## 3 Results and Discussion
### Contact-Based Transfer Mechanism
Following this observation, the focusedGaussian laser beam intensity distribution with radial coordinate \(r\), total power \(P\), set power \(P_{i}\), and focused beam radius \(\omega\) (\(\approx\)25 \(\upmu\)m FWHM \(\Rightarrow\)\(\approx\)42.5 \(\upmu\)m \(1/e^{2}\); Figure S1) can be used to define the intensity threshold of the beam radius with the lowest laser power Equation (10). Through this definition, the change of the beam diameter with an increasing laser power can be captured by Equation (11). \[d_{Beam}^{3}\propto V_{T,max}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}V_{T}(t)=\alpha E_{ \text{eq}} \tag{8}\]  
\[d_{Beam}\propto d_{T,max}=\lim_{t\rightarrow\infty}d_{T}(t)=\beta(E_{\text{eq }})^{\frac{1}{3}} \tag{9}\]  
\[I(r,P)=\frac{2P}{\pi\omega^{2}}e^{-2\left(\frac{R}{\omega}\right)^{2}}\Rightarrow I (r=\omega,P=P_{\text{min}})=\frac{2P_{\text{min}}}{\pi\omega^{2}}e^{-2} \tag{10}\]  
\[E(t+\tilde{t})=E(t)+\frac{\text{d}E(t)}{\text{d}t}\tilde{t} \tag{2}\]0  
By now, only an optimal deposition procedure was considered. To account for (weak) lasing parameters without material deposition, constant lower boundary values \(V_{T,\text{min}}\) and \(d_{T,\text{min}}\) are introduced, which express the required minimal stored energy for a material deposition. Finally, through the laser power dependent limit and constant threshold values, the deposited spot volume and width can be stated by Equations (12) and (13). These contain two fitting parameters (for the spot volume and width respectively) and the unknown material dependent constant. For completeness, the maximum (or characteristic) surface expansion \(h_{P}\) is also determined Equation (14). \[E(t+\tilde{t})=E(t)+\frac{\text{d}E(t)}{\text{d}t}\tilde{t} \tag{2}\]1  
\[E(t+\tilde{t})=E(t)+\frac{\text{d}E(t)}{\text{d}t}\tilde{t} \tag{2}\]2  
\[E(t+\tilde{t})=E(t)+\frac{\text{d}E(t)}{\text{d}t}\tilde{t} \tag{2}\]3  
To validate the expressions, a parameter variation in lasing power and duration of a Rhodamine 150 donor substrate material deposition (spot width \(d_{T}(t)\) and volume \(V_{T}(t)\)) was measured via fluorescence imaging (Fluo) and vertical scanning interferometry (VSI). Additionally, the previously published high-speed imaging measurements [31] of the maximum polyimide expansion were used to validated the expression \(h_{P}\). These measurements show a good agreement (low root-mean-square deviation) with the predicted trend based on lasing power and duration (Figure 2 and Table S1). Furthermore, the material dependent parameter \(k\) varies by \(\approx\)13.6 % and \(\approx\)39.3 % between the VSI spot width (\(d_{T}\) VSI) and volume (\(V_{T}\) VSI) and fluorescence spot width Fluo (\(d_{T}\) Fluo) respectively (Table S1). This minor variation is contrasted by the larger Fluo and VSI spot width measurements (Figure 2a,b), which can be ascribed to the different detection limits of Fluo and VSI (sub-nanometer vs. nanometer). Thus, Fluo is preferred to precisely detect minimal amounts of material deposition. Finally, a deviation from the model is observed for the spot width and volume with low lasing power and short lasing durations, as well as high lasing power and long lasing durations for the spot volume. For example, the spot volume deposition with 110 mW lasing power and below 12 ms lasing duration, as well as 210 mW lasing power and above 15 ms lasing duration is mispredicted. The misprediction can be ascribed to the simple constant as a minimal threshold value (e.g., \(V_{T,\text{min}}\)) and the neglect of the plastic polyimide expansion.