DETAILED ACTION
Notice of 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 .
This is the first office action in response to Claims filed on 12/28/23.
Claims 1-17 are pending.
Claim Objections
Claims 1-20 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 1, L. 14 “the pulsation frequency” should be “a pulsation frequency”, L. 17-18 “the crystallization temperature and the glass transition temperature” should be “a crystallization temperature and a glass transition temperature”, L. 19 “the difference” should be “a difference”, L. 20 “the liquidus temperature” should be “a liquidus temperature”;
Claim 2 L. 5 “the scanning speed” should be “a scanning speed”;
Claim 6 L. 5 “the reference trajectory” should be “an iterated reference trajectory”;
Claim 10 L. 2-3 “the average direction” and “the normal direction” should be “an average direction” and “a normal direction”, respectively;
Claim 11 L. 8 “the start” should be “a start”;
Claim 12 L. 4 “the total” should be “a total”, L. 12-14 should be removed (these lines are a repetition of the previous lines); throughout Claim 12 differentiate the term “the reference trajectory” to corresponds to TRef, TRef+1, TRef+(n-1), TRef+n;
Claim 15 limitations in L. 8-15 should be removed as these limitations are already recited In Claim 1 for which Claim 15 depends thereof; and
Claims 1-17 remove all “-”.
Appropriate correction 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.
Claims 4, 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) as failing to comply with the written description requirement.
Regarding Claim 4: The claim 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this case, claim 4, recites "a fluence greater than 15 J/cm2”. The recitation “greater than” includes any values including large depth ratios of 150 J/cm2, 1500 J/cm2, or more for which the original disclosure does not have support/not enabled.
Regarding Claim 8: The claim 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 at the time the application was filed, had possession of the claimed invention.
In this case, claim 8, recites "an average power greater than 0.4 W”. The recitation “greater than” includes any values including large depth ratios of 4 W, 40 W, or more for which the original disclosure does not have support/not enabled.
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.
Claims 4, 8, 12, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
Regarding Claim 4: Claim 4 recites the limitation “a fluence greater than 15 J/cm2”, the recited term “greater than 15 J/cm2” is indefinite as it is not bounded at its upper limit and therefore includes literally any value ranging from 15 J/cm2 to infinity/large numbers. The disclosure as originally filed does not support such large values. Therefore, applicant has failed to define the metes and bounds of applicant’s claimed invention. Further, it has been held that the phrase “at least” has no upper limit. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP 2163.05(III).
Regarding Claim 8: Claim 8 recites the limitation “a power greater than 0.4 W”, the recited term “greater than 0.4 w” is indefinite as it is not bounded at its upper limit and therefore includes literally any value ranging from 0.4 W to infinity/large numbers. The disclosure as originally filed does not support such large values. Therefore, applicant has failed to define the metes and bounds of applicant’s claimed invention. Further, it has been held that the phrase “at least” has no upper limit. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); MPEP 2163.05(III).
Regarding Claim 12: Claim 12 recites several time the limitation “Optionally, […]” it is not clear if the limitation followed by the term “optionally” should be considered or not, yielding indefiniteness. To further advance prosecution the limitation followed by the term “optionally” is interpreted as not being considered. Claim 12 recites “the steps (a) and/or (b), optionally (c)” the steps “(a)”, “(b)”, and “(c)” are not referred, yielding indefiniteness. To further advance prosecution only the first step is considered.
Regarding Claim 16: Claim 16 recites the limitation “Optionally, […]” it is not clear if the limitation followed by the term “optionally” should be considered or not, yielding indefiniteness. To further advance prosecution the limitation followed by the term “optionally” is interpreted as not being considered.
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.
Claims 1-15, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tan (Effects of femtosecond laser ablation on Vitrovac 6025X, 2009) in view of Kupisiewicz(BE1025957, wherein US 2021/0031304 is used for translation and reference).
Regarding Claim 1: Tan discloses a method for machining (see Abstract) a sample (sample in Fig. 2) of amorphous metal alloy (“Vitrovac 6025X”) using a femtosecond laser (see Sec. “Experiment”), comprising at least one step of irradiating the sample with a laser beam (Fig. 1) along a reference trajectory (see Fig. 2) to ablate material from the sample,in a through manner or not, along the reference trajectory so as to obtain a sample machined (see Fig. 2 B) and maintained in an amorphous state (see Fig. 2 B),in which: the laser beam is pulsed (see Sec. “Experiment”), and - the duration of each pulse is less than 1000 femtoseconds (Sec. “Experiment”), and in which: the sample -to be machined is movable so as to be displaced relative to the laser beam along the reference trajectory (see Sec.“Experiment”) and - the pulsation frequency of the laser beam has a predetermined frequency (See Sec.“Experiment”); and in which: the amorphous metal alloy has: - a critical diameter less than 5 millimeters (see Fig. 2b).
Tan is silent regarding predetermined frequency being more than 20 KHz.
Kupisiewicz teaches varying the frequency of a pulse laser (see [0024]) to obtain a target type of machining ([0024]).
Therefore, the frequency is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is that the machining can be controlled by adjusting the frequency ([0024]). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the frequency can be regulated to provide an adequate machining, were disclosed in the prior art by Kupisiewicz, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the claimed value of the frequency in order to achieve an adequate machining. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 2: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Kupisiewicz further teaches the laser beam is movable so as to be displaced relative to the sample be machined along the reference trajectory ([0159]); and the scanning speed of the laser beam is less than a predetermined speed ([0159]).
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 have modified Tan to have teaches the laser beam is movable so as to be displaced relative to the sample be machined along the reference trajectory ; and the scanning speed of the laser beam is less than a predetermined speed, as taught by Kupisiewicz. Such a modification would provide the ability to target different part of the sample as well as scan the sample.
Tan in view of Kupisiewicz as stated above is silent regarding the predetermined speed being less than 2000 mm/s.
Kupisiewicz teaches varying the speed (see [0159]) to vary the machining ([00159]).
Therefore, the speed is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B).
In this case, the recognized result is that the machining can be controlled by adjusting the scan speed ([0159]). Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the speed can be regulated to provide an adequate machining, were disclosed in the prior art by Kupisiewicz, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the claimed value of the speed in order to achieve an adequate machining. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 3: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Tan further discloses an infrared laser beam (see Sec. “Experiment”).
Regarding Claim 4: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Tan further discloses wherein the laser beam has a fluence greater than 15 J/cm2 (Fig. 3).
Regarding Claim 5: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, Tan further discloses wherein each pulse of the laser beam irradiates a portion of the sample to be machined on the reference trajectory (see Figs. 1-2), but is silent regarding the portion irradiated by a pulse at least partially covers the portion irradiated by the previous pulse and the overlap between two portions irradiated by two successive pulses of the laser beam is at least 25% of the surface of the diameter of a portion irradiated by the laser beam and at most 95% of the surface of the diameter of a portion irradiated by the laser beam.
However, Kupisiewicz further teaches the portion irradiated by a pulse at least partially covers the portion irradiated by the previous pulse and the overlap between two portions irradiated by two successive pulses of the laser beam (see circle Fig. 3a) is at least 25% of the surface of the diameter of a portion irradiated by the laser beam and at most 95% of the surface of the diameter of a portion irradiated by the laser beam (see Figs. 3a and 4a).
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 have modified Tan to have the portion irradiated by a pulse at least partially covers the portion irradiated by the previous pulse and the overlap between two portions irradiated by two successive pulses of the laser beam is at least 25% of the surface of the diameter of a portion irradiated by the laser beam and at most 95% of the surface of the diameter of a portion irradiated by the laser beam, as taught by Kupisiewicz. Such a modification would enable to increase groove depth, as recognized by Kupisiewicz ([0300]).
Regarding Claim 6: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, Tan further discloses wherein the step of irradiating the sample with a laser beam along the reference trajectory is iterated at least 1 time, the reference trajectory being merged with the reference trajectory of the previous iteration (See Sec. “Experiment” wherein loops are performed).
Regarding Claim 7: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Kupisiewicz further teaches wherein each pulse of the laser beam irradiates a portion (Fig. 4a) to be machined on the reference trajectory has a diameter (Fig. 11) projected onto the irradiated portion of the sample less than 100 um (Fig. 11).
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 have modified Tan to have each pulse of the laser beam irradiates a portion to be machined on the reference trajectory has a diameter projected onto the irradiated portion of the sample less than 100 um, as taught by Kupisiewicz. Such a modification would enable to increase the propagation in the z direction, as recognized by Kupisiewicz (see Fig. 11).
Regarding Claim 8: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Tan discloses wherein the laser beam has an average power greater than a predetermine power value. (an average power above a predetermined value necessarily exits), but is silent regarding the predetermined value being 0.4 W.
Kupisiewicz teaches varying the power (see [00213]) to vary the ablation threshold ([00212-216]). Therefore, the average power is recognized as a result-effective variable, i.e. a variable which achieves a recognized result. In re Antonie, 559 F.2d 618, 195 USPQ 6 (CCPA 1977); MPEP 2144.05(II)(B). In this case, the recognized result is that the ablation threshold can be controlled by adjusting the average power. Therefore, since the general conditions of the claim, i.e. that the average power can be regulated to provide an adequate ablation, were disclosed in the prior art by Kupisiewicz, it is not inventive to discover the optimum workable range by routine experimentation, and it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to provide the claimed value of the speed in order to achieve an adequate ablation. It has been held that “[W]here the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover the optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation.” In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 (CCPA 1955); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Further, the Examiner additionally notes that "[i]t is a settled principle of law that a mere carrying forward of an original patented conception involving only change of form, proportions, or degree, or the substitution of equivalents doing the same thing as the original invention, by substantially the same means, is not such an invention as will sustain a patent, even though the changes of the kind may produce better results than prior inventions." In re Williams, 36 F.2d 436, 438 (CCPA 1929); MPEP 2144.05(II)(A).
Regarding Claim 9: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Kupisiewicz teaches wherein the displacement of the laser beam comprises a precession movement (any movement of the laser), and wherein a precession angle of the laser beam is less than less than 10 degrees (see Fig. 10).
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 have modified Tan to have the displacement of the laser beam comprises a precession movement, and wherein a precession angle of the laser beam is less than less than 10 degrees, as taught by Kupisiewicz. Such a modification would minimize the polarization, as recognized by Kupisiewicz (Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 10: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Kupisiewicz teaches wherein an angle between the average direction of the laser beam and the direction normal to the surface of the irradiated portion of the sample is less than 10° (Fig. 10).
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 have modified Tan to have an angle between the average direction of the laser beam and the direction normal to the surface of the irradiated portion of the sample is less than 10°, as taught by Kupisiewicz. Such a modification would minimize the polarization, as recognized by Kupisiewicz (Fig. 10).
Regarding Claim 11: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Kupisiewicz further teaches wherein: the laser beam has a variable focusing altitude (“focusing unit”, [0105]), wherein the altitude of the best focus global beam is movable and is displaced in the direction of the sample progressively as the machining progresses ([0241] wherein the focusing is corrected depending on the groove depth); and the focusing altitude at the start of the machining is comprised between the best focus global beam -and the best focus individual beam (see Fig. 20a).
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 have modified Tan to have the laser beam has a variable focusing altitude, wherein the altitude of the best focus global beam is movable and is displaced in the direction of the sample progressively as the machining progresses; and the focusing altitude at the start of the machining is comprised between the best focus global beam -and the best focus individual beam, as taught by Kupisiewicz. Such a modification would minimize allow to have a focused beam on the groove.
Regarding Claim 12: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Kupisiewicz further teaches wherein the machining method is carried out by the implementation of at least one outline according to at least one trajectory (Figs. 19a-b), n being the total implemented number of outlines (see Figs. 19a-b 50, 100, 200, 300, 402), the method thus comprising a step of irradiating the sample with a laser beam along a reference trajectory to ablate material from the sample (see Figs. 19a-b trajectory sides of groove),sample, in a through manner or not, along the reference trajectory, the reference trajectory being adjacent to the reference trajectory and translated by a given distance from said the reference trajectory (see Fig. 19a distance between 50, 100, 200, 300, 402); the given distances between two directly adjacent reference trajectories being such that the pulses of the laser beam, irradiating the sample to be machined on the reference trajectory ,also irradiates, at least partially, the sample to be machined on the reference trajectory(s) which is or are directly adjacent to it (see Fig. 19b wherein the grooves are concave); the steps (a) and/or (b) and/or, optionally (c) can be repeated-until a part is machined and maintained in an amorphous state (see Fig. 19b and line 402).
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 have modified Tan to have the wherein the machining method is carried out by the implementation of at least one outline according to at least one trajectory, n being the total implemented number of outlines, the method thus comprising a step of irradiating the sample with a laser beam along a reference trajectory to ablate material from the sample, in a through manner or not, along the reference trajectory, the reference trajectory being adjacent to the reference trajectory and translated by a given distance from said the reference trajectory; the given distances between two directly adjacent reference trajectories being such that the pulses of the laser beam, irradiating the sample to be machined on the reference trajectory ,also irradiates, at least partially, the sample to be machined on the reference trajectory(s) which is or are directly adjacent to it; the steps (a) and/or (b) and/or, optionally (c) can be repeated-until a part is machined and maintained in an amorphous state, as taught by Kupisiewicz. Such a modification would allow to fully go through the sample.
Regarding Claim 13: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Tan further discloses wherein the amorphous metal alloy of the sample (to be machined contains, in atomic percentage, more than 40% of Ni, Zr, Cu, Ti, Fe or Co (Vitrovac 6025X contains 66% of Co).
Regarding Claim 14: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Kupisiewicz further teaches a method for producing a surface of a sample of amorphous metal alloy using a femtosecond laser (see [0196]), the method comprising at least one step of irradiating with a laser beam a first surface of the sample so as to obtain a second surface whose roughness Ra is less than 400 nm (see Figs. 12-13).
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 have modified Tan to have a method for producing a surface of a sample of amorphous metal alloy using a femtosecond laser, the method comprising at least one step of irradiating with a laser beam a first surface of the sample so as to obtain a second surface whose roughness Ra is less than 400 nm, as taught by Kupisiewicz. Such a modification would allow to produce a sample with a precise roughness.
Regarding Claim 15: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches all the limitations of Claim 1, as stated above, and Kupisiewicz further teaches that it is a method for cutting a sample of amorphous metal (Fig. 19b, line 402) alloy using a femtosecond laser, the method comprising at least one step of irradiating with a laser beam a first surface (see Fig. 19b, surface horizontal of 402) of the sample on one face so as to obtain a second face (see Fig. 19b, surface vertical of 402)-such that at each point of intersection of the faces form therebetween an angle 90± 1.50 (see line 402 of Fig. 19b).
Regarding Claim 17: Tan in view of Kupisiewicz teaches a microcomponent of an amorphous metal alloy (sample of Tan) comprising at least one surface machined according to the method for producing a surface of claim 14 (see rejection of Claim 14).
Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ostdiek (US 2021/0108597) in view of Peace (US 2019/0072035) and further in view of Wikipedia (https://web.archive.org/web/202004111954405/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amorphous_meta).
Regarding Claim 16: Tan discloses a method for manufacturing a part of amorphous metal alloy (any part of the sample), including the steps of: - melting a mixture of metals to obtain a piece of alloy (alloys are made a melting different metals), machining at least one surface of the sample according to the machining method of Claim 1 (see rejection of Claim 1) to obtain a part of amorphous alloy according to a predetermined geometry (see Fig. 2).
Tan is silent regarding injecting the piece obtained into a mold and cooling the molded alloy with a cooling rate greater than a critical speed of crystallization of the alloy, to obtain a sample of amorphous alloy.
However, Wikipedia teaches injecting the piece obtained into a mold and cooling the molded alloy with a cooling rate greater than a critical speed of crystallization of the alloy, to obtain a sample of amorphous alloy (see two first paragraphs).
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 have modified Tan to have injecting the piece obtained into a mold and cooling the molded alloy with a cooling rate greater than a critical speed of crystallization of the alloy, to obtain a sample of amorphous alloy, as taught by Wikipedia. Such a modification would enable to limit the formation of crystallization, as recognized by Wikipedia (see 2nd paragraph).
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see notice of references cited.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE whose telephone number is (571)272-3482. The examiner can normally be reached on 8:30-18:30.
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 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 an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/RODOLPHE ANDRE CHABREYRIE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights