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 .
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: “an irradiated facet specifying unit” in claim 1, “a position adjusting unit” in claim 2, and “a reference facet detecting unit” in claim 3, wherein the place holder “unit” is preceded by functional limitations “irradiated facet specifying”, “position adjusting”, and “reference facet detecting”, respectively.
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.
Structural support for the “irradiated facet specifying unit” can be found in ¶ (0046 – 0048) of the specification, FIG.3 and FIG. 7, wherein the “irradiated facet specifying unit” is the controller 44 and the reference facet detecting unit 90, wherein the reference facet detecting unit in turn includes a light emitter or a light projector 92, a light detector 94, a polarizing beam splitter 96 and a lens 98.
Thus, the irradiated facet specifying unit is interpreted to be a controller with a facet detecting unit that includes a light emitter, splitter, lens and detector and equivalent thereof, and the reference facet detecting unit is a light emitter, splitter, lens and detector and equivalent thereof.
Structural support for a position adjusting unit can be found in ¶ 0037 of the specification, wherein the position adjusting unit is described as for example, an acousto-optic deflector (AOD), an electro-optic deflector (EOD), a Galvano scanner, or an optical MEMS.
Thus, the position adjusting unit is interpreted to be any of an acousto-optic deflector (AOD), an electro-optic deflector (EOD), a Galvano scanner, or an optical MEMS and equivalent 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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 – 2 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a) (1) as being anticipated by Nomaru (US 2019/0076961 A1) and hereinafter “Nomaru”
Regarding claim 1, Nomaru discloses a laser processing apparatus (annotated FIG.2) comprising:
a holding table for holding a workpiece thereon (chuck table 20 for holding workpiece 70, see annotated FIG.2);
a laser oscillator for emitting a laser beam (laser oscillator 38 for emitting a laser beam LB, see annotated FIG.2);
a polygon mirror having a plurality of reflecting facets and scanning the laser beam emitted by the laser oscillator (a polygon mirror 40 having a plurality of mirror facets M and scanning the laser beam emitted by the laser oscillator 38 (0019 and see annotated FIG.2));
a beam condenser for converging the laser beam scanned by the polygon mirror and applying the converged laser beam to the workpiece (a beam condenser 42 for condensing the laser beam LB scanned by the polygon mirror 40 and applying the condensed pulsed laser beam LB to the workpiece, (0019 and see annotated FIG.2)); and
an irradiated facet specifying unit (an angular displacement detecting unit 54 and a controller 56, see annotated FIG.2) for specifying an irradiated facet of the polygon mirror to which the laser beam is applied among the reflecting facets (the angular displacement detecting unit 54 sends a detection signal of angular displacement of the polygon mirror 40 to the controller 56 and the controller adjusts the laser beam LB position to irradiate a specified mirror facet M of the polygon mirror 40, (0024 and see annotated FIG.2)).
PNG
media_image1.png
547
803
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Regarding claim 2, Nomaru discloses the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1, further comprising: a position adjusting unit (dispersed region adjusting unit 44 (AOD), see annotated FIG.2) for adjusting a position where the laser beam is applied to the irradiated facet with respect to each of the reflecting facets (the dispersed region adjusting unit 44 (AOD) adjusts a dispersed region of the pulsed laser beam LB by causing the pulsed laser beam to follow a certain direction to fall on the mirror facets M of the polygon mirror, (0019 – 0020 , 0024 and see FIG. 2)).
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.
Claim(s) 3 – 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nomaru in view of Yamaya (US 2017/0153567 A1) and hereinafter “Yamaya”.
Regarding claim 3, Nomaru discloses the laser processing apparatus according to claim 1, wherein a reference facet detecting unit (the angular displacement detecting unit 54 that includes a laser emitting element 58 and detector 60, see annotate FIG. 2) in conjunction with the controller 56 identifies which facet M of the polygon mirror 40 is irradiated by the laser beam, (0024 and see annotated FIG.2).
Nomaru does not explicitly teach that the irradiated facet specifying unit includes the reference facet detecting unit for detecting a predetermined reference facet from among the reflecting facets, and the irradiated facet specifying unit specifies the irradiated facet on a basis of the reference facet.
However, Yamaya that relates to optical scanning device for scanning a laser beam deflected by a rotatable polygonal mirror (0001- 0002), also teaches that a controller 126 identifies a reflecting surface as a reference surface (Facet 1) of the rotatable polygonal mirror 115 on the basis of the BD signal from a BD detector 117 reflected from a facet M of the polygon mirror and based on Facet 1 specifies the facet of irradiation, (0027 – 0031). Yamaya further discusses, this enables a deviation of the scanning position with the laser beam due to accuracy of the rotatable polygonal mirror can be electrically corrected, (0042).
Therefore, it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to modify irradiated facet specifying unit of Nomaru to include identification of predetermined refence facet and specifying the facet if irradiation base on the reference facet as such identification enables correction of scanning deviations due to rotation accuracy of the rotating polygon mirror, resulting in processing pression of the workpiece as taught in Yamaya.
Regarding claim 4, Nomaru in view of Yamaya teaches the laser processing apparatus according to claim 3, wherein the reference facet detecting unit includes a light emitting unit for emitting a light beam to be applied to the reflecting facets and a light detecting unit for detecting the light beam reflected by the reflecting facets (the angular displacement detecting unit 54 that includes a light emitting element 58 for emitting light toward the facets of polygon mirror 40 and detector 60 for detecting light reflected by the mirror facets M of the polygon mirror 40, Norman (0020 and see annotate FIG. 2), the reference facet has a reflectance different from a reflectance of the reflecting facets other than the reference facet with respect to the light beam applied to the reflecting facets, and the irradiated facet specifying unit specifies the reference facet on a basis of an amount of light of the light beam detected by the light detecting unit (the BD signal detected by the detector 117 reflected from the reference Facet 1 is different from the other facets of the polygon mirror 115, and the controller 126 identified the reference Facet 1 from the other facet of the polygon mirror based on the detected reflected BD signal, Yamaya (0041 – 0042 and see FIG.2)).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DILNESSA B BELAY whose telephone number is (571)272-3136. The examiner can normally be reached M-F approx. 8:00 am - 5:30 pm EST.
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.
/DILNESSA B BELAY/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights