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 Objections
Claims 2-3 and 9-13 are objected to because of the following informalities:
Claim 2 recites “one or more second measured values” should be changed to “said one or more measured values”. For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted the above claim limitations to be “said one or more measured values”.
Claim 3 recites “one or more third measured values” at line 7should be changed to “said one or more measured values”. For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted the above claim limitations to be “said one or more measured values”.
Claim 3 recites “the one or more third measured values” at line 11 should be changed to “said one or more measured values”. For examining purpose, examiner has interpreted the above claim limitations to be “said one or more measured values”.
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:
“at least one component” in claims 1, 17-18.
“a beam characterization tool” in claims 1, 17-18.
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.
“at least one component” (claims 1, 17-18) is interpreted as “one or more optical components (e.g., beam expanders, beam shapers, apertures, filters, collimators, lenses, mirrors, polarizers, wave plates, diffractive optical elements, refractive optical elements, or the like or any combination thereof) and One example of such an optical component is a variable optical attenuator (VOA), configured to selectively and variably reduce the power of the laser pulses propagating along the beam path 116. Examples of a VOA that can be incorporated include one or more systems such as a variable neutral density filter, an acousto-optical (AO) modulator (AOM), an AO deflector (AOD), a liquid crystal variable attenuator (LCVA), a micro-electro-mechanical system (MEMS)-based VOA, an optical attenuator wheel, a polarizer/waveplate filter, or the like or any combination thereof.” (See para. 0036-0037 of instant publication application).
“a beam characterization tool” (claims 1, 7-18) is interpreted as “a slit sensor, a knife-edge sensor, a camera (e.g., CCD, CMOS, etc.), a wavefront sensor (e.g., a Shack-Hartmann wavefront sensor, etc.), or any other laser beam profiler known in the art, or the like or any combination thereof.” (para.0086 of instant publication application).
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 § 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.
The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112:
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 of carrying out his invention.
Claims 2-3 and 9-13 are 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 2 recites “one or more second measured values”. However, nothing in the specification teaches or suggest one or more second measured values. Examiner noted that “one or more measured value” means at least one value (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …). It does not automatically imply separate groups like second values.
Claim 3 recites “one or more third measured values”. However, nothing in the specification teaches or suggest one or more third measured values. Examiner noted that “one or more measured value” means at least one value (i.e., 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, …). It does not automatically imply separate groups like one or more second measured values.
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 5 is 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 5 recites “at least one component includes the laser source”. However, claim 1 recites “a laser source” and “at least one component” and they are refers to distinct elements based on claim language. Then, it is unclear as to how the two distinct structures as (a laser source and at least one component) as recited in claim 1 refers to the same thing. Currently, claim 5 conflicts with claim 1.
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, 5, 8 and 14-18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 a1 as being anticipated by Kurosawa et al. (US 5,463,202).
Regarding claim 1, Kurosawa et al. discloses “a laser-processing apparatus” (abstract, i.e., a method and apparatus for detecting the machining status. Fig.13), comprising:
“a laser source” (12) operative to generate “a beam of laser energy” (8),
“wherein the beam of laser energy is propagatable along a beam path” (the beam of the laser energy 8 is propagatable along a beam path (9 pointed at the dash lines));
“at least one component” (3 and 22) operative to perform at least one act on the beam of laser energy selected from the group consisting of: (a) deflecting the beam of laser energy, (b) adjusting the position of a beam waist of the beam of laser energy along the beam path, (c) adjusting a power of the beam of laser energy; and “(d) adjusting a beam size of the beam of laser energy” (fig.20, S104, i.e., focal position. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction. Col.9 at lines 20-30. Examiner noted that adjusting the focal position also adjusts the beam size because the beam's diameter is smallest at the focal point and widens as it moves away);
“a beam characterization tool” (fig.13, 1) operative to “measure one or more characteristics of the beam of laser energy and generate measurement data representative of one or more of the measured beam characteristics” (figs.17 and19 shows the graph which includes at least one data point or value in order to make a graph); and
“at least one processor” (10) operative to:
“process the measurement data to obtain one or more measured values associated with the one or more measured characteristics of the beam of laser energy” (fig.20, S101 and fig.17); and
“output one or more control signals” (fig.20, S102) to “the at least one component” (fig.20, S104. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction) “when the one or more measured values is outside a threshold processing tolerance” (fig.20, S103. Examiner noted that at step S103 if measured value is outside a threshold processing tolerance then no cutting (i.e., cutting fault occurrence). Fig.19 shows example of determining whether measured value is inside or outside a threshold processing tolerance),
wherein “the one or more control signals are configured to cause the at least one component to perform at least one act on the beam of laser energy” (fig.20, S104, i.e., focal position. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction. Col.9 at lines 20-30) such that “the one or more measured characteristics of the beam of laser energy are brought to within the threshold processing tolerance” (fig.20 shows S103 determining if the fault occurrence happens and if the fault occurrence happens then it returns to S101, 102 and S103 for determining if the cutting is normal or within the threshold processing tolerance (i.e., fig.20, YES (CUTTING NORMAL).).
Regarding claim 5, Kurosawa et al. discloses “the at least one component includes the laser source” (12).
Regarding claim 8, Kurosawa et al. discloses the at least one component includes at least one selected from the group consisting of a zoom lens, variable-focus lens, a motorized variable beam expander, a deformable mirror, a variable-radius mirror, a variable-focus moiré lens, “a motorized Z-axis lens” (3 and 22), a motorized iris diaphragm and a motorized aperture wheel.
Regarding claim 14, Kurosawa et al. discloses “the beam characterization tool is arranged and configured to measure the one or more characteristics of the beam of laser energy at an end of the beam path” (1).
Regarding claim 15, Kurosawa et al. discloses “the beam characterization tool is arranged and configured to measure the one or more characteristics of the beam of laser energy at a location along the beam path” (1 is arranged and configured to measure the one or more characteristics of the beam of laser energy at a location along the beam path).
Regarding claim 16, Kurosawa et al. discloses “a beam splitter” (14) arranged in “the beam path” (fig.13, the dash line refers to the beam path) and configured to propagate portion of the laser energy propagating along the beam path to the beam characterization tool” (9’ pointed at the reflected laser energy along the beam path to the beam characterization tool 1).
Regarding claim 17, Kurosawa et al. discloses “a controller” (fig.13, 10) for use with “a laser-processing apparatus” (intended use. abstract, i.e., a method and apparatus for detecting the machining status. Fig.13) including “a laser source” (intended use. 12) operative to generate “a beam of laser energy” (intended use. 8), selected from the group consisting of: (a) deflecting the beam of laser energy, (b) adjusting the position of a beam waist of the beam of laser energy along the beam path, (c) adjusting a power of the beam of laser energy; and “(d) adjusting a beam size of the beam of laser energy” (intended use. fig.20, S104, i.e., focal position. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction. Col.9 at lines 20-30. Examiner noted that adjusting the focal position also adjusts the beam size because the beam's diameter is smallest at the focal point and widens as it moves away); “a beam characterization tool” (intended use. fig.13, 1) operative to “measure one or more characteristics of the beam of laser energy and generate measurement data representative of one or more of the measured beam characteristics” (figs.17 and19 shows the graph which includes at least one data point or value in order to make a graph), the controller comprising:
“at least one processor” (10) operative to:
“process the measurement data to obtain one or more measured values associated with the one or more measured characteristics of the beam of laser energy” (fig.20, S101 and fig.17); and
“output one or more control signals” (fig.20, S102) to “the at least one component” (fig.20, S104. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction) “when the one or more measured values is outside a threshold processing tolerance” (fig.20, S103. Examiner noted that at step S103 if measured value is outside a threshold processing tolerance then no cutting (i.e., cutting fault occurrence). Fig.19 shows example of determining whether measured value is inside or outside a threshold processing tolerance),
wherein “the one or more control signals are configured to cause the at least one component to perform at least one act on the beam of laser energy” (fig.20, S104, i.e., focal position. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction. Col.9 at lines 20-30) such that “the one or more measured characteristics of the beam of laser energy are brought to within the threshold processing tolerance” (fig.20 shows S103 determining if the fault occurrence happens and if the fault occurrence happens then it returns to S101, 102 and S103 for determining if the cutting is normal or within the threshold processing tolerance (i.e., fig.20, YES (CUTTING NORMAL).).
Regarding claim 18, Kurosawa et al. discloses “A non-transitory computer-readable media” (fig.13, 10) for use with “a laser-processing apparatus” (intended use. abstract, i.e., a method and apparatus for detecting the machining status. Fig.13) including “a laser source” (intended use. 12) operative to generate “a beam of laser energy” (intended use. 8), selected from the group consisting of: (a) deflecting the beam of laser energy, (b) adjusting the position of a beam waist of the beam of laser energy along the beam path, (c) adjusting a power of the beam of laser energy; and “(d) adjusting a beam size of the beam of laser energy” (intended use. fig.20, S104, i.e., focal position. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction. Col.9 at lines 20-30. Examiner noted that adjusting the focal position also adjusts the beam size because the beam's diameter is smallest at the focal point and widens as it moves away); “a beam characterization tool” (intended use. fig.13, 1) operative to “measure one or more characteristics of the beam of laser energy and generate measurement data representative of one or more of the measured beam characteristics” (figs.17 and19 shows the graph which includes at least one data point or value in order to make a graph), “a controller” (10) operative to control an operation of “the at least one component” (3 and 22), “the non-transitory computer-readable media having instructions stored thereon which, when executed by the controller” (it is inherently and necessarily that the controller 10 has a memory in order to store instructions or algorithm), cause the controller to:
“process the measurement data to obtain one or more measured values associated with the one or more measured characteristics of the beam of laser energy” (fig.20, S101 and fig.17); and
“output one or more control signals” (fig.20, S102) to “the at least one component” (fig.20, S104. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction) “when the one or more measured values is outside a threshold processing tolerance” (fig.20, S103. Examiner noted that at step S103 if measured value is outside a threshold processing tolerance then no cutting (i.e., cutting fault occurrence). Fig.19 shows example of determining whether measured value is inside or outside a threshold processing tolerance),
wherein “the one or more control signals are configured to cause the at least one component to perform at least one act on the beam of laser energy” (fig.20, S104, i.e., focal position. Fig.13 shows driving gear 22 for adjust the optical component such as cutting lens 3 in vertical direction. Col.9 at lines 20-30) such that “the one or more measured characteristics of the beam of laser energy are brought to within the threshold processing tolerance” (fig.20 shows S103 determining if the fault occurrence happens and if the fault occurrence happens then it returns to S101, 102 and S103 for determining if the cutting is normal or within the threshold processing tolerance (i.e., fig.20, YES (CUTTING NORMAL).).
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.
Claim(s) 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa et al. (US 5,463,202) in view of Okamoto et al. (US 2012/0074105).
Regarding claim 4, Kurosawa et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the beam characterization tool is operative to measure one or more spatial characteristics of the beam of laser energy.
Okamoto et al. teaches “the beam characterization tool is operative to measure one or more spatial characteristics of the beam of laser energy” (Claim 18, i.e., one or more sensors independently operable from the laser machining device, wherein said sensor(s) monitor one or more process signals in a three-dimensional spatial section associated with a workpiece. Examiner noted that beam profile include the spatial characteristics of the beam). One skilled in the art would have found it obvious to substitute Kurosawa et al.’s sensor with Okamoto et al.’s sensor are both recognized by the art for the same purpose of using the measurement data to determine measured characteristics of the beam of laser energy. MPEP 2144.06.
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa et al. (US 5,463,202) in view of Hooper et al. (US 2011/0298156 A1)
Regarding claim 6, Kurosawa et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the at least one component includes is at least one selected from the group consisting of an acousto-optic deflector (AOD) system, a micro-electro-mechanical-system (MEMS) mirror system, a fast-steering mirror (FSM) element, a galvanometer mirror system and a workpiece stage.
Okamoto et al. teaches the at least one component includes is at least one selected from the group consisting of “an acousto-optic deflector (AOD) system” ([0107], i.e., an acousto-optic deflector (AOD)), a micro-electro-mechanical-system (MEMS) mirror system, a fast-steering mirror (FSM) element, a galvanometer mirror system and a workpiece stage. It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kurosawa et al. with Okamoto et al., by adding Okamoto et al.’s AOD system to Kurosawa et al.’s optical path, to allow high speed and precise scanning for the workpiece.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kurosawa et al. (US 5,463,202) in view of Barron et al. (US 2006/0196858)
Regarding claim 7, Kurosawa et al. discloses all the features of claim limitations as set forth above except for the at least one component includes a variable optical attenuator.
Barron et al. teaches “the at least one component includes a variable optical attenuator” ([0052], i.e., a variable optical attenuator 94). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Kurosawa et al. with Barron et al., by adding Barron et al.’s variable optical attenuator to Kurosawa et al.’s optical system, to control intensity of optical signal by precisely reducing its power in a controlled, adjustable way.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 01/20/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “35 USC 112b … claim 1 does not require that the laser source and the at least one component be mutually exclusive structure …” on page 7 of remark.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because the claim 1 requires two distinct elements such as “a laser source” and “at least one component”. If the laser source is part of the at least one component then it should be a laser source of said at least one component (not proposed amendment).
Applicant argues “35 USC 102 … That is, Kurosawa's light sensor does not measure characteristics of the beam of laser energy. Rather, Kurosawa explicitly teaches that the light sensor measures secondary light generated at the workpiece cut surface … In summary, Kurosawa teaches a process monitoring system that detects secondary light emissions from the workpiece to identify cutting faults and adjust process parameters accordingly. Kurosawa does not teach a beam characterization tool that measures characteristics of the beam of laser energy, nor does it teach bringing measured beam characteristics within a threshold processing tolerance” on page 8-10 of remark.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because “characteristics of the beam of laser energy” can be characteristics of the reflected beam of laser energy. The claim does not exclude return beam as beam of laser energy. The light sensor (step 101) detects the return beam to determine if the energy level is within the certain upper and lower specified level (see fig.20). When cutting energy exceed a threshold (S103) then it proceed with adjustment to repeat the cycle S101-S103 to make sure the energy level is within the specified level determined by S103.
Conclusion
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Helena Kosanovic can be reached at (571) 272-9059. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761