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 .
Examiner’s Note
The examiner has pointed out particular references contained in the prior art of record within the body of the action for the convenience of the applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply. Applicant, in preparing response should consider fully the entire reference as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or discussed by the examiner.
In addition, the functional recitation in the claims (e.g. "configured to" or "adapted to" or the like) that does not limit a claim limitation to a particular structure does not limit the scope of the claim. It has been held that the recitation that an element is "adapted to", "configured to", "designed to", or "operable to" perform a function is not a positive limitation but only requires the ability to so perform and may not constitute a limitation in a patentable sense. In re Hutchinson, 69 USPQ 139. (See MPEP 2111.04); see also In In re Giannelli, 739 F.3d 1375, 1378, 109 USPQ2d 1333, 1336 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Also, it should be noted that it has been held that a recitation with respect to the manner in which a claimed device is intended to be employed does not differentiate the claimed device from a prior art apparatus satisfying the claimed structural limitations Ex-parte Masham 2 USPQ2d 1647 1987).
The claimed system in the instant application is capable of performing the claimed functionality, as is the prior art used in the present office action. The Examiner notes that where the patent office has reason to believe that a functional limitation asserted to be critical for establishing novelty in the claimed subject matter may, in fact, be an inherent characteristic of the prior art, it possesses the authority to require the applicant to prove that the subject matter shown to be in the prior art does not possess the characteristic relied on. In re Swinehart and sfiligoj, 169 USPQ 226 (C.C.P.A. 1971).
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.
Claim(s) 1-7 are is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welna et al., (hereinafter Welna), US 2017/0179674 A1 in view of Keaton et al., (hereinafter Keaton), US 8,422,119 B1.
As to claims 1 and 7, Welna discloses and shows in Figs. 1, 15, 18 and 21-22, a pulsed light generation device/method (Welna discloses a laser device using a laser light source and nonlinear optical component for frequency conversion. The reference expressly discusses changes in pulsed operation and duty cycle of pulsed operation at paras. [0087], [0133], [0142], [0185], indicating that the system is applicable to pulsed light operation) comprising: a nonlinear optical crystal configured to cause first pulsed light emitted from a pulsed light source to enter (Welna discloses laser light source 2 and nonlinear optical component 4 performing nonlinear frequency conversion at [0072], [0150]–[0152]) and to emit second pulsed light obtained by wavelength-converting the first pulsed light (Welna discloses nonlinear optical component 4 that performs frequency conversion of source light 3 into output light 5. See para. [0072] and [0150]–[0152]. The output is generated by SHG in a β-BaB₂O₄ crystal in the examples, which is a nonlinear optical crystal. See paras. [0150], [0158], [0169], [0178], [0183]) and a diffraction grating that is disposed on an advancing path of the second pulsed light emitted from the nonlinear optical crystal (Welna discloses a surface diffraction grating used as a wavelength stabilising component 70 in the optical path. See paras. [0183]–[0186] and Fig. 22. The diffraction grating is disposed on the path of light emitted from the nonlinear optical component / residual beam path) and that is configured to emit third pulsed light obtained by reducing a ratio of an amount of change in pointing with respect to an amount of change in frequency of the entered pulsed light (Welna expressly discloses that a beam stabilising optical component such as a diffraction grating reduces variation in direction/position of output light with changes in operating conditions. See paras. [0141]–[0146], especially [0145] and [0185]–[0188]. In particular, the diffraction grating is used to stabilize the wavelength of light emitted by the laser diode and thereby reduce mismatch and direction change; this corresponds to reducing the dependence of pointing on frequency changes).
In arguendo, Welna does not explicitly disclose the claimed pulsed-light architecture in the exact claim form or recite the specific functional relationship of reducing a ratio of amount of change in pointing with respect to amount of change in frequency.
Keaton from the same field of endeavor discloses nonlinear optical wavelength conversion systems and beam-conditioning optics, including cylindrical-lens walkoff compensation and relay imaging arrangements for improving beam quality and controlling beam shape in nonlinear optical systems. Keaton also teaches that nonlinear optical beam propagation can be shaped and compensated by optical elements positioned in the beam path, and that such optical arrangements are used to maintain beam quality and improve output-beam roundness and astigmatism control (See Keaton FIGS. 3, 4A–4D, 6, 7, and 8 and the sections titled “1. Cylindrical Lens to Compensate for Walk-Off” and “2. Two-Lens Relay Between SHG and THG Crystals.”).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Welna system with the nonlinear optical wavelength-conversion teachings of Keaton in order to provide a pulsed light generation device including a nonlinear optical crystal and diffraction-grating stabilization, for the advantage of generating wavelength-converted output light with reduced beam-pointing sensitivity to frequency variation.
As to claim 2, Welna discloses the pulsed light generation device according to claim 1 but does not explicitly disclose further comprising an optical system that is disposed between the nonlinear optical crystal and the diffraction grating on the advancing path, and that is configured to emit fourth pulsed light obtained by reducing or magnifying an amount of change in pointing with respect to an amount of change in frequency of the second pulsed light entered from the nonlinear optical crystal, wherein the diffraction grating emits a pulsed light obtained by reducing a ratio of the amount of change of the entered fourth pulsed light as the third pulsed light.
Keaton teaches relay optics and beam-conditioning optics, including lens-based systems for reshaping beam properties between optical stages (Figs. 3, 6 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to insert the optical system taught by Keaton into the Welna device before the diffraction grating that is configured to emit fourth pulsed light obtained by reducing or magnifying an amount of change in pointing with respect to an amount of change in frequency of the second pulsed light entered from the nonlinear optical crystal, wherein the diffraction grating emits a pulsed light obtained by reducing a ratio of the amount of change of the entered fourth pulsed light as the third pulsed light for the advantage of conditioning the converted beam prior to stabilization and improving control of beam propagation characteristics.
As to claim 3, Welna discloses the pulsed light generation device according to claim 2, but does not explicitly disclose wherein the optical system has a first lens disposed between the nonlinear optical crystal and the diffraction grating on the advancing path, and a second lens disposed between the first lens and the diffraction grating on the advancing path, wherein an emitting surface of the nonlinear optical crystal and a grating surface of the diffraction grating are disposed at positions conjugate to each other.
Keaton teaches two-lens relay systems and conjugate imaging relationships for nonlinear optical beams (Figs. 3, 6 and 7).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to implement the two-lens conjugate relay of Keaton in the Welna optical path, for the advantage of imaging the nonlinear crystal output surface to the grating surface and improving beam control and alignment.
As to claim 4, Welna discloses the pulsed light generation device according to claim 3, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, when a focal distance of the first lens is expressed as ft and a focal distance of the second lens is expressed as f2, a distance between the first lens and the second lens is (ft+f2).
Keaton expressly teaches a two-lens relay arrangement in which the spacing between the lenses is the sum of their focal lengths, f1+f2, as shown in Fig. 7 and in associated relay-lens embodiment of Fig. 6).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the lens spacing taught by Keaton in the optical system of Welna, for the advantage of maintaining a standard relay-imaging condition and achieving proper conjugate imaging between the nonlinear crystal and the diffraction grating.
As to claim 5, Welna discloses the pulsed light generation device according to claim 4, but does not explicitly disclose wherein, when a
PNG
media_image1.png
234
708
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Keaton teaches compensation of beam walk-off and beam distortion using optical elements positioned to offset directional changes introduced by nonlinear optical interaction (FigS. 3, 4A-4D).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify the Welna system according to the compensation teachings of Keaton so that the diffraction grating and/or intermediate optics offset the directional effects of the nonlinear crystal, for the advantage of reducing beam pointing variation caused by wavelength change.
As to claim 6, Welna discloses the pulsed light generation device according to claim 1, but does not explicitly discloses wherein an incidence angle of the pulsed light to a grating surface of the diffraction grating is substantially equal to an emitting angle of the third pulsed light from the grating surface.
However, Welna does teach a diffraction grating arrangement in which incident light is diffracted back along the incident path, i.e., a Littrow-type configuration (Fig. 22). This is the same operational geometry required by the claim.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to use the Littrow-type diffraction grating arrangement taught by Welna, for the advantage of stabilizing wavelength and simplifying beam routing through the grating.
Claim(s) 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Welna in view of Keaton and further in view of JP 2004-502551A (hereinafter JP 551) (cited in the IDS; English translation provided by the applicant).
As to claim 8, Welna discloses a pulsed light source configured to emit first pulsed light; a nonlinear optical crystal configured to emit second pulsed light obtained by wavelength-converting the first pulsed light emitted from the pulsed light source; a diffraction grating that is disposed on an advancing path of the second pulsed light emitted from the nonlinear optical crystal and that is configured to emit third pulsed light obtained by reducing a ratio of an amount of change in pointing with respect to an amount of change in frequency of the entered pulsed light (see rejection of claim 1).
Welna when modified by Keaton doesn’t explicitly disclose a processing part that is configured to irradiate a workpiece with the third pulsed light emitted from the diffraction grating and to process the workpiece.
JP 551 expressly discloses a laser system for processing a link of an IC device and a method of processing a link of an IC device, including directing laser output to a target location on a workpiece 12 and severing or disconnecting a link 22. (JP 551, FIGS. 1, 3, 4, and 6, and paragraphs [0004], [0007], [0013], [0042], [0057]–[0059], as well as Claims 41 and 69). In particular, JP -551 teaches that the beam combiner 120 and objective lens 122 direct wavelength-converted output 74 to a desired laser target location 124 on the workpiece 12, and that the beam positioning system 130 directs the laser beam to irradiate and sever the link 22. See JP 551, [0042], [0057]–[0059].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the stabilized pulsed-light source of Welna, the beam-conditioning optical arrangements of Keaton, and the workpiece-processing teachings of JP 551 because each reference addresses a predictable and compatible aspect of laser-based operation: Welna provides wavelength-stabilized nonlinear conversion, Keaton provides beam shaping and relay optics, and JP 551 provides the downstream application of directing the laser beam to a workpiece for processing. The combination would have yielded the claimed processing device with a stabilized pulsed-light source and a processing part configured to irradiate a workpiece with the pulsed light and process the workpiece.
Conclusion
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 TARIFUR RASHID CHOWDHURY whose telephone number is (571)272-2287. The examiner can normally be reached M-F: 8 am-5 pm.
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, Allana L. Bidder can be reached at (571)272-5560. 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.
/TARIFUR R CHOWDHURY/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights