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 Rejections - 35 USC § 102
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 1 and 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by LEE et al. ( KR 10-2014-0064475 A) .
LEE discloses a laser processing apparatus comprising: a laser generator (100) that
generates a laser beam; a diffraction optical element (210) that splits the laser beam generated from the laser generator into a plurality of sub-laser beams; an objective lens (270) that is located in front of a processing target (3) and positions the foci of the plurality of sub-laser beams (2) on the surface of the processing target (3); a first aberration correction optical system (251); and a second aberration correction optical system (252) (see paragraphs [0030] and [0044], claim 1, and figures 2 and 6).
PNG
media_image1.png
429
779
media_image1.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image2.png
293
815
media_image2.png
Greyscale
PNG
media_image3.png
226
899
media_image3.png
Greyscale
Additionally, regarding claim 12 LEE discloses a stage (300) that can adjust the position of the processing target (3) (see paragraph [0026] and figure 1).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
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.
The Supreme Court in KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper “functional approach” to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit.
EXEMPLARY RATIONALES
Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include:
(A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results;
(B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results;
(C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way;
(D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results;
(E) “Obvious to try” – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success;
(F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art;
(G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 2-8 and 11-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. ( KR 10-2014-0064475 A)
Lee discloses the claimed invention except in reference to claims 2-8, 11:
Regarding claim 2, it could be easily derived from the feature disclosed in LEE , wherein an
aberration correction optical system (250) reduces aberration according to relative positions of the plurality of sub-laser beams (2) so that the foci of all the sub-laser beams (2) are formed on the surface of the processing target (3) (see paragraph [0044] and figures 2 and 6).
Regarding claims 3-4 the claim differences amount to design changes to the feature disclosed in LEE , wherein the sub-laser beams split by the diffraction optical element (210) are all accommodated in the first aberration correction optical system (251) (see figure 6).
Regarding claim 5, the additional features could be easily derived from the feature disclosed in LEE , of a beam gap adjustor that adjusts a gap between the plurality of sub-laser beams (see claim 1 and figures 2 to 6).
Regarding claims 6-8 the additional features amount to design changes to the feature disclosed in LEE , wherein the gap between the plurality of sub-laser beams (2) are variously changed (see paragraph [0055]).
The additional feature of claim 11 amounts to a design change to the feature disclosed in LEE , of further comprising: a scanner (260) that changes the traveling paths of the sub-laser beams (2); and the objective lens (270) that is located in front of the processing target (3) and positions the foci of the plurality of sub-laser beams (2) on the surface of the processing target (3) (see paragraph [0030] and figure 2).
Claim(s) 9-10 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over LEE et al. ( KR 10-2014-0064475 A) alone or in view of KIM (WO 2020189897 A1)
Regarding Claims 9-10 The additional features of claims 9-10 could be easily derived from: the features disclosed in LEE , of a beam expander that inputs a laser beam of uniform intensity to the diffraction optical element and a high order beam block mask that removes a high order sub-laser beam (see claims 15-16 and figure 2); and the feature disclosed in KIM, wherein a difference in the beam intensity or strength occurs between a plurality of unit beams (13a) (see paragraph [0038] and figure 2). 【0038】 Referring to fig. 2, when the multi-beams 13 are formed by dividing the laser beam 12 into a plurality of unit beams 13a, a difference in beam intensity or intensity may occur between the plurality of unit beams 13a. This may be caused by diffractive optics, lens aberration, or the like in the process of forming the multi-beam 13 by dividing one laser beam 12, and due to this difference (or error), the multi-beam 13 may be heterogeneous for each position of the unit beam 13a.
PNG
media_image4.png
1078
816
media_image4.png
Greyscale
Claim 13 LEE , which is closest to claim 13, discloses a laser processing apparatus comprising: a laser generator (100) that generates a laser beam; a diffraction optical clement (210) that splits the laser beam generated from the laser generator into a plurality of sub-laser beams; and an objective lens (270) that is located in front of a processing target (3) and positions the foci of the plurality of sub-laser beams (2) on the surface of the processing target (3) (see paragraph [0030], claim 1 and figures 2 and 6). Claim 13 differs from LEE in that the latter does not disclose the feature of the former wherein a focusing lens unit is apart from a multi beam generator to accommodate the plurality of sub-laser beams that are split at the maximum angle from the multi beam generator. However, said difference could be easily derived by a person skilled in the art from the feature disclosed in LEE , wherein the sub-laser beams split by the diffraction optical element (210) are all accommodated in the objective lens (270) and are apart from each other (see figure 6); and the feature disclosed in KIM, wherein a focusing lens (132) is apart from a pattern plate (131) (see paragraph [0097] and figure 6).
Claims 14-15 The additional feature of claim 14 amounts to a design change to the feature disclosed in LEE , wherein the sub- laser beams split by the diffraction optical element (210) are all accommodated in the first aberration correction optical system (251) (see figure 6). The additional feature of claim 15 could be easily derived from the feature disclosed in LEE , of a beam gap adjustor that adjusts a gap between the plurality of sub-laser beams (see claim 1 and figures 2 to 6).
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THOR S CAMPBELL whose telephone number is (571)272-4776. The examiner can normally be reached M,W-F 6:30-10:30, 12-4.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached at 5712705569. 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.
/THOR S CAMPBELL/
Primary Examiner
Art Unit 3761
tsc
Prosecution Insights