Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114
A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 03/09/2026 has been entered.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of pre-AIA 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) the invention was known or used by others in this country, or patented or described in a printed publication in this or a foreign country, before the invention thereof by the applicant for a patent.
Claims 12-19 are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Johnson (US 7,133,187).
Regarding claim 12, Johnson teaches a laser processing system (50j) comprising: a laser source (64) configured to generate a laser beam (as shown in Fig. 28); a first positioning system (FSM or galvanometer mirrors; Col. 28, lines 55-62) configured to impart first relative movement of the laser beam path successively through a plurality of strips along a beam trajectory on a workpiece (80) (capable of imparting the claimed movement; as shown in Fig. 29-31; Col. 28, lines 65-67; Col. 29, lines 1-45); a second positioning system (60) configured to impart second relative movement (beam split from “beam dump 94” to “turn mirrors 76”; as shown in Fig. 28) of the laser beam path along a dither direction for each of a plurality of dither rows within each strip (capable of imparting the claimed movement; as shown in Fig. 29-31; Col. 28, lines 65-67; Col. 29, lines 1-45), wherein the second relative movement is superimposed on the first relative movement (reflectable by 76, splittable by AOM 605, reflectable by 140, and refractable by 78); and a controller (62) configured to control emission of a plurality of laser beam pulses to the workpiece along the laser beam path to laser spot locations within a two-dimensional skive area (Col. 28, lines 55-67 and Col. 29, lines 1-45).
Regarding claim 13, Johnson teaches the laser processing system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust an amplitude of at least one of the laser beam pulses emitted at one end of at least one of the strips (Col. 3, lines 53-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4; Col. 29, lines 4-16).
Regarding claim 14, Johnson teaches the laser processing system of claim 12, wherein the first positioning system comprises one or more beam positioners selected from a group comprising a galvanometer-driven mirror and a fast steering mirror (FSM or galvanometer mirrors; Col. 28, lines 55-62).
Regarding claim 15, Johnson teaches the laser processing system of claim 12, wherein the second positioning system comprises one or more beam positioners selected from the group comprising an acousto-optic deflector and an electro-optic deflector (AOD 60; Col. 28, lines 55-67).
Regarding claim 16, Johnson teaches the laser processing system of claim 15, wherein the controller is further configured to control the acousto-optic deflector to adjust the amplitude of the at least one of the laser beam pulses (Col. 3, lines 53-67 and Col. 4, lines 1-4; Col. 29, lines 4-16).
Regarding claim 17, Johnson teaches the laser processing system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to reverse the dither direction as the laser beam path moves from one of the strips to an adjacent strip (Col. 27, lines 4-17; Col. 28, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 1-45).
Regarding claim 18, Johnson teaches the laser processing system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to change a direction of the beam trajectory as the laser beam path moves from one of the strips to an adjacent strip (Col. 27, lines 4-17; Col. 28, lines 55-67; Col. 29, lines 1-45).
Regarding claim 19, Johnson teaches the laser processing system of claim 12, wherein the controller is further configured to adjust a width of at least one strip based on the shape of the skive area (as shown in Fig. 29-31; Col. 29, lines 17-45).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 02/10/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Regarding claim 1, Applicant argues that “Applicant respectfully submits that the Office Action's rejection is improper because Johnson does not actually disclose each and every element of claim 12. The Office Action relies on Johnson's positioning systems being "capable of imparting the claimed movement" rather than actually teaching the claimed features. However, anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102 requires that the prior art actually disclose each and every element of the claim. "A claim is anticipated only if each and every element as set forth in the claim is found, either expressly or inherently described, in a single prior art reference." Verdegaal Bros. V. Union Oil Co. of California, 814 F.2d 628, 631, 2 USPQ2d 1051, 1053 (Fed. Cir. 1987). While MPEP § 2114 recognizes that functional claim language may be met by prior art that is "capable of" performing the recited function, this principle applies when the prior art structure inherently possesses the functionally defined limitations. The Office Action must show that Johnson actually teaches or inherently discloses the claimed strip/dither row processing configuration, not merely that Johnson's hardware has the theoretical capability to be configured in such a manner. Otherwise, the Office Action is essentially saying that Johnson discloses any function that can be performed by an AOM and a galvanometer. Johnson describes processing discrete targets such as resistors, links, and IC packages- not moving successively through a plurality of strips while creating dither rows within each strip as required by claim 12. Johnson does not disclose a first positioning system configured to move the laser beam path "successively through a plurality of strips" or a second positioning system configured to impart movement "along a dither direction for each of a plurality of dither rows within each strip." Notably, Johnson contains no mention of "dither," "dithering," "strips," or "skive" anywhere in the reference. Regarding the limitation "wherein the second relative movement is superimposed on the first relative movement," the Office Action states this recitation is taught by the beam being "reflectable by 76, splittable by AOM 60, reflectable by 140, and refractable by 78." Applicant respectfully submits that the referenced disclosure of Johnson describes the optical path of the beam through various components in Johnson's system, not the simultaneous superimposition of two positioning movements where dither movement from the second positioning system is superimposed on strip-traversing movement from the first positioning system as recited in claim 12. Additionally, regarding the limitation requiring the controller to control emission "to laser spot locations within a two-dimensional skive area," Johnson does not disclose skive processing or skive areas. Johnson relates to processing discrete targets like "multiple resistors," "multiple links," and "multiple IC packages"-not two-dimensional area removal (skiving) as recited in claim 12.” on remarks page 7, lines 9-36, and page 8, lines 1-7. In response to Applicant’s arguments, Johnson’s positioning systems are capable of imparting the claimed relative movements, as shown in Figures 29-31, laser beam scanning and modulation can be tailored to a specific application. Johnson discloses “With reference to FIGS. 28 31 and conventional beam-positioning technology, although an X-Y table may be employed to move the chuck 88 and its supported workpiece 80, the galvanometer scan head 140 may have a fixed position or may be positioned in a split-axis arrangement so that it can be directed along one or more geometrical axes. The relative movement between the galvanometer scan head 140 and the workpiece 80 can be used to position a main galvanometer scan field 150 (and its square galvanometer subfield 152) within a main AOM scan field 160 (and its square AOM subfield 162) with respect to targets on the surface of the workpiece 80. Because the galvanometer bandwidth is much smaller than the AOM bandwidth, the galvanometer (and the workpiece 80) can be kept in continuous motion while the AOM 60.sub.4 or 60.sub.5 processes targets within its main AOM scan field 160.” Also, as shown in Fig. 31 the multiple links being processed are arranged in a strip/dither configuration. Regarding the superimposing argument, as explained above, Johnson discloses that “the galvanometer (and the workpiece 80) can be kept in continuous motion while the AOM 60.sub.4 or 60.sub.5 processes targets within its main AOM scan field 160”, and therefore the movements are superimposed. Therefore, Johnson teaches a first positioning system (FSM or galvanometer mirrors; Col. 28, lines 55-62) configured to impart first relative movement of the laser beam path successively through a plurality of strips along a beam trajectory on a workpiece (80) (capable of imparting the claimed movement; as shown in Fig. 29-31; Col. 28, lines 65-67; Col. 29, lines 1-45); a second positioning system (60) configured to impart second relative movement (beam split from “beam dump 94” to “turn mirrors 76”; as shown in Fig. 28) of the laser beam path along a dither direction for each of a plurality of dither rows within each strip (capable of imparting the claimed movement; as shown in Fig. 29-31; Col. 28, lines 65-67; Col. 29, lines 1-45), wherein the second relative movement is superimposed on the first relative movement (reflectable by 76, splittable by AOM 605, reflectable by 140, and refractable by 78); and a controller (62) configured to control emission of a plurality of laser beam pulses to the workpiece along the laser beam path to laser spot locations within a two-dimensional skive area (Col. 28, lines 55-67 and Col. 29, lines 1-45).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE whose telephone number is (571)272-9325. The examiner can normally be reached M to F; 8am-5pm.
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.
/ALBA T ROSARIO-APONTE/Examiner, Art Unit 3761 03/30/2026
/JUSTIN C DODSON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights