Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application is being examined under the pre-AIA first to invent provisions.
Detailed Action
Priority
The disclosure of the prior-filed applications, Application Nos. 14/775136 thru 16/858032, fail to provide adequate support or enablement in the manner provided by 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, first paragraph for one or more claims of this application. The subject matter in claim 4 appears to be new and not previously disclosed in the previous applications thus it has an effective filing date of 3-24-2025.
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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
(a) A patent may not be obtained though the invention is not identically disclosed or described as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the subject matter sought to be patented and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which said subject matter 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 pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) 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 under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a), the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned at the time any inventions covered therein were made absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and invention dates of each claim that was not commonly owned at the time a later invention was made in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(c) and potential pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e), (f) or (g) prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a).
Claim 1-3, & 5-11 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dietz et al (PGPub 2010/0155375) (Dietz) in view of Li (PGPub 2006/0170930)(Li).
Regarding Claim 1, Dietz discloses a system comprising:
a beam delivery head (16, Fig. 1) configured to be coupled to a process laser (14, via 30) that generates a material processing beam that is applied to a sample location (28) in a material modification process; and
an imaging system optically coupled to the beam delivery head (see fig. 2), wherein the imaging system includes:
an imaging light source (42) for producing at least one imaging beam (24) that is directed to at least one imaging beam position at the sample location;
an optical interferometer (32/56) coupled to the imaging light source and configured to produce an interferometry output based on at least one sample optical path length to the sample location compared to a reference optical path length (Paragraph 41); and
a detector (62) coupled to the optical interferometer and configured to produce an interferogram from the interferometry output (Paragraph 41);
at least one scanning device for changing the angle and/or position of at least the imaging beam relative to the sample location (Paragraphs 36 & 44);
Dietz fails to explicitly disclose a controller coupled to the imaging system, wherein the controller is configured to digitally compensate for optical path length changes of the imaging beam resulting from scanning the imaging beam;
However, Li discloses controller coupled to the imaging system, wherein the controller is configured to digitally compensate for optical path length changes of the imaging beam resulting from scanning the imaging beam (Fig. 4, Step 304, Paragraphs 48, 49, & 57-61). By calculating the change in OPL between the sample and reference arm and the change in the reference arm to equalize these path lengths this is a digital compensation of a path length difference that results from scanning the imaging beam;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dietz with a controller coupled to the imaging system, wherein the controller is configured to digitally compensate for optical path length changes of the imaging beam resulting from scanning the imaging beam because this will improve the image quality and ensure that the coherence window is focused at the right depth for imaging the sample.
Regarding Claim 2, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the at least one scanning device is configured to scan both the imaging beam and the processing beam relative to the sample location (Paragraph 36). Both beams are displaced in the machining direction as indicated in Fig. 1.
Regarding Claim 3, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the at least one scanning device includes at least one actuated mirror (70) for scanning at least the imaging beam (Paragraph 44).
Regarding Claim 5, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned. Further, Li discloses wherein the reference optical path length is configured to be adjusted in coordination with scanning at least the imaging beam to physically compensate for optical path length changes resulting from scanning the imaging beam (Paragraph 48).
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Regarding Claim 6, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the reference optical path length is configured to be adjusted by adjusting a position of at least one reference reflective surface (Paragraph 40).
Regarding Claim 7, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the beam delivery head includes at least a portion of a sample arm path and at least a portion of at least one reference arm path including the at least one reference reflective surface (See fig. 2).
Regarding Claim 8, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned. Further, Li discloses wherein the controller is configured to control a focal distance of the at least one scanning device and configured to control adjusting the reference optical path length in correlation with the focal distance (Paragraphs 48 & 49).
The reasons for combination remain the same.
Regarding Claim 9, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the imaging system is of the swept source type (Paragraph 10).
Regarding Claim 10, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the imaging light source comprises a tunable vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL);
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dietz as modified by Li with wherein the imaging light source comprises a tunable vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) because this is a known type of tunable laser and would be chosen based upon availability and cost.
Regarding Claim 11, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the beam delivery head is a welding head and the material modification process is a welding process (Paragraphs 31 & 36).
Claim 12-21 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dietz et al (PGPub 2010/0155375) (Dietz).
Regarding Claim 12, Dietz discloses a system comprising:
a beam delivery head (16, Fig. 1) configured to be coupled to a process laser (14, via 30) that generates a material processing beam that is applied to a sample location (28) in a material modification process;
wherein the beam delivery head is configured to focus the material processing beam relative to the sample location (Via 64, Fig. 2) and configured to scan the material processing beam relative to the sample location (Paragraph 44); and
an imaging system (32) optically coupled to the beam delivery head, wherein the imaging system is of the swept source type (Paragraph 10), and
wherein the imaging system includes:
an imaging light source (42) that produces at least one imaging beam that is directed to at least one imaging beam position at the sample location;
an optical interferometer coupled to the imaging light source (Paragraph 36), wherein the optical interferometer is configured to produce an interferometry output based on at least one sample optical path length to the sample location compared to a reference optical path length (Paragraph 41); and
a detector (62) coupled to the optical interferometer and configured to produce an interferogram from the interferometry output (Paragraph 41).
Dietz fails to explicitly disclose the imaging light source comprising a tunable vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL);
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dietz with the imaging light source comprising a tunable vertical cavity surface emitting laser (VCSEL) because this is a known type of tunable laser and would be chosen based upon availability and cost.
Regarding Claim 13, Dietz discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the tunable VCSEL is a microelectromechanical (MEMS) tunable VCSEL;
However, the examiner takes official notice that this would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing;
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dietz with wherein the tunable VCSEL is a microelectromechanical (MEMS) tunable VCSEL because this is a known type of tunable laser and would be chosen based upon availability and cost.
Regarding Claim 14, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the imaging system further includes a blocking filter configured to prevent unwanted signals from the material modification process from reaching the detector (Paragraph 45).
Regarding Claim 15, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the beam delivery head is configured to deliver the material processing beam to create a phase change region (PCR) in material at the sample location,” is met since the beam delivery head is capable of this function.
Regarding Claim 16, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses a deflection element (70) configured to control a direction of the imaging beam relative to the sample location (Paragraph 44).
Regarding Claim 17, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses a controller coupled (34) to the deflection element and configured to control the deflection element such that alignment of the imaging beam relative to a feature of the PCR is maintained. As can be seen in fig. 2 the controller is connected to the scanning device. Further, the controller is capable of performing the claimed function thus the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 18, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, the limitation, “wherein the feature of the PCR is a bottom surface of a keyhole of the PCR,” does not serve to limit the apparatus since it is a material or article worked upon and those are recognized as not limiting an apparatus. See MPEP 2115; “Thus, "[i]nclusion of the material or article worked upon by a structure being claimed does not impart patentability to the claims." In re Otto, 312 F.2d 937, 136 USPQ 458, 459 (CCPA 1963); see also In re Young, 75 F.2d 996, 25 USPQ 69 (CCPA 1935).”
Regarding Claim 19, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses a controller coupled (34) to the deflection element and configured to control the deflection element such that the imaging beam lags the material processing beam relative to the sample location. As can be seen in fig. 2 the controller is connected to the scanning device. Further, the controller is capable of performing the claimed function thus the limitation is met.
Regarding Claim 20, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the beam delivery head is a welding head and the material modification process is a welding process (Paragraphs 31 & 36).
Regarding Claim 21, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses a controller (36) coupled to the detector and configured to determine at least one characteristic at the sample location based on the interferogram (Paragraph 41).
Regarding Claim 22, Dietz discloses the aforementioned. Further, Dietz discloses wherein the beam delivery head is configured to deliver the material processing beam to create a phase change region (PCR) in material at the sample location. Again, this limitation is met since the beam delivery head is capable of this function; and
wherein the at least one characteristic includes at least one of: keyhole depth, location of maximum keyhole depth, average depth, location, width, length, surface shape, subsurface shape, subsurface keyhole length, subsurface profile, subsurface keyhole width, wall slope, sidewall angle, collapse, instability, dynamics of liquid region of the PCR, and location of interface between liquid and solid region (Paragraph 36, ascertainment of surface structure).
Claim 4 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Dietz in view of Li and further in view of Takechi et al (PGPub 2020/0361038) (Takechi).
Regarding Claim 4, Dietz as modified by Li discloses the aforementioned but fails to explicitly disclose wherein the at least one scanning device includes at least a first actuated mirror for scanning at least the processing beam and at least a second actuated mirror for scanning the imaging beam independent of the processing beam;
However, Takechi discloses a laser processing apparatus (Fig. 1), comprising:
wherein the at least one scanning device includes at least a first actuated mirror (13) for scanning at least the processing beam (11, Paragraph 76) and at least a second actuated mirror (17) for scanning the imaging beam (15) independent of the processing beam (Paragraph 71);
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to modify Dietz as modified by Li with wherein the at least one scanning device includes at least a first actuated mirror for scanning at least the processing beam and at least a second actuated mirror for scanning the imaging beam independent of the processing beam because this setup allows for the positional control of both the measurement and processing beam independent of each other thus allowing for the fine tuning of the processing beam position without interrupting the measurement beam position.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JONATHON COOK whose telephone number is (571)270-1323. The examiner can normally be reached 11am-7pm.
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, Kara Geisel can be reached at 571-272-2416. 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.
/JONATHON COOK/Examiner, Art Unit 2877 July 22, 2026
/Kara E. Geisel/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights