from each other. [Fig. 1 (Ls1, Ls2 at 33), para. 21] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses a collimating lens (34) that refracts the first beam (Ls2), and has a different incident angle than that of the second beam (Ls1) and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 6, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the first laser and the second laser are configured as a single body, so that when the first laser moves along the notching line, the second laser can move together with the first laser. [Fig. 1 (3), para. 17] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses the lasers are configured into a single machining head (3), so both lasers will move together with any movement of the head.)
Regarding Claim 7, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the optical member changes a position of the first spot [Fig. 3 (Ls2a)] such that a spacing direction [Fig. 3 (Ra)] between the first spot and the second spot is aligned with the notching line. [Fig. 3, para. 23-27] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses “the position of the second laser emission light Ls2a with which the work W is irradiated is set with respect to the irradiation position of the first laser emission light Ls1a with the galvano scanner unit 7,” and keeps the beams positions offset by a predetermined distance Ra, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 10, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the laser irradiation unit turns off the first laser when the first spot is located in a certain area of the electrode where the active material layer is not present. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the inclusion of the material or article worked upon by a claimed structure is considered intended use, and does not impart patentability to an apparatus claim (MPEP 2115). Along with the 112(a) rejection above, this limitation merely requires that the laser can be turned off, which is inherent to all laser processing systems, and thus disclosed by Mizoguchi.)
Regarding Claim 11, Mizoguchi discloses, A laser notching apparatus comprising: a laser irradiation unit [Fig. 1 (51)] comprising a first laser irradiating a first beam [Fig. 1 (2, Ls2)], a second laser irradiating a second beam [Fig. 1 (1, Ls1)], and an optical member which forms paths of the first beam and the second beam [Fig. 1 (3)];
and a control unit which moves a reflective mirror [Fig. 1 (7)] of the laser irradiation unit along a notching line of an electrode [Fig. 1 (6), paras. 11-15, 32] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, this claim merely required a control unit that moves the reflective mirror along a cutting direction.),
wherein the optical member [Fig. 1 (3)] adjusts focal lengths of the first beam and the second beam differently along the notching line, so that a size of a first spot of the first beam and a size of a second spot of the second beam differ from each other [Fig. 1, para. 24-27] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Mizoguchi discloses a collimating lens (31, 34) with a motor (31a, 34a) that moves the lens along the optical axis the adjust the beam size of either beam. It specifically discloses that the first laser beam is larger diameter than the preceding cutting laser.), and
a single scanner is used to control the first beam and the second beam to cut the electrode along the notching line. [Fig. 1 (7), para. 21-23, 27] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses a single Galvano-scanner unit disposed inside the laser processing head, where, “the position of the second laser emission light Ls2a emitted to the workpiece W can be set to an arbitrary position within a predetermined range corresponding to the operable range of the galvanometer scanner unit 7 with respect to the emission position of the first laser emission light Ls1a.” As a single scanner controls both beams cutting in along the cutting direction, it is understood to disclose this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 12, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the optical member adjusts a divergence angle of the first beam or the second beam so that the first spot of the first beam or the second spot of the second beam, passing through the scanner, are different from each other in size. [Fig. 1 (31, 34)] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses the collimating lens are moved in the direction of the optical axis to adjust the beam size. As the position of the collimation lens changes the divergence angle of the beam, it is understood to disclose this limitation. As the first spot of the beam (Ls2) passes through the scanner (7) it is understood to disclose this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 13, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 12. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the optical member makes incident angles of the first beam or the second beam incident on the single scanner different from each other so that the first spot and the second spot are maintained apart by a constant distance. [Para. 23] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses the scanner (7) adjusts the position of the first cutting laser (Ls2) to any arbitrary position with the predetermined radius centered on the second cutting laser (Ls1). Accordingly, Mizoguchi discloses the scanner adjusts the incident angle of the first beam and maintains it within the constant radius (Ra), and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 14, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 13. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the size of the first spot is larger than the size of the second spot, the electrode comprises a current collector and an active material layer stacked on the current collector, the first beam ablates the active material layer, and the second beam cuts the current collector exposed by the ablation of the first beam. [Fig. 4, para. 26-27] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, under MPEP 2115, the claim merely requires that the second beam cuts in the region exposed by the first beam. Mizoguchi discloses that the first cutting laser (Ls2) is a larger diameter than the preceding laser (Ls1), where it removes a thin film with the first cut, and then removes the base material with the preceding laser, and thus discloses this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 19, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 1. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the electrode is in a stationary state or in motion when notching with the use of the first beam and the second beam is performed. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, under MPEP 2115, the claim merely requires a laser processing system that uses 2 beams, and thus disclosed by Mizoguchi. Furthermore, the workpiece (i.e. electrode) can only be stationary or moving, so any electrode laser cutting would read onto this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 20, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 11. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the electrode is in a stationary state or in motion when notching with the use of the first beam and the second beam is performed. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, under MPEP 2115, the claim merely requires a laser processing system that uses 2 beams, and thus disclosed by Mizoguchi. Furthermore, the workpiece (i.e. electrode) can only be stationary or moving, so any electrode laser cutting would read onto this limitation.)
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.
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 4 and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Cho (KR 102100821)
Regarding Claim 4, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 2. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the optical member comprises a lens unit disposed on the path of the first beam and the path of the second beam [Fig. 1 (33), paras. 19, 21] and configured to form a spot of the first beam and a spot of the second beam on the notching line [Paras. 19-23].
Mizoguchi does not disclose a beam expander disposed between the second laser and the optical member on the path of the second beam (Examiner Note: While Mizoguchi does not specifically disclose a beam expander, Mizoguchi discloses a collimating lens (31) disposed behind a focusing lens (33) on the path of the second laser (Ls1) that adjusts the focal length of the second laser to adjust beam size. (Para. 20)), and
the beam expander adjusts a focal length of the second beam that passes through the lens unit such that the size of the first spot is set to be larger than the size of the second spot. (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses that the collimating lens (31) disposed between the lens (33) and the second laser functions as a beam expander/reducer that can control the beam size by adjusting its position along the optical axis, and thus adjusts the focal length. (Para. 20, 24))
However, Cho teaches a beam expander [Fig. 1 (K)] disposed between the second laser [Fig. 1 (10-2)] and the optical member on the path of the second beam and
the beam expander adjusts a focal length of the second beam that passes through the lens unit such that the size of the first spot is set to be larger than the size of the second spot. [Fig. 1 (K), para. 49] (Examiner Note: Cho discloses, “the optical member K, a beam expander telescope (BET) may be typically used, and the size of the laser beam can be adjusted at the processing end using the beam expander telescope (BET)… [W]hen the BET magnification is lowered, the optical member K ), The size of the laser beam passing through may be reduced, and thus the maximum line width of the laser beam at the processing end may be adjusted.”)
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Mizoguchi teaches an adjustable collimating lens (31) that differs from the claimed beam expander because it collimates the laser beam. The collimating lens of Mizoguchi and the beam expander (K) of Cho both perform the function of changing the beam spot size by adjusting the divergence angle. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the collimating lens (31) of Mizoguchi with the beam expander (K) of Cho to achieve predictable results because both references deal with beam spot control that function in the same manner in the environment of a laser processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the laser processing head of Mizoguchi by replacing the adjustable collimating lens (31) of the second laser (Ls1) with the beam expander (K) of Cho because substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Claim 4 is rejected as obvious over Mizoguchi in view of Cho.
Regarding Claim 15 Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the optical member comprises a lens unit disposed on the path of the first beam and the path of the second beam and configured to form the spot of the first beam and a spot of the second beam on the notching line [Fig. 1 (33)].
Mizoguchi does not disclose a beam expander disposed between the second laser and the optical member on the path of the second beam, and the beam expander adjusts a divergence angle of the second beam such that the size of the second spot of the second beam that passes through the lens unit is smaller than the size of the first spot. [Fig. 4, paras. 21-24, 26-27] (Examiner Note: As discussed above, the collimating lens (31) is understood to meet this limitation as it changes the divergence angle of the second cutting beam (Ls1a) such that it is a smaller beam diameter than the first cutting beam (Ls2a). Nevertheless, it does not specifically disclose a beam expander structure for carrying out this function.)
However, Cho teaches, a beam expander disposed between the second laser and the optical member on the path of the second beam, and the beam expander adjusts a divergence angle of the second beam such that the size of the second spot of the second beam that passes through the lens unit is smaller than the size of the first spot. [Fig. 1 (K), para. 49] (Examiner Note: Cho discloses, “the optical member K, a beam expander telescope (BET) may be typically used, and the size of the laser beam can be adjusted at the processing end using the beam expander telescope (BET)… [W]hen the BET magnification is lowered, the optical member K ), The size of the laser beam passing through may be reduced, and thus the maximum line width of the laser beam at the processing end may be adjusted.”)
It is obvious to combine prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A). The MPEP states the prior art must: (1) teach each claimed element (a method or apparatus that will be modified), (2) show that one of ordinary skill in the art could have combined the elements by known methods and that the combination doesn’t change the function of the elements, and (3) show that one of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying the known technique to the base device would yield predictable results. See MPEP 2143(A).
In this case, Mizoguchi teaches an adjustable collimating lens (31) that differs from the claimed beam expander because it collimates the laser beam. The collimating lens of Mizoguchi and the beam expander (K) of Cho both perform the function of changing the beam spot size by adjusting the divergence angle. One of ordinary skill could have replaced the collimating lens (31) of Mizoguchi with the beam expander (K) of Cho to achieve predictable results because both references deal with beam spot control that function in the same manner in the environment of a laser processing.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to have modified the laser processing head of Mizoguchi by replacing the adjustable collimating lens (31) of the second laser (Ls1) with the beam expander (K) of Cho because substitution of one known element for another yields predictable results to one of ordinary skill in the art. Accordingly, Claim 15 is rejected as obvious over Mizoguchi in view of Cho.
Claims 8, 9 and 16-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Mizoguchi in view of Bawart et al. (cited in 892 form)
Regarding Claim 8, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 7. Mizoguchi further discloses wherein the optical member comprises a light refraction unit [Fig. 1 (34)] disposed on the path of the first beam, and when a direction of the notching line changes, the optical member …change a position of the first spot such that the spacing direction between the first spot and the second spot is aligned with the notching line. [Para. 14, 23] (Examiner Note: As discussed in detail above, Mizoguchi discloses a collimating lens (34) in the path of the first laser where the optical member (scanner 7) keeps both spots aligned along the cutting direction.)
Mizoguchi does not disclose the optical member rotates the light refraction unit (Examiner Note: While Mizoguchi discloses that the position of the first spot (Ls2a) is controlled by rotating the galvo scanner, it does not disclose a light refraction unit doing this function.)
However, Bawart teaches the optical member rotates the light refraction unit to change a position of the first spot such that the spacing direction between the first spot and the second spot is aligned with the notching line. [Pg. 1-2] (Examiner Note: Bawart teaches a pair of rotating diffractive elements, “corresponding to two decentered Fresnel lenses with opposite optical powers,” that controls rotation of the diffractive elements, “to direct an incident beam into a continuous two-dimensional range of deflection angles. It further teaches that, “our approach has the advantage that undesired diffraction orders are defocused. Therefore, if such a system is used in an optical scan head for laser material processing, the undesired diffraction orders do not focus in the plane of the work piece, thus avoiding damage due to hot spots.” (Abstract))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mizoguchi with the rotating diffractive elements taught in Bawart to provide greater thermal control of laser processing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Bawart could be combined with Mizoguchi because it is specifically designed for laser optical scanning applications. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the rotating diffractive elements of Bawart because they provide defocusing of undesired diffraction orders, leading to reduced hot spots, and thus, better thermal control of the laser operation. Accordingly, Claim 8 is rejected as obvious over Mizoguchi in view of Bawart.
Regarding Claim 9, Mizoguchi in view of Bawart discloses all of the limitations of Claim 8. Mizoguchi further discloses wherein the optical member changes the position of the first spot along a circular orbit centered on the second spot. [Para. 23] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi teaches “the position of the optical axis CL2 of the second laser emission light Ls2a is within a circle having a radius Ra centered on the position of the optical axis CL1 of the first laser emission light Ls1a can be set arbitrarily.” As discussed above, and illustrated in Fig. 4, the second laser is functionally the “first” laser spot as it performs initial cut, and the larger diameter spot, that is preceded by the smaller diameter first spot. Accordingly, Mizoguchi is understood to disclose the scanner (7) changes the position of the the first beam to perform cutting (Ls2) so that is centered around the a circular orbit of the second laser beam (Ls1).)
Regarding Claim 16, Mizoguchi discloses all of the limitations of Claim 14. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the optical member comprises a lens unit disposed on the path of the first beam and the path of the second beam and configured to form a spot of the first beam and a spot of the second beam on the notching line [Fig. 1 (33)], and
a light refraction unit [Fig. 1 (34)] disposed on the path of the first beam, and the light refraction … refracts the incident angle of the first beam such that the first spot maintains the constant distance from the second spot. (Examiner Note: As discussed above, Mizoguchi discloses a collimating lens (34) that refracts the incident angle of the first cutting laser (Ls2) such that it is a different incidence angle than the first beam and thus spaced apart. Furthermore, the position of the second spot (Ls1a) is set at a constant distance (Ra) centered around the first spot (Ls2a) and thus maintained at a constant distance.)
Mizoguchi does not disclose the light refraction unit rotates
However, Bawart teaches light refraction unit rotates [Pg. 1-2] (Examiner Note: Bawart teaches a pair of rotating diffractive elements, “corresponding to two decentered Fresnel lenses with opposite optical powers,” that controls rotation of the diffractive elements, “to direct an incident beam into a continuous two-dimensional range of deflection angles. It further teaches that, “our approach has the advantage that undesired diffraction orders are defocused. Therefore, if such a system is used in an optical scan head for laser material processing, the undesired diffraction orders do not focus in the plane of the work piece, thus avoiding damage due to hot spots.” (Abstract))
It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Mizoguchi with the rotating diffractive elements taught in Bawart to provide greater thermal control of laser processing. One having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the teachings of Bawart could be combined with Mizoguchi because it is specifically designed for laser optical scanning applications. One having ordinary skill in the art would be motivated to incorporate the rotating diffractive elements of Bawart because they provide defocusing of undesired diffraction orders, leading to reduced hot spots, and thus, better thermal control of the laser operation. Accordingly, Claim 16 is rejected as obvious over Mizoguchi in view of Bawart.
Regarding Claim 17, Mizoguchi in view of Bawart discloses all of the limitations of Claim 16. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the light refraction unit allows the first spot to rotate around the second spot and maintain the constant distance from the second spot. [Para. 23] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses that the Galvano-scanner (7) controls “the position of the optical axis CL2 of the second laser emission light Ls2a [such that it] is within a circle having a radius Ra centered on the position of the optical axis CL1 of the first laser emission light Ls1a.” Accordingly, Mizoguchi is understood to disclose the first beam to perform cutting (Ls2) is centered around the second laser beam (Ls1). As the light refraction unit can be understood to “allow” the first laser (Ls2) to pass through to remove undesired refraction orders while the scanner controls the rotation of the first spot, it is understood to disclose this limitation.)
Regarding Claim 18, Mizoguchi in view of Bawart discloses all of the limitations of Claim 17. Mizoguchi further discloses, wherein the scanner comprises the lens unit [Fig. 1 (33)], and the reflective mirror disposed on the path of the first beam [Fig. 1 (7)] and configured to control the first beam and the second beam incident on the lens unit, allowing the first spot and the second spot to move along the notching line. [Paras. 16, 19-23] (Examiner Note: Mizoguchi discloses a scanner unit (7) that controls the positions of the first laser (Ls2) with respect to the second laser (Ls1), and allows the first and second spot to move along the cutting line and thus discloses this limitation.)
Mizoguchi does not disclose the reflective mirror disposed on the path of the second beam.
However, under MPEP 2144.VI-C, the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results, and therefore the claimed limitation is obvious.
It would have been obvious to modify the scanner system disclosed by Mizoguchi in view of Bawart such that the scanner unit is arranged in the path of both lasers because the rearrangement of parts is an obvious matter of design choice in the absence of new or unexpected results. [MPEP 2144.04-VI-C] Applicant has not disclosed that arranging the reflective mirror in the path of both lasers provides any unexpected results. A person having ordinary skill in the art would recognize that the reflective mirror can be arranged in many different ways within the cooker body without affecting the beam steering because it is an adjustable mirror. A person having ordinary skill in the art would appreciate that arranging the reflective mirror in the path of both lasers will work equally as well as arranged elsewhere in the laser processing head Accordingly, a person having ordinary skill in the art would expect the reflective mirror arranged in the path of both lasers to work equally as well as the reflective mirror disclosed in the prior art, and thus, this limitation is an obvious matter of design choice. Accordingly, Claim 18 is rejected as obvious over Mizoguchi in view of Bawart.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Okuda (JP 2015188908 A) also discloses a laser irradiation unit for making 2 holes using optical elements for removing a first and further layers simultaneously.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to John Michael Chambers whose telephone number is (571)272-2614. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 7 am - 4 pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Steven Crabb can be reached at (571) 270-5095. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/J.M.C./ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/STEVEN W CRABB/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights