DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Status
Claim 1 has been amended.
Claims 6,8 and 21-25 have been cancelled.
Claims 1-5 are pending and examined as follows:
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.
Claim(s) 1-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Hiroshi (US 20130092668A1) in view of Kurashige (US2016/0182871) in view of Tillkorn et al (US11169387B2).
With regards to claim 1, Hiroshi discloses a laser crystallization apparatus (laser crystallization apparatus, Title) comprising a plurality of light sources that emit a first laser beam and a second laser beam (first light source unit LS1 and second light source unit LS2, Fig. 1); a first beam homogenizer through which the first laser beam passes (first lens array OP1 through which laser from first light source unit LS1, Fig. 1); a second beam homogenizer through which the second laser beam passes (second lens array OP2 through which laser from second light source unit LS2, Fig. 1); and an optical array on which the first laser beam passed through the first beam homogenizer and the second laser beam passed through the second beam homogenizer are incident (optical system OR on which laser from LS1 and LS2 , Fig. 1), wherein a first path of the first laser beam passed through the first beam homogenizer and a second path of the second laser beam passed through the second beam homogenizer are different from each other (path of first light source unit LS1 and path of second light source unit LS2 are different from each other, Fig. 1), the first beam homogenizer comprises first lenses disposed to have a first pitch along a first direction, the second beam homogenizer comprises second lenses disposed to have a second pitch along the first direction, and the first pitch of the first lenses and the second pitch of the second lenses are same each other (a light refraction unit in the first lens set may have a first pitch, a light refraction unit in the second lens set may have a second pitch, and the first pitch may be equal to the second pitch, paragraph 0014, lines 1-3) and a central axis of the first lenses is shifted from a central axis of an adjacent one of the second lenses (the relative position of the first passing point CP1 relative to the corresponding light refraction unit P1 is different from the relative position of the second passing point CP2 relative to the corresponding light refraction unit P2, paragraph 0048, lines 7-9), the first beam homogenizer and the second beam homogenizer are arranged along a second direction perpendicular to the first direction as seen below:
PNG
media_image1.png
632
668
media_image1.png
Greyscale
Hiroshi does not disclose one lens of the first lenses has a first central axis, and the first central axis is substantially aligned with a boundary between adjacent lenses of the second lenses along the second direction.
Kurashige teaches one lens of the first lenses has a first central axis, and the first central axis is substantially aligned with a boundary between adjacent lenses of the second lenses along the second direction (first lens array 41 and second lens array 48 are adjacent to each other and have a central lens element 43 that are directly across from each other, Fig 7). Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiroshi and Kurashige before him or her, to modify each of the first and second lenses arrays of Hiroshi to include the central axis of Kurashige because combination allows for a laser apparatus having uniform illumination without a complicated optical system structure.
Hiroshi and Kurashige does not teach the first central axis is shifted by a difference less than the first pitch from a second central axis, extending in the second direction, of an adjacent lens of the second lenses.
Tillkorn et al teaches the first central axis is shifted by a difference less than the first pitch from a second central axis, extending in the second direction, of an adjacent lens of the second lenses as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
507
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, having the teachings of Hiroshi, Kurashige and Tillkorn et al before him or her, to modify each of the first and second lenses arrays of Hiroshi and Kurashige to include the difference in central axis as taught by Tillkorn et al because combination allows for a laser apparatus having varied foci wherein uniform intensity distribution being obtained.
With regards to claim 2, Hiroshi discloses wherein a number of the first lenses and a number of the second lenses are different from each other (the number of light refraction units P2 of the second lens array OP2 may be more than the number of light refraction units P1 of the first lens array OP1, paragraph 0052, lines 9-10).
With regards to claim 3, Hiroshi discloses wherein one of the numbers of the first lenses and the number of the second lenses is an odd number, and the other of the number of the first lenses and the number of the second lenses is an even number (first lens array OP1 has an odd number of light refraction units P1 and the second lens array OP2 has an even number of light refractions units P2, Fig. 3).
With regards to claim 4, Hiroshi and Kurashige teach OP2 has a different number of refraction units P2 than the light refraction units P1 of first lens array OP1 therefore the central axis of each array OP1 and OP2 will be different (Fig. 3). Hiroshi and Kurashige does not teach a difference between a number of the first lenses and the number of a second lenses is one. It would have been an obvious matter of design choice to use the first and second arrays of Hiroshi and Kurashige since the applicant has not disclosed that a difference between a number of the first lenses and the number of a second lenses is one solves any problem or is for a particular reason. It appears that the claimed invention would perform equally well with the arrays of Hiroshi.
With regards to claim 5, Hiroshi discloses wherein a central axis of each of the first lenses and a central axis of each of the second lenses are different from each other (OP2 has a different number of refraction units P2 than the light refraction units P1 of first lens array OP1 therefore the central axis of each array OP1 and OP2 will be different, therefore the central axis would be different, Fig. 3).
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 2/23/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicants argument: Applicant argues the prior art does not disclose or teach all the limitations of claim 1.
Examiners response: Claim 1 has been amended to include the limitation “the first central axis is shifted by a difference less than the first pitch from a second central axis, extending in the second direction, of an adjacent lens of the second lenses”. Tillkorn et al teaches the first central axis is shifted by a difference less than the first pitch from a second central axis, extending in the second direction, of an adjacent lens of the second lenses as seen below:
PNG
media_image2.png
507
572
media_image2.png
Greyscale
Applicant argues that the prior art does not disclose or teach “the first central axis of one lens of the first lenses is substantially aligned with a boundary between adjacent lenses of the second lenses along the second direction”. Kurashige teaches one lens of the first lenses has a first central axis, and the first central axis is substantially aligned with a boundary between adjacent lenses of the second lenses along the second direction (first lens array 41 and second lens array 48 are adjacent to each other and have a central lens element 43 that are directly across from each other, Fig 7). Kurashige teaches that the first lens array 41 and the second lens array 48 are adjacent to each other and therefore aligned along a boundary as claimed. Applicant argues the combination of Hiroshi and Kurashige would change the intended purpose of the invention but this is not true. Each of the arrays of Hiroshi can be modified to include a first and second lens array as taught by Kurashige. The modification would not destroy the combination or intended operation, because the addition of the arrays would allow for more uniformity and brightness.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). 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 THOMAS JOHN WARD whose telephone number is (571)270-1786. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 7am - 4pm.
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, STEVEN CRABB can be reached on 5712705095. 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.
/THOMAS J WARD/Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/JOHN J NORTON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights