Corning Incorporated

Patent Trials and Appeals Board

Jan 22, 2021

2020000745 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 22, 2021)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
14/530,457 10/31/2014 Robert George Manley SP13-383 2759
22928 7590 01/22/2021
CORNING INCORPORATED
SP-TI-3-1
CORNING, NY 14831
EXAMINER
SAMUELS, LAWRENCE H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3761
NOTIFICATION DATE DELIVERY MODE
01/22/2021 ELECTRONIC
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
Notice of the Office communication was sent electronically on above-indicated "Notification Date" to the
following e-mail address(es):
usdocket@corning.com
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte ROBERT GEORGE MANLEY, SASHA MARJANOVIC,
GARRETT ANDREW PIECH, SERGIO TSUDA, and
ROBERT STEPHEN WAGNER
____________

Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
Technology Center 3700
____________

Before STEFAN STAICOVICI, LISA M. GUIJT, and LEE L. STEPINA,
Administrative Patent Judges.

GUIJT, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL

STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellant1 seeks our review under 35 U.S.C. § 134(a) of the rejection
of claims 1–24 and 58–61.2 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 6(b).
We AFFIRM-IN-PART.

1 We use the word “Appellant” to refer to “applicant” as defined in 37
C.F.R. § 1.42. Appellant identifies Corning Incorporated as the real party in
interest. Appeal Br. 3.
2 Claims 25–57 have been withdrawn. Final Act. 1; Appeal Br. 5.
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
2
THE INVENTION
Appellant’s invention relates to “Stacked Transparent Material
Cutting with Ultrafast Laser Beam Optics, Disruptive Layers and Other
Layers.” Spec., Title. The sole independent claim on appeal, claim 1,
reproduced below, is illustrative of the subject matter on appeal.
1. A method of laser processing comprising:
forming a laser beam focal line in a workpiece, the laser
beam focal line being formed from a pulsed laser beam,
the workpiece comprising: a first layer, a second layer,
and a beam disruption element located between the first and
second layers; and
the laser beam line generating an induced absorption
within the first layer, the induced absorption producing a defect
line along the laser beam focal line within the first layer.

THE REJECTIONS
The Examiner relies upon the following as evidence in support of the
rejections:
NAME REFERENCE DATE
Morrison US 6,259,151 B1 July 10, 2001
Arai US 2010/0025387 A1 Feb. 4, 2010
Hosseini US 2013/0126573 A1 May 23, 2013
Abramov US 2013/0323469 A1 Dec. 5, 2013
The following rejections are before us for review:
I. Claims 1, 6–24, and 58 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini and Morrison.
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
3
II. Claims 2, 4, 5, and 59–61 stand rejected under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103 as being unpatentable over Hosseini, Morrison, and
Arai.
III. Claim 3 stands rejected under 35 U.S.C. § 103 as being
unpatentable over Hossieni, Morrison, Arai, and
Abramov.

OPINION
Rejection I
Independent claim 1 and dependent claims 6–24
Regarding independent claim 1, the Examiner finds that Hosseini
discloses forming a laser beam focal line in a workpiece from a pulsed laser
beam (i.e., beam 10, lens 12), the laser beam focal line generating an
induced absorption within a first layer that produces a defect line (i.e., laser
filamentation track 40) along the laser beam focal line within the first layer,
as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3 (citing Hosseini ¶ 5, 10, 50); see also
Hosseini ¶¶ 30, 62, 63. The Examiner also finds that although Hosseini
discloses a workpiece comprising first and second layers, Hosseini is silent
regarding a beam disruption element located between the first and second
layers, as required by claim 1. Final Act. 3. The Examiner relies on
Morrison for teaching a beam disruption layer separating, or between, first
and second layers, as claimed, and reasons that it would have been obvious
to a skilled artisan to provide a disruption layer, as taught in Morrison,
between the first and second layers of Hosseini, “to separate and protect the
layers below from damage, while allowing the defect to propagate and affect
the above layer.” Id. at 4 (citing Morrison, col. 2, ll. 6–23).
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
4
Appellant argues that “[t]he characteristic feature of the weakly
focused pulsed laser technique of Hosseini is formation of laser filaments,”
which “are distinct from the laser beam focal line” recited in claim 1.
Appeal Br. 15 (citing Hosseini ¶ 43, Fig. 1(b) (laser filament 18, filament
track 20)); Reply Br. 2 (“the prior art cited by the Examiner fails to disclose
the ‘laser beam focal line’ feature of claim 1”). As an initial matter, and for
clarity, Appellant’s argument appears to misapply the Examiner’s findings
supra, in that the Examiner equates Hosseini’s weakly focused pulsed laser
technique as forming a laser beam focal line, as claimed, wherein the laser
beam focal line formed by Hosseini’s technique generates an induced
absorption to produce filaments, or defect lines, along the laser beam focal
line, within a workpiece layer, as claimed. In other words, the Examiner
does not find that Hosseini’s filament is a laser beam focal line.
Notwithstanding, Appellant submits that
[i]n [Hosseini’s] filamentation process the weakly focused
pulsed laser beam is controlled to have intensity sufficient to
induce the non-linear Kerr effect and insufficient to induce
optical breakdown. . . . The Kerr effect leads to an increase in
refractive index of the substrate in the vicinity of the weakly
focused laser beam. The localized increase in refractive index
leads to localized self focusing of the weakly focused laser beam
within the substrate (to a diffraction-limited beam diameter). . . .
The self focusing leads to a localized increase the intensity of the
weakly focused laser beam that is sufficient to create a low-
density plasma in the localized region of self focusing. . . .
Formation of the low-density plasma leads to a decrease in
refractive index in the localized region of self focusing, a
defocusing of the laser beam, and collapse of the filament
(18). . . . As the laser beam defocuses, its intensity decreases, the
low-density plasma relaxes, self-focusing through the Kerr effect
resumes, and a new filament (18) forms in the direction of beam
propagation. A series of multiple focusing and defocusing events
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
5
occur to form a filament track (20) in the direction of beam
propagation (the thickness dimension of the substrate in Fig. 1
of Hosseini). Each filament track (20) includes a series of
filaments (18) that alternate with non-filament zones.
Appeal Br. 16 (citing Hosseini ¶¶ 43–45, 48, 53, 76, Fig. 1) (emphasis
added); see also id. at 17.
In contrast, Appellant submits that, with respect to the method of
claim 1,
[i]nstead of forming filament tracks with alternating filaments
and non-filament zones through repeated focusing (Kerr effect)
and defocusing (induced by a low-density plasma) effects that
dynamically perpetuate in the direction of beam propagation,
[the claimed] laser beam focal line produces a simultaneous
series of continuous or closely spaced focal points in the
direction of beam propagation.
Appeal Br. 16 (emphasis added). Appellant refers to the Specification’s
disclosure that a laser beam focal line may be formed: (a) by aligning layer
1 substantially perpendicularly to the longitudinal beam axis, “and thus
behind the same focal line 2b produced by the optical assembly” such that
“suitable laser intensity along the laser beam focal line 2b . . . is ensured by
adequate focusing of laser beam 2 on a section of length l,” for example,
using “Bessel beams, Airy beams, Weber beams and Mathieu beams (i.e.,
non-diffractive beams), whose field profiles are typically given by special
functions that decay more slowly in the transverse direction (i.e. direction of
propagation) than the Gaussian function” (Spec. ¶ 72); (b) using “aspheres
or multi-lens systems deviating from ideally corrected systems, which do not
form an ideal focal point but a distinct, elongated focal line of a defined
length” (id. ¶ 79); and (c) using “[a] combination of axicon 10 and focusing
lens 11,” wherein
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
6
due to the axicon 10, a usually round laser spot is sent to the
focusing lens 11 in the form of a ring, and the asphericity of
axicon 10 has the effect that a focal line is formed beyond the
focal plane of the lens instead of a focal point in the focal plane
(id. ¶ 88).
Appellant submits that “a focal line corresponds to a region of
simultaneous focusing that extends beyond a focal point to an elongated
linear volume,” and concludes that Hosseini fails to disclose a laser beam
focal line, as claimed, because “the optical system of Hosseini merely
includes a standard lens (objective lens 12 of Fig. 1) that is designed to focus
the laser beam to a focal point.” Appeal Br. 17. Appellant maintains that
“[t]he energy needed to produce the filament tracks in the method of
Hosseini emanates from a focal point and evolves over time to form multiple
damage regions, where the degree (tightness) of focus is controlled to
maintain the weak focus that prevents optical breakdown,” whereas, in the
claimed method, “the focal line provides energy simultaneously over a linear
illumination area.” Id. (emphasis added). Appellant concludes that
“[w]hereas the method of Hosseini relies on a dynamic mechanism
involving alternating self focusing (Kerr effect) and defocusing (induced by
a low-density plasma) events (self focus – defocus – self focus – defocus . . .
), [the claimed] method relies on a static mechanism involving a continuous
and uniformly illuminated linear focal region.” Id. at 18.
We construe the claim term “laser beam focal line” to mean a long
and narrow, or elongated, uninterrupted region of focused laser energy, for
example, in contrast to a single, discrete focal point of laser energy. See
Spec. ¶ 70 (“[l]aser beam focal line 2b is a region of high energy density”;
“optical assembly 6 turns the incident laser beam into a laser beam focal line
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
7
2b on the output side over a defined expansion range along the beam
direction (length l of the focal line)”). We also accept Appellant’s
submission supra that the claimed laser beam focal line may be produced by
a simultaneous series of continuous or closely spaced focal points in the
direction of beam propagation, provided such closely spaced focal points
result in a long and narrow, uninterrupted region of focused laser energy.
We decline to read into the definition of the claimed laser beam focal
line the requirement of a uniform illumination (or energy density) along the
laser beam focal line, to the extent argued by Appellant supra, as the
Specification states such uniformity as a goal, but suggests that some
variation is possible. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 77 (“The spot size should not vary
too strongly for the purpose of a uniform interaction along the focal line.”).
We further determine that the laser beam focal line must exist in at
least a moment of time, however, we are not persuaded by Appellant’s
argument that the definition of the claim term “laser beam focal line”
restricts the method of forming the laser beam focal line, for example, to the
use of only lenses or optics (as opposed to a lens and a nonlinear optical
Kerr effect), or to be caused by a single event. In other words, although
claim 1 separately recites a further limitation restricting the method of
forming the laser beam focal line, namely, being “formed from a pulsed
laser beam,” claim 1 does not exclude additional methods from being
combined with a pulsed laser beam to form the laser beam focal line or to
restrict the timing of the application of such methods.
We agree with the Examiner’s finding that the laser beam focal line
recited in claim 1 reads on Hosseini’s long and narrow channel of focused
and/or self-focused, uninterrupted laser energy: “by weak focusing, high
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
8
intensity short duration laser light, . . . [a] high spatio-temporal localization
of the light field can deposit laser energy in a long narrow channel, while
also being associated with other complex nonlinear propagation effects.”
Hosseini ¶ 43. In further support, we refer to Hosseini’s disclosure that “the
spatial intensity profile of the laser pulse acts like a focusing lens due to the
nonlinear optical Kerr effect,” which “causes the beam to self-focus,
resulting in an increase of the peak intensity.” Hosseini ¶ 44 (emphasis
added); see also id. ¶ 48 (“[i]n weak focusing, . . . the nonlinear Kerr effect
is believed to create an extended laser interaction focal volume that greatly
exceeds the conventional depth of focus, overcoming the optical diffraction
that normally diverges the beam from the small self-focused beam waist”
(emphasis added)). We are not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that such
self-focusing (after focusing via a standard lens) disqualifies Hosseini’s laser
beam from being a focused laser beam, and further, from forming a laser
beam focal line as a long and narrow channel of focused laser energy, as
required by claim 1.
We are also not persuaded by Appellant’s argument that because
multiple, discrete filament segments may be created before or after
formation of a segment of Hosseini’s filament (i.e., “the plasma temporarily
lowers the refractive index in the centre of the beam path causing the beam
to defocus and break up the filament” id. at ¶ 45), the laser beam focal line
as recited in claim 1 fails to read on Hosseini’s long narrow channel of self-
focused laser energy forming a non-interrupted segment of a filament.3 In

3 Cf. Spec. ¶ 52 (“In some embodiments, the perforation may not be a
continuously open channel and may include sections of solid material
dislodged from the substrate material by the laser,” wherein “[o]ne or more
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
9
other words, Hosseini’s long narrow channel of self-focused laser energy
forming an uninterrupted segment of a filament is continuous.
Appellant does not inform us of other limitations set forth in claim 1
that distinguishes Hosseini’s filamentation method from the methods set
forth in the Specification for forming a laser beam focal line.
Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of independent
claim 1, and claims 6–24 depending therefrom.
Dependent claim 58
Claim 58 depends from independent claim 1 and requires, in relevant
part, “wherein the pulsed laser beam is a non-diffractive beam.” Appeal Br.,
Claims App.
The Examiner finds that although Hosseini does not disclose that the
pulsed laser beam is a non-diffractive beam, as claimed, Hosseini “indicates
that . . . diffractive beams could result as is well known in the art, thus a
non-diffractive beam is the default, or at least it is known to be used.” Final
Act. 8 (citing Hosseini ¶ 62). In the Examiner’s Answer, the Examiner
further relies on Hosseini’s teaching that “‘[i]n weak focusing, which is
preferential, the nonlinear Kerr effect is believed to create an extended laser
interaction focal volume overcoming the optical diffraction that normally
diverges the beam from the small self-focused beam waist’, thus a non-
diffractive beam results.” Ans. 14.
Appellant argues that Hosseini’s method, as discussed supra, relies on
diffraction, in combination with the nonlinear optical Kerr effect. Appeal
Br. 18. Appellant also submits that “the optical system used by Hosseini is

open channels (unblocked regions may be dispersed between sections of
dislodged material.”).
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
10
incapable of delivering a non-diffractive beam,” because “the conventional
objective lens used by Hosseini produces a diffractive beam,” which is
required by Hosseini’s filamentation process, “to limit the degree of self-
focusing to prevent optical breakdown.” Id. Appellant further submits that
Hosseini’s diffractive optics, which are relied on by the Examiner supra
with reference to Paragraph 62 of Hosseini, “refers to an embodiment in
which a laser beam is split into multiple beams and directed to a substrate to
induce Kerr-effect filamentation at multiple positions simultaneously,” but
does not “convert laser beams from non-diffractive to diffractive as
suggested by the Examiner.” Id.
We agree with Appellant that the Examiner has not established by a
preponderance of the evidence that Hosseini discloses the use of a non-
diffractive (pulsed) laser beam to form a laser beam focal line, as claimed.
Hosseini’s general reference to optical diffraction and diffractive optics for
addressing laser beam diffraction, as relied on by the Examiner supra, is
insufficient to support a finding that Hosseini’s pulsed laser beam is a non-
diffractive beam. See, e.g., Spec. ¶ 72 (discussing specific examples of non-
diffractive beams, including “Bessel beams, Airy beams, Weber beams and
Mathieu beams”).
Accordingly, we do not sustain the Examiner’s rejection of dependent
claim 58.

Rejections II and III
Appellant chose not to present arguments for the patentability of
claims 2–5 and 59–62 apart from the arguments presented for independent
claim 1 supra, from which claims 2–5 and 59–62 depend. Appeal Br. 19–
Appeal 2020-000745
Application 14/530,457
11
22. Accordingly, we sustain the Examiner’s rejection of claims 2–5 and 59–
62 for essentially the same reasons as stated supra.
CONCLUSION
In summary:
Claims
Rejected
35
U.S.C.
§
Reference(s) Affirmed Reversed
1, 6–24, 58 103 Hosseini, Morrison 1, 6–24 58
2, 4, 5, 59–61 103 Hosseini, Morrison,
Arai
2, 4, 5, 59–61
3 103 Hossieni, Morrison,
Arai, Abramov
3
Overall
Outcome
1–24, 59–61 58
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a)(1)(iv).
AFFIRMED-IN-PART