DETAILED ACTION
For claim 1, Trumpf teaches a method (paragraph [0034]) for supplying a laser or a processing plasma (100-figure 1) in a discharge chamber (2) with electrical power, the method comprising:
providing a first power from an output terminal (9) of a balanced amplifier (6, 7, 8) to the discharge chamber, wherein the balanced amplifier (6, 7, 8) comprises at least two amplifier paths (6, 7), each respective amplifier path supplies a respective signal to a coupler (8), wherein the coupler (8) has the output terminal (9) and an isolation terminal (11) and is configured such that the coupler combines the signals of the at least two amplifier paths as a function of a phase relationship between the signals and supplies a power as the first power to the output terminal (9) and/or as a second power to the isolation terminal (11) as a function of the phase relationship between the signals (paragraphs [0040]-[0045]),
setting a first phase relationship between the signals for a predefined time in order to ignite the laser or the plasma (paragraphs [0040]-[0045]), and
setting a second phase relationship different than the first phase relationship in order to operate the laser or maintain the plasma in the discharge chamber (paragraphs [0040]-[0045]), wherein
the second phase relationship is set such that the coupler (8) supplies substantially an entirety of the power to the output terminal (9) as the first power and supplies substantially no power to the isolation terminal (11) (paragraphs [0040]-[0043]), or
the first phase relationship is set such that a third power reflected from the discharge chamber to the balanced amplifier is reflected back from the balanced amplifier to the discharge chamber to a sufficiently large extent for ignition (first, it should be noted that Applicant worded this limitation as an alternative and can thus be considered optional. Second, it is noted that it appears that the effect of the power reflected back from the balanced amplifier occurs when the phase relationship is different from 90°, thus causing an impedance difference during ignition. Since Trumpf also discloses such phase relationships (paragraphs [0040]-[0045]), this feature is also implicitly disclosed in Trumpf).
For claim 2, Trumpf further teaches the first phase relationship is chosen such that there is a mismatch from the balanced amplifier to the discharge chamber (see, para [0040]-[0045]).
For claim 3, Trumpf further teaches the second phase relationship is chosen such that more than 50% of the combined power, in particular more than 80% of the combined power, passes to the output terminal (9) (see, para [0040]-[0045]).
For claim 5, Trumpf further teaches the coupler comprises a 3 dB coupler (see, para [0040]-[0045]).
For claim 6, Trumpf further teaches a phase angle of 90° between the signals is set in order to maintain the plasma (see, e.g., para [0040], “…an RF power signal is generated, which is a power coupler 8th is fed, which is designed here in particular as 90° hybrid formed coupling member”).
For claim 7, Trumpf further teaches a phase angle of not equal to 90° between the signals is set in order to ignite the plasma (see, para [0040]-[0045]).
For claim 8, Trumpf teaches a plasma or laser system (100-figure 1) comprising
a discharge chamber (2),
a balanced amplifier (6, 7, 8) connected to the discharge chamber (2), the balanced amplifier comprising a coupler (8) and at least two amplifier paths (figure 1), with each respective amplifier path supplying a respective signal to the coupler (8), wherein the coupler (8) has an output terminal (9) and an isolation terminal (11) and is configured such that the coupler combines the signals of the at least two amplifier paths as a function of a phase relationship between the signals (paragraphs [0040]-[0045]) and supplies a power as a first power to the output terminal (9) and/or as a second power to the isolation terminal (11),
a controller (12) configured to control the at least two amplifier paths (6, 7) for setting a first phase relationship between the signals for igniting a plasma in the discharge chamber and for setting a second phase relationship between the signals in order to maintain the plasma (paragraphs [0040]-[0045]).
For claim 9, Trumpf further teaches the coupler (8) comprises a 3 dB coupler (paragraphs [0040]).
For claim 10, Trumpf further teaches at least one amplifier path of the at least two amplifier paths comprises a phase device for setting the phase relationship between the signals of the at least two amplifier paths (figure 1, paragraphs [0040]-[0045]).
For claim 11, Trumpf further teaches the coupler comprises a 90° hybrid coupler (see, e.g., para [0040], “…an RF power signal is generated, which is a power coupler 8th is fed, which is designed here in particular as 90° hybrid formed coupling member”).
For claim 14, Trumpf further teaches the coupler comprises a 90° hybrid coupler (see, e.g., para [0040], “…an RF power signal is generated, which is a power coupler 8th is fed, which is designed here in particular as 90° hybrid formed coupling member”).
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.
Claims 4, 12, and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumpf.
For claim 4, Trumpf discloses the claimed invention except for putting a value on its time range. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to make its range .1-10,000 microseconds, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 12, Trumpf discloses the claimed invention except for putting a value on the phase angle between the signals. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to make its range 5°-85° or 95°-175°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
For claim 12, Trumpf discloses the claimed invention except for putting a value on the phase angle between the signals. It would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time the invention was made to make its range 40°-50° or 130°-140°, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Trumpf as applied to claim 10 above, and further in view of US 2022/0208519 (Hasegawa).
For claim 15, Trumpf does not explicitly teach the implementation of its phase setting device.
Nevertheless, Hasegawa figure 2 teaches the phase setting device comprises a direct digital synthesis (DDS) component (209).
Given Hasegawa, it would have been obvious to one ordinarily skilled in the art at the time of the invention to implement the phase setting circuit with a DDS for the purpose of reducing cost of manufacturing.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to ADAM D HOUSTON whose telephone number is (571)270-3901. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 10-7 CST.
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, Lincoln Donovan can be reached at (571) 272-1988. 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.
/ADAM D HOUSTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2842