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 .
Response to Amendment
The amendment filed on October 30, 2025 has been entered.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-8, filed October 30, 2025, with respect to the rejection(s) of claims 1 under 35 USC § 102 and 16 under 35 USC § 103 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Therefore, the rejection has been withdrawn. However, upon further consideration, a new ground(s) of rejection is made in view of Wienkamp WO 2021043970 A1.
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.
The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 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 the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention.
Claims 1-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tertitski et al. US 8,692,151 B2 in view of Wienkamp WO 2021043970 A1.
Regarding claim 1, Tertitski discloses an apparatus (Col. 1, Lines 51-54) for manufacturing a display device (Col. 1, Lines 20-23), comprising: a stage (Fig. 1B, Ref. 104); a laser module disposed above the stage (Fig. 1A, Ref. 110) and configured to output a laser beam (Fig. 1A, Ref. 114); a scanner configured to receive the laser beam output from the laser module and irradiate the laser beam onto the stage (Fig. 1B, Refs. 122 and 108); and a controller (Fig. 1A, Ref. 106) configured to control the laser module to irradiate the laser beam to a processing position while moving both the scanner and the stage (Col. 3, Lines 47-51) in a first direction according to the processing position and a shape of a processing pattern (Col. 3, Lines 43-47) wherein the controller is configured to control the laser module to produce a spot trace by simultaneously controlling a translation movement of the scanner in the first direction (Col. 4, Lines 21-28 wherein the mirrors move the beam about one, two or three axes on the process object).
Tertitski does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control the laser module to produce a spot trace by simultaneously controlling a translation movement of the scanner in the first direction and a circular movement to form the processing pattern while the laser beam is irradiated.
Wienkamp teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the laser module to produce a spot trace by simultaneously controlling a translation movement of the scanner in the first direction (Para. 42) and a circular movement (Fig. 8) to form the processing pattern while the laser beam is irradiated (Para. 42) to move along any curve or point in space (Para. 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simultaneously move the scanner in a first direction and a circular movement to move along any curve or point in space (Wienkamp, Para. 42) and removing the need to constantly accelerate and decelerate the masses of the apparatus (Wienkamp, Para. 70).
Regarding claim 2, Tertitski discloses wherein the scanner performs, in the processing position, both a first movement of moving in the first direction at a first speed and a second movement of moving in a same shape as the shape of the processing pattern (Col. 4, Lines 53-58).
Regarding claim 3, Tertitski discloses wherein the stage moves in the first direction at the first speed when the scanner is disposed in the processing position (Col. 4, Lines 58-61).
Regarding claim 4, Tertitski discloses wherein the processing position includes a first processing position disposed in the stage and a second processing position spaced apart from the first processing position in the first direction (Fig. 4, Refs. 408).
Regarding claim 5, Tertitski discloses wherein when the scanner is located between the first processing position and the second processing position, the controller is configured to move both the stage and the scanner at a first speed in the first direction (Col. 3, Lines 43-55).
Regarding claim 6, Tertitski discloses wherein when the controller is configured to stop movement of the stage in the first direction when the scanner is located in the processing position (Col. 3, Lines 17-23 wherein the beam steering components work after beam location has been selected by the substrate support).
Regarding claim 7, Tertitski discloses wherein the scanner moves in a same shape as the shape of the processing pattern in the processing position (Col. 8, Lines 6-9).
Claims 8-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Tertitski et al. US 8,692,151 B2 in view of Li WO 2020/069231 A1.
Regarding claim 8, Tertitski does not disclose wherein the laser module provides a first pulse signal including a plurality of first pulses to the controller, and the controller generates a second pulse signal including a second pulse synchronized with one of the plurality of first pulses, and outputs the second pulse signal to the laser module.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein the laser module provides a first pulse signal including a plurality of first pulses to the controller, and the controller generates a second pulse signal including a second pulse synchronized with one of the plurality of first pulses, and outputs the second pulse signal to the laser module (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement (Li, Para. 45).
Regarding claim 9, Tertitski does not disclose wherein the laser module outputs the laser beam in synchronization with the second pulse of the second pulse signal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein the laser module outputs the laser beam in synchronization with the second pulse of the second pulse signal (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement (Li, Para. 45).
Regarding claim 10, Tertitski does not disclose wherein the laser module provides a first pulse signal including a plurality of first pulses to the controller, the controller generates a second pulse signal including a second pulse synchronized with one of the plurality of first pulses, and generates a third pulse signal including a plurality of third pulses by using the second pulse, and the third pulse signal is outputted by the laser module.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein the laser module provides a first pulse signal including a plurality of first pulses to the controller, the controller generates a second pulse signal including a second pulse synchronized with one of the plurality of first pulses, and generates a third pulse signal including a plurality of third pulses by using the second pulse, and the third pulse signal is outputted by the laser module (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement (Li, Para. 45).
Regarding claim 11, Tertitski does not disclose wherein the laser module outputs the laser beam in synchronization with the third pulse of the third pulse signal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein the laser module outputs the laser beam in synchronization with the third pulse of the third pulse signal (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement (Li, Para. 45).
Regarding claim 12, Tertitski discloses a method for manufacturing a display device, comprising: moving a stage in a first direction (Col. 4, Lines 58-61); and irradiating a laser beam to a processing position while moving both a scanner and the stage in the first direction when the scanner is disposed in the processing position to form a processing pattern (Col. 4, Lines 53-58) wherein the controller is configured to control the laser module to produce a spot trace by simultaneously controlling a translation movement of the scanner in the first direction (Col. 4, Lines 21-28 wherein the mirrors move the beam about one, two or three axes on the process object).
Tertitski does not expressly disclose wherein the controller is configured to control the laser module to produce a spot trace by simultaneously controlling a translation movement of the scanner in the first direction and a circular movement to form the processing pattern while the laser beam is irradiated; outputting, by a laser module irradiating the laser beam, a first pulse signal including a plurality of first pulses; and when a moving distance of the scanner is equal to an irradiation interval of the laser beam in the processing position, generating a second pulse signal including a second pulse synchronized with one of the plurality of first pulses to provide the second pulse signal to the laser module.
Wienkamp teaches wherein the controller is configured to control the laser module to produce a spot trace by simultaneously controlling a translation movement of the scanner in the first direction (Para. 42) and a circular movement (Fig. 8) to form the processing pattern while the laser beam is irradiated (Para. 42) to move along any curve or point in space (Para. 42).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to simultaneously move the scanner in a first direction and a circular movement to move along any curve or point in space (Wienkamp, Para. 42) and removing the need to constantly accelerate and decelerate the masses of the apparatus (Wienkamp, Para. 70).
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches outputting, by a laser module irradiating the laser beam, a first pulse signal including a plurality of first pulses; and when a moving distance of the scanner is equal to an irradiation interval of the laser beam in the processing position, generating a second pulse signal including a second pulse synchronized with one of the plurality of first pulses to provide the second pulse signal to the laser module (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Tertitski with Li to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement.
Regarding claim 13, Tertitski discloses wherein the irradiating a laser beam to a processing position while moving both a scanner and the stage in the first direction when the scanner is disposed in the processing position to form a processing pattern further comprises stopping the stage when the scanner is located in the processing position (Col. 3, Lines 43-55).
Regarding claim 14, Tertitski discloses wherein the processing position includes a first processing position and a second processing position spaced apart from the first processing position in the first direction, and the irradiating a laser beam to a processing position while moving both a scanner and the stage in the first direction when the scanner is disposed in the processing position to form a processing pattern further comprises moving the scanner in the first direction when the scanner is located between the first processing position and the second processing position (Col. 3, Lines 43-55).
Regarding claim 15, Tertitski discloses wherein a moving speed of the scanner is equal to a moving speed of the stage (Col. 7, Lines 29-31).
Regarding claim 16, Tertitski discloses a method for manufacturing a display device, comprising: moving a stage in a first direction (Col. 4, Lines 58-61); and irradiating a laser beam to a processing position while moving both a scanner and the stage in the first direction when the scanner is disposed in the processing position to form a processing pattern (Col. 4, Lines 53-58).
Tertitski does not disclose outputting, by a laser module irradiating the laser beam, a first pulse signal including a plurality of first pulses; when a moving distance of the scanner is equal to an irradiation interval of the laser beam in the processing position, generating a second pulse signal including a second pulse synchronized with one of the plurality of first pulses; and generating a third pulse signal including a plurality of third pulses by using the second pulse signal and providing the third pulse signal to the laser module.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches outputting, by a laser module irradiating the laser beam, a first pulse signal including a plurality of first pulses; when a moving distance of the scanner is equal to an irradiation interval of the laser beam in the processing position, generating a second pulse signal including a second pulse synchronized with one of the plurality of first pulses; and generating a third pulse signal including a plurality of third pulses by using the second pulse signal and providing the third pulse signal to the laser module (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
Therefore it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill, in the art at the time, to modify Tertitski with Li to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement.
Regarding claim 17, Tertitski does not disclose wherein the laser module outputs the laser beam in synchronization with the plurality of third pulses of the third pulse signal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein the laser module outputs the laser beam in synchronization with the plurality of third pulses of the third pulse signal (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement (Li, Para. 45).
Regarding claim 18, Tertitski does not disclose wherein one of the plurality of third pulses is synchronized with the second pulse of the second pulse signal.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein one of the plurality of third pulses is synchronized with the second pulse of the second pulse signal (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement (Li, Para. 45).
Regarding claim 19, Tertitski does not disclose wherein the second pulse signal includes a second pulse synchronized to another one of the plurality of first pulses, and an interval between the second pulses is equal to an irradiation repetition period of a group of the laser beams.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein the second pulse signal includes a second pulse synchronized to another one of the plurality of first pulses, and an interval between the second pulses is equal to an irradiation repetition period of a group of the laser beams (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement (Li, Para. 45).
Regarding claim 20, Tertitski does not disclose wherein an interval between the plurality of third pulses is equal to an irradiation interval of the laser beam.
However in the same field of endeavor, Li teaches wherein an interval between the plurality of third pulses is equal to an irradiation interval of the laser beam (Para. 34 wherein the controller uses pulse synchronization. A person of ordinary skill would alter the pulse synchronization to meet the user’s needs).
It would have been prima facie obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create a helical cutting motion with continuous movement (Li, Para. 45).
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 KRISTINA B BURNS whose telephone number is (571)272-8973. The examiner can normally be reached Monday and Wednesday 6:00 am-12:00 pm and Tuesday 6:00 am-2:30 pm.
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 at (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.
/K.B.B./Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761