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 .
Status
This Office Action is in response to the Amendments and Arguments filed 7 February 2026. As directed by applicant, claims 1, 18, 19 , 21, 22, 23, and 33 are amended. Claim 17 is cancelled. No claims are added. This is a Final Office Action.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101
35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows:
Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.
Claims 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more.
This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claim is directed to a method for “identifying” and “determining” characteristics, but not doing anything with the determination, and generic “controller” does not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea. The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because taking an image is recognized as routine and conventional in analysis.
With respect to step 1, claim 1 is directed to a method which is eligible at step 1.
With respect to set 2A, the following elements are considered to be abstract:
“the method comprising: a. identifying spatial coordinates of one or more defect areas in wherein the at least one defect area in the region of interest comprises a cluster of defect areas; wherein the polygon boundary is determined by combining boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas; and wherein combining boundaries is performed by connecting the boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas to neighboring boundaries to enclose an entire region around the defect areas in the cluster of defect areas."
The above limitations appear to be directed to mental processes and/or mathematical operations and/or certain methods of human activity because the limitations concern data collection, data analysis and recording the results of data analysis which could be done mentally or by hand with pen and paper (claims 9 and 10 also just do further identifying, via the image, which are just mental processes).
The following are additional elements that do not amount to a practical application at step 2A:
Wherein the identifying occurs in “a first image of the optical device taken when tinted”.
This appears to be extra solution activity where data to be analyzed is obtained for the abstract process.
In re-evaluating the additional elements under step 2B, the defect detector imaging (using thermal imaging camera) device of an electrochromic optical device appears to be extra solution activity, limiting the use of the idea to one particular environment but does not add significantly more (MPEP § 2106.05(H)) (Similarly for claims 11 and 12). Further, these elements are routine and conventional in the art as exhibited by Palm, U.S. Patent Application Publication 2015/0097944 (¶0006,0010, 0037).
The limitations of claim(s) 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 22 when considered individually and as an ordered combination do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea for the reasons set forth above. The dependent claims simply do further determining and/or further characterizing the data or previously done determinations. The claims are not patent eligible.
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.
Claim(s) 1, 11, 12, 18, 21, 22, 23, 25, 32- 40 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozbicki (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0306615) in view of Sbar (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0225027).
Regarding claim 1, Rozbicki teaches a method of determining a polygon ablation pattern for mitigating one or more defects in an optical device, the method comprising: a. identifying spatial coordinates of one or more defect areas in a first image of the optical device taken when tinted (Rozbicki, ¶0072, coordinate system, ¶0153, “in a tinted state”); b. defining a region of interest around at least one defect area of the one or more defect areas (Rozbicki, ¶0051, defect regions).
Rozbicki, however, does not teach c. determining a polygon boundary around the at least one defect area in the region of interest to define the polygon ablation pattern nor wherein the at least one defect area in the region of interest comprises a cluster of defect areas;
wherein the polygon boundary is determined by combining boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas; and
wherein combining boundaries is performed by connecting the boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas to neighboring boundaries to enclose an entire region around the defect areas in the cluster of defect areas.
Rather, Rozbicki teaches detecting the defect and mitigating the issue with sensors and dealing with single defects
However, Sbar teaches c. determining a polygon boundary around the at least one defect area in the region of interest (Sbar, ¶0066, to automatically define the path around a defect, and path 136 is a polygon, fig. 7) to define the polygon ablation pattern, and
wherein the at least one defect area in the region of interest comprises a cluster of defect areas (fig. 7);
wherein the polygon boundary is determined by combining boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas (fig. 7, area 136); and
wherein combining boundaries is performed by connecting the boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas to neighboring boundaries to enclose an entire region around the defect areas in the cluster of defect areas (this is done by “connecting” the boundaries and enclosing an entire region around the defect).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing of the invention to modify Rozbicki with Sbar, in order to have the polygon determined that surrounds the defect area, rather than just mitigate it as it is sensed, in order to be most efficient, with the laser and ablating, depending on the area needed to be covered, how many defects there are (i.e. a “cluster”), and how close they are to each other.
Regarding claim 11, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method comprising receiving the first image of the optical device from a camera. (Sbar element 56, ¶¶36-37, Sbar uses a camera for its imaging, and this would have been combined above to get the image).
Regarding claim 12, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the optical device is an electrochromic device ( Rozbicki, Abstract, electrochromic window, “EC product 102”).
Regarding claim 18, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method, in this combination, wherein the polygon boundary is determined by pixels identified at a border of a connected region formed by combining boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas. However, Sbar further teaches defines a path around or at a defect, displaying the path on a screen, and is able to ablate that defect, (Sbar,, ¶0067, 0070, fig. 7, where even a plurality of defects are enclosed, it would be via pixels on the screen). Thus it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar with the further teaching of Sbar, to identify a border around a region of defects, in order to closely and properly identify and ablate the whole defect to fix the error in accordance with Sbar and Rozbicki.
Regarding claim 21, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach, specifically, a method comprising using a morphological operation to combine the boundaries of the defect areas in the cluster of defect areas. However, given the teachings of Sbar, to identify a defect and surround and ablate a defect or several defects within an area (Sbar, fig. 7, ¶¶0067- 0070), in light of the above, seeing that it would be advantageous to determine if a distance between defects is a certain distance, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar to identify a border around a region of defects and connecting their borders, in order to closely and properly identify and ablate the whole defect to fix the error in accordance with Sbar and Rozbicki.
Regarding claim 22, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method wherein c. comprises: defining boundaries of all defect areas within the region of interest; and determining the polygon boundary by combining boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas (Sbar, in his polygon surrounding defects, all defect areas,2, are within the polygonal boundary, fig. 7, ¶67-70).
Regarding claim 23, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein c. comprises determining the polygon boundary around each of the cluster of defect areas using one or more of an image filtering operation, an image thresholding operation, and a morphological operation. However, given the teachings of Sbar, to identify a defect and surround and ablate a defect or several defects within an area (Sbar, fig. 7, ¶¶0067- 0070), in light of the above, seeing that it would be advantageous to determine if a distance between defects is a certain distance, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar to identify a border around a region of defects, which may include using thresholds of light, for instance, to determine damage, and connecting defect borders or designated boundaries, in order to closely and properly identify and ablate the whole defect to fix the error in accordance with Sbar and Rozbicki.
Regarding claim 25, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, and further teaches a method further comprising directing, or causing the direction of, one or more laser spots to ablate along at least a portion of the polygon boundary (Sbar, already in combination, ablating 136 along polygon boundary, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 32, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method comprising directing, or causing the direction of, one or more laser spots to scan over the entire region within the polygon boundary. However, Sbar teaches it (Sbar ¶¶070, 71, “to remove all material inside of an area defined by the path 136”) Thus, it would have been obvious ablate all the area within a boundary, to make sure that the defect has been ablated, and to make sure that the ablation does not spill over outside the boundary or have any slight malfunction or increase in energy near a boundary, as that would only affect the defect itself and not the boundary area or spill over into unnecessary area beyond the boundary.
Regarding claim 33, Rozbicki discloses a method of mitigating one or more defects in an optical device, the method comprising: identifying spatial coordinates of one or more defect areas in an image of the optical device taken when tinted (Rozbicki, ¶0072, coordinate system, ¶0153, “in a tinted state”); Rozbicki, ¶0006, “automatically focusing a laser during mitigation of a defect in an electronic device of a deforming window”, ¶0038, polygonal),
Rozbicki, while he does teach surrounding the defect area (Rozbicki, ¶0051, defect regions), he does not teach “determining a polygon boundary around the one or more defect areas”, nor does he teach wherein the one or more defect areas comprises a cluster of defect areas; wherein the polygon boundary is determined by combining boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas; and wherein combining boundaries is performed by connecting the boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas to neighboring boundaries to enclose an entire region around the defect areas in the cluster of defect areas.
However, Sbar teaches, in his method of eliminating defects “determining a polygonal boundary” (Sbar, fig. 7 ¶70, path 36 define is polygonal) and wherein the one or more defect areas comprises a cluster of defect areas (Sbar, fig. 7); wherein the polygon boundary is determined by combining boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas (fig. 7); and wherein combining boundaries is performed by connecting the boundaries of defect areas in the cluster of defect areas to neighboring boundaries to enclose an entire region around the defect areas in the cluster of defect areas (connecting together, fig. 7, surrounding in ¶¶67-70).
Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki with the teachings of Sbar, in order to have the polygon determined that surrounds the defect area, in order to be most efficient, with the laser and ablating, depending on the area needed to be covered, how many defects there are (i.e. a “cluster”), and how close they are to each other.
Regarding claim 34, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 33, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the one or more laser spots start and stop within the polygon boundary. . However, if the laser is indeed ablating the defect within the boundary (¶71), it would have been obvious to start and top the laser ablation within the boundary, to make sure that the defect has been ablated, and to make sure that the ablation does not spill over outside the boundary or have any slight malfunction or increase in energy when starting the or stopping the machine, as that would only affect the defect itself and not the boundary area or spill over into unnecessary area beyond the boundary (Sbar ¶0064, 0070, 71).
Regarding claim 35, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 33, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the one or more laser spots follow a path that overlaps. Sbar does teach a slight overlap ((Sbar, ¶0059, overlaps at edge). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar with a further teaching of Sbar, to ensure that the entire area is ablated and that the whole defect is cut off or cut out, so a slight overlap would ensure the proper functioning of this invention, ablating borders (Sbar, ¶¶0059, 0064, 0070, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 36, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 33, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the one or more laser spots follow a path that overlaps by at least 10%. However, given the above teachings of following the boundary edge and having an overlap, a small overlap of 10% would be obvious to ensure that there is indeed overlap between the laser spots, and the laser spots are so small that it may be hard to ensure the overlap with less than a substantial amount in order to insure that the proper ablation of the border or defect occurs (Sbar, ¶¶0059, 0064, 0070, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 37, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 33, as above, and further teaches a method wherein depth of laser ablation is at least through an uppermost layer of the optical device (Rozbicki, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 38, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 33, as above, and further teaches a method wherein depth of laser ablation is at least through one layer of the optical device (Rozbicki, fig. 3).
Regarding claim 39, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 33, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein depth of laser ablation is at least through one or more transparent conductor layers of the optical device. While it is not clear that the cutting may be entirely through a conductive transparent layer in Rozbicki, Sbar teaches cutting though an upper transparent conductor, and the advantage would be to separate electrically the area of the defect so that it no longer affects the output of the layer (Sbar, ¶0070). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys with a further teaching so Sbar, in order to separate electrically the area of the defect so that it longer affects the output of the layer, and creates the defect
Regarding claim 40, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 33, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein depth of laser ablation is through all layers of the optical device. While it is not clear that the cutting may be entirely through the stack in Rozbicki, Sbar teaches cutting though the layers entirely, and the advantage would be to separate electrically the area of the defect so that it no longer affects the output of the layer (Sbar, ¶0070). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar with a further teaching so Sbar, in order to separate electrically the area of the defect so that it is ensured that it longer affects the output of the layer, and creates the defect
Claim(s) 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13-16, 18- 24, and 26-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Rozbicki (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/0306615) in view of Sbar (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2013/ 0225027) and further in view Winforsys Co (Korean Patent Publication KR-20190023374); in applicant’s IDS; English Description attached). Rao (U.S. Patent Application Publication 2002/ 0088952).
Regarding claim 2, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method comprising generating a background image from the first image of the optical device. However, Winforsys teaches generating a background image from the first image of the optical device (Winforsys p. 5 6th paragraph, background). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine to Rozbicki in view of Sbar to add the teachings of Winforsys, in order to have an image, and particularly a background image come up in order to identify the defect clearly, and be ready to identify and ablate that defect to remove it.
Regarding claim 3, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the background image is generated by removing one or more objects from the first image (In Winforsys’s method of creating an image which is combined already, noise is removed p. 1, 7th paragraph).
Regarding claim 4, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 3, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the background image is generated using filtering and/or thresholding to remove the one or more objects from the first image (In Winforsys’s method of creating an image, which is combined already, it is done by filtering, at least p. 1, 1th paragraph).
Regarding claim 5, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the at least one defect area comprises a group of neighboring pixels having peak intensities in the background image (In Winforsys’s method of creating an image which is combined already, it is done by filtering, at least p. 5, 5th paragraph, maximum for defect at 255).
Regarding claim 6, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 5, as above, and further teaches a method wherein peak intensities comprise intensity values within 1%, within 5%, or within 10% of a maximum pixel intensity value in the background image (In Winforsys’s method of creating an image which is combined already, it is done by filtering, at least p. 5, 5th paragraph, maximum for defect at 255).
Regarding claim 7, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, and further teaches a method comprising determining each of the at least one defect area by identifying a group of neighboring pixels in the region of interest having peak intensities in the background image. (Already in the combination, Winforsys identifies the defect and the identified pixels would be neighbors if the defect was large enough, Winforsys 12th paragraph, p. 2).
Regarding claim 8 , Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 7, as above, and further teaches a method wherein peak intensities are intensities within 1%, 5%, or 10% of a maximum pixel intensity in the first image (In Winforsys’s method of creating an image which is combined already, it is done by filtering, at least p. 5, 5th paragraph, maximum for defect at 255) .
Regarding claim 9 , Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein spatial coordinates of each of the one or more defect areas are at a geometric center of a group of neighboring pixels having peak intensities. However, Winforsys teaches generating an image of the optical device, and further teaches having the defect area be a group of neighboring pixels having peak intensities (Winforsys p. 5 5th - 6th paragraph; p. 2, 12th paragraph; neighboring pixels would identify the defect if the defect was large enough, and the center of the neighboring pixels would also identify the defect). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine to Rozbicki in view of Sbar to add the teachings of Winforsys, in order to have an image, and particularly a background image come up in order to identify the defect clearly, and be ready to identify and ablate that defect to remove it and to identify the defect with peak intensities, knowing where it is located centered at the geometric center of pixels with peak intensities, as would be obvious were the defect large enough..
Regarding claim 10, Rozbicki in view of Sbar teaches all the limitations of claim 1, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein spatial coordinates of each of the one or more defect areas are at a location of a pixel of the first image having an intensity within 5% of a maximum intensity. However, Winforsys teaches generating an image of the optical device, and further teaches wherein spatial coordinates of each of the one or more defect areas are at a location of a pixel of the first image having an intensity within 5% of a maximum intensity. (Winforsys p. 5 5th - 6th paragraph; p. 2, 12th paragraph; maximum for identifying the defect at 255). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention to combine to Rozbicki in view of Sbar to add the teachings of Winforsys, in order to have an image, and particularly order to identify the defect clearly, and be ready to identify and ablate that defect to remove it and to identify the defect with peak intensities, the peak intensities within the ranges claimed.
Regarding claim 13, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, but does not further teach, in this combination, a method wherein the region of interest is a circular region defined by a radius and centered around a defect region center of a group of neighboring pixels having peak intensities in the background image. However, Sbar does teach that the scan for the image path may be a circular spiral scan with a small overlap between adjacent path views, the ultimate area being large and circular, Sbar ¶0059) and Winforsys, in combination already teaches peak intensities for the defect, the pixels neighboring if the defect is large enough. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys, with the further teachings of Sbar, in order to have a region of interest that is a circular region, in order to perform a conventional method of moving the camera in a conventional way to achieve the expected result of covering the defect efficiently, and, of course, to have the sharp contrast within the image, having the defect with peak intensities in the background.
Regarding claim 14, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 13, as above, and further teaches a method wherein the radius is in a range from about 10 µm to about 100 µm (Rozbicki ¶0039, creating a pinhole “100 micrometers or less” [radius of 50]; Given that Sbar already teaches the circular scan, Rozbicki teaches the pinhole defect dimension, and the radius would be within the claimed range).
Regarding claim 15, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches a method comprising determining the radius using the background image (Rozbicki already teaches determining the and identifying the defect, fig. 14, ¶156, and Winforsys already teaches creating the background image and contrasting the defect with peak intensities, this is already taught in the combination, Winforsys, p. 5 6th paragraph).
Regarding claim 16, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 14, as above, and further teaches a method comprising determining the radius using spatial coordinates of an outermost pixel in a group of neighboring pixels having peak intensities in the background image (Rozbicki already teaches determining, fig. 14, ¶156, and with the teachings of Winforsys to have the group of pixels with peak intensities indicating the defect, the outermost pixel of a group would identify the location of at least some of the defect).
Regarding claim 19, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 2, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein c. comprises identifying the cluster of defect areas in the region of interest of the background image as defect areas within a distance of each other. However, as noted in Sbar, fig. 7, several defects may be identified and dealt and it would be advantageous to determine the distance between the defects to determine whether it is beneficial to ablate them together, or handle them together, such as in Sbar fig. 7, or handle them separately, and the distance between the defects would help determine if one ablation, surrounding the whole area, or two ablations, for each separate defect, makes sense. Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys, to identify the cluster of defect areas within a distance of each other, to determine whether it is beneficial to ablate them together, or handle them together, such as in Sbar fig. 7, or handle them separately, and the distance between the defects would help determine if one ablation, surrounding the whole area, or two ablations, for each separate defect, makes sense.
Regarding claim 20, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 19, as above, but does not further teach, specifically, a method wherein the distance is one of 1 µm, 2 µm, 3 µm,4 µm, and 5 µm. However, in light of the above, seeing that it would be advantageous to determine if a distance between defects is a certain distance, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys, to determine, through routine experimentation, whether the distance between the cluster of defects is within the claimed amounts, in order to, know whether to surround the defects with one ablation area, or have them be separate ablation areas, as discussed above (Sbar, fig. 7, ¶¶0067-0070).
Regarding claim 24, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 17, as above, and further teaches a method comprising: (i) directing, or causing the direction of, one or more laser spots to follow the polygon boundary; and/or (ii) directing, or causing the direction of, one or more laser spots to scan over a region within the polygon boundary (Sbar, already in combination, follows polygon boundary in fig. 7, ¶¶64, 70, 71).
Regarding claim 26, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 25, as above, but does not further teach method wherein the one or more laser spots start and stop within the polygon boundary. However, if the laser is indeed ablating the defect within the boundary (¶71), it would have been obvious to start and top the laser ablation within the boundary, to make sure that the defect has been ablated, and to make sure that the ablation does not spill over outside the boundary or have any slight malfunction or increase in energy when starting the or stopping the machine, as that would only affect the defect itself and not the boundary area or spill over into unnecessary area beyond the boundary (Sbar ¶0064, 0070, 71).
Regarding claim 27, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 24, as above, but does not further teach, in the current combination, a method wherein the one or more laser spots follow a path that overlap along the polygon boundary. Sbar does teach a slight overlap ((Sbar, ¶0059, overlaps at edge). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys with a further teaching of Sbar, to ensure that the entire area is ablated and that the whole defect is cut off or cut out, so a slight overlap would ensure the proper functioning of this invention, ablating borders (Sbar, ¶¶0059, 0064, 0070, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 28, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 27, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein the one or more laser spots follow a path that overlaps by at least 10%. However, given the above teachings of following the boundary edge and having an overlap, a small overlap of 10% would be obvious to ensure that there is indeed overlap between the laser spots, and the laser spots are so small that it may be hard to ensure the overlap with less than a substantial amount in order to insure that the proper ablation of the border or defect occurs (Sbar, ¶¶0059, 0064, 0070, fig. 7).
Regarding claim 29, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 27, as above, and further teaches a method wherein depth of laser ablation is at least through an uppermost layer of the optical device (Rozbicki, fig. 3)
Regarding claim 30, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 27, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein depth of laser ablation is at least through one or more transparent conductor layers of the optical device. While it is not clear that the cutting may be entirely through a conductive transparent layer in Rozbicki, Sbar teaches cutting though an upper transparent conductor, and the advantage would be to separate electrically the area of the defect so that it no longer affects the output of the layer (Sbar, ¶0070). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys with a further teaching so Sbar, in order to separate electrically the area of the defect so that it longer affects the output of the layer, and creates the defect
Regarding claim 31, Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys teaches all the limitations of claim 27, as above, but does not further teach a method wherein depth of laser ablation is through all layers of the optical device. While it is not clear that the cutting may be entirely through the stack in Rozbicki, Sbar teaches cutting though the layers entirely, and the advantage would be to separate electrically the area of the defect so that it no longer affects the output of the layer (Sbar, ¶0070). Thus, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify Rozbicki in view of Sbar and Winforsys with a further teaching so Sbar, in order to separate electrically the area of the defect so that it is ensured that it longer affects the output of the layer, and creates the defect
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed 6 February 2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Regarding the §101 rejection, the amendments do not overcome this rejection. Specifically, claim 17 is incorporated into claim 1. However, in the original claim set, claim 17 also depended on claim 2, which claims “generating a background image from the first image of the optical device.” Claim 2, dependent on claim 1, does not fall foul of a §101 rejection, but claim 17, by itself, or only dependent on claim 1, as it was incorporated in the current amended claims, does still fall foul of the §101 rejection, as noted above.
As for the ¶103 rejection, the boundaries are “connected” together, that is, the designated boundaries of the defects are “connected”, joined together and surrounded together ("connected." Merriam-Webster.com. 2026. https://www.merriam-webster.com. 1st definition. (12 May 2026)). so as to be enclose an entire region around the defect area, as in Sbar, fig. 7. Claim 1 is thus still obvious over the prior art.
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.
THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. 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 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.
/LAWRENCE H SAMUELS/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761
/IBRAHIME A ABRAHAM/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights