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 .
Priority
Receipt is acknowledged of certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55.
Information Disclosure Statement
The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 05/06/2024 has been considered by the examiner.
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.
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 1 and 3-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura (JP2003279758A) in view of Takeshima (JP2005205464A).
Regarding claim 1, Matsuura teaches an optical component manufacturing method, comprising: preparing a glass member in which a continuous refractive index changing region is to be provided (P0054), irradiating femtosecond laser light onto the glass member so as to condense it within the glass member (P0054-55), a light intensity distribution of the femtosecond laser light on a plane including the condensed point and orthogonal to a thickness direction of the glass member has a flat-top region (fig.4b, P0056-57), and a beam irradiation region on the plane including the condensed point and orthogonal to the thickness direction of the glass member is a beam spot of the femtosecond laser light and is a single continuous region defined by a contour of a region (fig.4b), wherein the femtosecond laser light has an energy amount that causes a light-induced refractive index change in the glass member (P0054). Matsuura is not specific to moving a condensed point of laser light.
Takeshima, in the same field of endeavor, laser processing, teaches moving a position of a condensed point of the femtosecond laser light relative to the glass member along a scanning direction (P0024, P0117).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have used the methods of Takeshima for the purpose of keeping chromatic aberration low as taught by Takeshima (P0040).
Modified Matsuura is not specific to the details of a light intensity in the light intensity distribution is 1/e2 or more of a maximum light intensity, the flat-top region is a region of 1/2 or more of the maximum light intensity, an area of the flat-top region is 0.45 times or more that of the beam irradiation region, an angle between a direction in which a width of the beam irradiation region is widest and a scanning direction is 70 degrees or more and 110 degrees or less, and an angle between the scanning direction and the plane orthogonal to the thickness direction of the glass member is 20 degrees or less.
However, these limitations amount to optimization within routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized these process parameters to achieve the desired effect.
Regarding claim 3, Modified Matsuura is silent to the light intensity distribution having a central region forming a part of the flat-top region, including a center of gravity of the beam irradiation region, and accounting for 50% of the area of the flat-top region, and the central region has a flatness such that a maximum light intensity and a minimum light intensity within the central region fall within a range of 55% or more and 145% or less of an average light intensity in the central region.
However, these limitations amount to optimization within routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized these process parameters to achieve the desired effect.
Regarding claim 4, Takeshima teaches the beam spot is formed by a second optical system including a condenser lens (3) and a cylindrical lens (2, P0048, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 5, Takeshima teaches in a cross-section of the glass member orthogonal to the scanning direction, the refractive index changing region includes no refractive index periodic structure in which a refractive index periodically fluctuates along an axis passing through the refractive index changing region (fig.7, 21, uniform index of refraction, P0116).
Regarding claim 6, Takeshima is silent to the axis for checking the refractive index periodic structure is an axis that makes an angle from 0 to 10 degrees with respect to a reference axis orthogonal to both the scanning direction and an irradiation direction in which the laser light is irradiated. However, these limitations amount to optimization within routine experimentation. In re Aller, 220 F.2d 454, 456, 105 USPQ 233, 235 Where 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. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art to have determined the optimum values of the relevant process parameters through routine experimentation in the absence of a showing of criticality.
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have optimized these process parameters to achieve the desired measurement as the goal is to isolate a value of a homogeneous region in an overall heterogeneous structure.
Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Matsuura (JP2003279758A) in view of Takeshima (JP2005205464A) as applied to claim 1, further in view of Troy (Optical Materials, 2012).
Regarding claim 2, modified Matsuura is silent to injecting hydrogen into the glass member.
Troy, in the same field of endeavor, laser processing, teaches the preparing includes injecting hydrogen into the glass member (ABS, Intro, ¶ 4).
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have injected hydrogen into the glass member for the purpose of faster processing as taught by Troy (Results ¶ 2).
"The combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 127 S.Ct. 1727, 82 USPQ2d 1385 (2007).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ERICA H FUNK whose telephone number is (571)272-3785. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday 8:00-5:00pm ET.
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, Alison Hindenlang can be reached on (571) 270-7001. 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.
/ERICA HARTSELL FUNK/Examiner, Art Unit 1741