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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 1 June 2026 has been entered.
Status
This Office Action is in response to Applicant’s Amendments and Arguments file 1 June 2026. As directed by Applicant, only claim 53 is amended. No new claims are added or cancelled Thus, claims 42-58 and 60- 62 are pending. This is a Final Office Action to this RCE (MPEP ¶706.07(b); see Conclusion section below).
Claim Objections
Claim 53 is objected to because of the following informalities: The newly amendment recites “beginning at the first position the ablation area”. The phrase should properly have the word “of” and is understood as -- beginning at the first of the ablation area--. Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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 negatived 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.
(Examiner’s Note: Strikethrough indicates that the limitation is not taught by the reference.)
Claim(s) 53, 54, 55, 57, 61 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103 as being obvious over Sbar (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0302122) in view of Beteille (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/ 0141360).
Regarding claim 53, Sbar discloses a method of ablating a portion of (¶0032) in an electrochromic (¶0003, electrochromic) device, the method comprising:
(a) ; and
(b) rasterizing the laser focus spot (¶0064) once over each rasterizing region of a plurality of rasterizing regions (Sbar, ¶0054, “the repair unit 52 may be operated to ablate portions of the EC device to repair the defect”) to ablate an ablation area including only the single defect. (Sbar, Fig. 4, ¶0032, 0070,0071, “ablating laser beam…to remove portions of the electrochromic at or surrounding the defect”, “remove material…by…moving the beam in raster or other systematic manner”.
Now, Sbar does not precisely disclose “locating a laser focus at a first position at or near a center of a single defect of the electrochromic device” nor, when rasterizing the laser focus spot, “beginning at the first position [of] the ablation area”.
However, Beteille, in his device for removing defects in an electrochromic device, teaches “locating a laser focus at a first position at or near a center of a single defect of the electrochromic device” (Beteille, “a phase of pinpointing the defect using at least a first laser beam pulse” ¶0027, “The defect is then pinpointed using a train of laser pulses of low power”, ¶0058). After this, in Beteille, “ablation of the defect consists in moving the laser beam so as to follow approximately the periphery of the defect Beteille, ¶¶0033, 0059). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sbar with the teachings of Beteille, “to locate a laser focus …at or near a center of a single defect”, in order to locate the defect precisely with the laser, to then be able to surround it in order to ablate and remove it, as Sbar also does, surrounding the defect to remove it, and thus this would be a using a conventional method in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of focusing the laser beam in the proper place.
And while Beteille in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations above, it still does not explicitly teach, when rasterizing, “beginning at the first position of the ablation area” and then to ablate an area including the defect.
However, Sbar teaches ablating a path that surrounds a defect (Sbar, ¶0064, “a beam emitted from the laser device 62 to ablate portions of the electrochromic device of the EC product. Desirably, the path 136 is continuous and completely surrounds a defect”). Moreover, in a different embodiment, the ablation may be controlled to emit a pulse to ablate a region at the defect (Sbar, ¶0064, “ In one embodiment, the path 136 may correspond to a spot region in the EC product coextensive with the defect, such that the beam emitted by the laser is not moved relative when a laser repair is performed. For example, the laser device may be controlled to emit a single pulse to ablate a region of the electrochromic device including the defect”). And the secondary reference also has locating the sensor and then ablating around the periphery (Beteille, ¶¶58-59). In combination looking at those embodiments of Sbar, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Sbar in view of Beteille, with the further teachings of Sbar, noting the ability to ablate “at or near” the defect, as well as to surround it, to ablate the middle at or near the defect and then move out to surround the entire defect, in order to ensure that the entire area is ablated, particularly if the defect is large or particularly bad.
Regarding claim 54, Sbar in view of Beteille teaches all the limitations of claim 53, as above, and further teaches a method wherein at least two of the plurality of rasterizing regions are overlapping (Sbar, fig. 7, one section “overlapping” encompassing both defects).
Regarding claim 55, Sbar in view of Beteille teaches all the limitations of claim 54, as above, and further teaches a method wherein overlapping the laser focus during rasterizing in one or more overlapping regions (¶0064, “path 136 to be followed by a beam emitted from a laser device to ablate portions of the electrochromic device”; ¶0059 “small overlap between adjacent path views; ¶0080, laser device may be controlled to provide a predetermined amount of overlap of laser pulses”).
Regarding claim 57, Sbar in view of Beteille teaches all the limitations of claim 53, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the ablation area has a rectangular shape (Sbar, fig. 7, element 136 is “rectangular”, this would be incorporated into at least one of the ablation areas) or a circular shape (this limitation is in the alternative).
Regarding claim 60, Sbar in view of Beteille teaches all the limitations of claim 59, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the laser spot is in a rectangular shape. However, Sbar does teach that a single pulse can ablate the entire area (¶0064, In one embodiment, the path 136 may correspond to a spot region …such that the beam emitted by the laser is not moved relative when a laser repair is performed. For example, the laser device may be controlled to emit a single pulse to ablate a region of the electrochromic device including the defect”) and Sbar also teaches to have a rectangular ablation area (Sbar, fig. 7, element 136, ¶0059, rectangular beam path.). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention, to modify Sbar and to have the spot as a rectangular spot, in order to ablate the whole area quickly and efficiently with one pulse ablation and to cover the desired area, such as in fig. 7.
Regarding claim 61, Sbar in view of Beteille teaches all the limitations of claim 53, as above, and further teaches a method wherein there is an overlap of the laser focus during rasterizing (Sbar, ¶0071, moving the beam in raster; and ¶0059 describes a “search path” can have an “overlap” between adjacent sections”).
Claims 56, 58 is/are rejected under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 103(a) as being unpatentable over Sbar (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2012/ 0302122) in view of Beteille (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2007/ 0141360) and further in view of Im (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2010/0032586).
Regarding claim 56, Sbar in view of Beteille teaches all the limitations of claim 53, as above, but does not further teach specifically a method wherein the ablation area has a cross shape. Sbar does disclose that the beam “desirably” should be a “closed figure, such as a circle, oval, or polygon, around the defect” (so other shapes are contemplated (Sbar, ¶0070). Im teaches conventional ablating using different patterns, including cross (Im, ¶0055, fig. 7a). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify Sbar with the teaching of Im, to use such a claimed conventional pattern, in order to better ablate the material according to the defect and be as specific and as efficient using a proper shape for ablation.
Regarding claim 58, Sbar in view of Beteille teaches all the limitations of claim 53, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the ablation area has a sawtooth pattern. However, Sbar does teach various ways to ablate through or around the defect, including though the defect in “raster or other systematic manner” (¶0070, 0071). Im teaches conventional ablating using different patterns, including sawtooth (Im, ¶0055, fig. 7a). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill at the time of the invention to modify Sbar with the teaching of Im, to use such a claimed conventional pattern, in order to better ablate the material according to the defect and be as specific and as efficient using a proper shape for ablation.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 42-52, and 62 are allowed.
Applicant’s arguments are persuasive (Remarks filed 22 July 2024, p. 6-7). A Terminal Disclaimer to U.S. Patent 10,583,523 was previously filed and approved.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s argument with respect to claim 53, filed 1 June 2026, has been considered but is not persuasive. Applicant argues that the references do not teach the amendment (Remarks, end of page 5 and page 6). However, while it is not in one embodiment, as noted above, Sbar still does teach ablating “at or near a center of a single defect”, broadly understood, (Sbar ¶0064, see rejection above) and also ablating around a defect (see Sbar ¶0064). Beteille also teaches ablating around a periphery (Beteille, ¶0058-59). Thus, as noted above, it would be obvious, in light of the prior art, to ablate a center and move around the periphery to ensure the full removal of a defect, particularly a large or strong one.
No other independent arguments are made.
Please contact examiner regarding any questions or concerns.
Conclusion
The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Please see previously filed forms PTO-892.
All claims are identical to or patentably indistinct from, or have unity of invention with claims in the application prior to the entry of the submission under 37 CFR 1.114 (that is, restriction (including a lack of unity of invention) would not be proper) and all claims could have been finally rejected on the grounds and art of record in the next Office action if they had been entered in the application prior to entry under 37 CFR 1.114. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL even though it is a first action after the filing of a request for continued examination and the submission under 37 CFR 1.114. See MPEP § 706.07(b). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to LAWRENCE H SAMUELS whose telephone number is (571)272-2683. The examiner can normally be reached 9AM-5PM M-F.
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, Ibrahime Abraham can be reached on 571-270-5569. 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights