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 .
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and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114.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 06/16/2026 has been entered.
Examiner’s remark
examiner noted that instant application has defined “about” to be “within one or more standard deviations, or within ± 30% of the stated value” on paragraph 0046 of instant application.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
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) 1-4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2009/0185140) in view of Stewart et al. (US 10,239,155).
Regarding claim 1, Chen et al. discloses “a laser abstract and fig.1. Examiner noted that “a laser crystallization device” is treated as a laser device (hence, i.e., crystallization” is treated as a name)), comprising:
“a first solid-state laser generator” (104) “which generates a first solid-state laser having a first energy intensity” ([0026], i.e., As an example, those ratios do not match the example maximum achievable output intensity (power) capability ratios among the examples of first, second and third lasers 102, 104, 106, of 200:500:300);
“a second solid-state laser generator” (106) “which generates a second solid-state laser having a second energy intensity lower than the first energy intensity” ([0026], i.e., As an example, those ratios do not match the example maximum achievable output intensity (power) capability ratios among the examples of first, second and third lasers 102, 104, 106, of 200:500:300); and
“a third solid-state laser generator” (102) which generates “a third solid-state laser having a third energy intensity lower than the first energy intensity” ([0026], i.e., As an example, those ratios do not match the example maximum achievable output intensity (power) capability ratios among the examples of first, second and third lasers 102, 104, 106, of 200:500:300).
Chen et al. is silent regarding wherein the laser, the second laser and the third laser are radiated with a nanosecond-range time difference, and wherein the first solid-state laser is radiated before the second solid-state laser, and the second solid-state laser is radiated before the third solid-state laser.
Stewart et al. teaches wherein “wherein the laser, the second laser and the third laser are radiated with a nanosecond-range time difference, and wherein the first solid-state laser is radiated before the second solid-state laser, and the second solid-state laser is radiated before the third solid-state laser.” (Col.6, all, in particular at lines 38-51 i.e., the temporal offset between the first laser beam pulse 262 and the second laser beam pulse 264 is about 2 nsec, the temporal offset between the second laser beam pulse 264 and the third laser beam pulse 266 is about 3 nsec. This suggest that first laser 262 is radiated 2nsec before the second laser 264 and the second laser 264 is radiated 3nsec before third laser 266). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chen et al. with Stewart et al., by modifying Chen et al.’s beams characteristic according to Stewart et al.’s temporally offset beams, to optimize laser material interaction allowing for better efficiency in cutting (col.1 at lines 55-61) as taught by Stewart et al.
Regarding claim 2, modified Chen et al. discloses “the second energy intensity is in a range of about 48 percent to about 54 percent of the first energy intensity” (Chen et al., examiner noted that instant application has defined “about” to be “within one or more standard deviations, or within ± 30% of the stated value” on paragraph 0046 of instant application. In this case, the ratio of first energy intensity of 104 to ratio of second energy intensity 106 is 500: 200. So (300/500) *100 = 60 precent. Instant claim required 48 precent ± 30% and 54 precent ± 30% which is between a range of 33.6 < x < 70.2. Thus, 60 precent which is within the range of 33.6 < x < 70.2).
Regarding claim 3, Chen et al. discloses “the third energy intensity is in a range of about 54 percent to about 60 percent of the first energy intensity” (Chen et al., As explained above in claim 2, Instant claim required 48 precent ± 30% and 54 precent ± 30% which is between a range of 33.6 < x < 70.2. In this case, the ratio of first energy intensity of 104 to ratio of third energy intensity 102 is 500: 200. So (200/500) *100 = 40 precent which is between a range of 33.6 < x < 70.2. Thus, 60 precent which is within the range of 33.6 < x < 70.2).
Regarding claim 4, Chen et al. discloses “the second energy intensity is in a range of about 48 percent to about 54 percent of the first energy intensity” (Chen et al., as explained in claim 2 above, the second energy intensity is 60 which is between 33.6 < x < 70.2), and wherein “the third energy intensity is in a range of about 54 percent to about 60 percent of the first energy intensity” (Chen et al., as explained in claim 3 above, the third energy intensity is 40 which is between a range of 33.6 < x < 70.2).
Claim(s) 6 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2009/0185140) in view of Stewart et al. (US 10,239,155) and Tanaka et al. (US 8,835,800).
Regarding claim 6, modified Chen et al. discloses each of the first to third solid-state laser generators.
Modified Chen et al. is silent regarding a solid-state laser medium for each of the first to third solid state laser generator.
Tanaka et al. teaches “a solid-state laser medium” (col.2 at lines 12-27, i.e., a solid-state laser medium used in a CW laser is usually in red to near-infrared ranges). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chen et al. with Tanaka et al., by adding Tanaka et al.’s a solid-state laser medium to Chen et al.’s laser generators, to process different type of workpiece such as semiconductor film (col.2 at lines 12-27) as taught by Tanaka et al.
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Chen et al. (US 2009/0185140) in view of Stewart et al. (US 10,239,155) and Kleinert et al. (US 2014/0110384).
Regarding claim 7, modified Chen et al. discloses each of the first to third solid-state laser generators.
Modified Chen et al. is silent regarding a full width at half maximum of is in a range of about 12 nanoseconds to about 17 nanoseconds.
Kleinert et al. teaches “a full width at half maximum of is in a range of about 12 nanoseconds to about 17 nanoseconds” ([0022], i.e., the pulse duration (e.g., based on full width at half-maximum, or FWHM) can be in a range from 0.1 picosecond (ps) to 1000 nanoseconds (ns)). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chen et al. with Tanaka et al., by modifying Chen et al.’s laser characteristic according to Kleinert et al.’s characteristic of laser pulse duration, to provide desired appearance on the workpiece (para.0022) as taught by Kleinert et al.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claim 5 is objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Response to Arguments
Applicant's arguments filed on 04/16/2026 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive.
Applicant argues “35 35 USC 103 …” on pages 8-12 of remark.
In response, the amendment to claims changed the scope of invention and overcome prior rejections. However, examiner has provided interpretation using Stewart et al. (US 10,239,155) in current rejection. For example: Stewart et al. teaches the amended portion of claim 1. Stewart discloses the temporal offset between the first laser beam pulse 262 and the second laser beam pulse 264 is about 2 nsec, the temporal offset between the second laser beam pulse 264 and the third laser beam pulse 266 is about 3 nsec. This suggest that first laser 262 is radiated 2nsec before the second laser 264 and the second laser 264 is radiated 3nsec before third laser 266.
With respect to applicant’s argument that “Chen does not disclose a laser
crystallization device, comprising: a first solid-state laser generator which generates a first solid-state laser having a first energy intensity; a second solid-state laser generator which generates a second solid-state laser having a second energy intensity lower than the first energy intensity; and a third solid-state laser generator which generates a third solid-state laser having a third energy intensity lower than the first energy intensity, wherein the first solid-state laser, the second solid-state laser and the third solid-state laser are radiated with a nanosecond-range time difference, and wherein the first solid- state laser is radiated before the second solid-state laser, and the second solid-state laser is radiated before the third solid-state laser. Rather, Applicant respectfully notes that referring to FIG. 2 of Chen, Chen merely discloses emitting light in the order of a first light source 102 (corresponding to the third solid-state laser generator), a second light source 104 (corresponding to the first solid-state laser generator), and a third light source 106 (corresponding to the second solid-state laser generator). However, Chen neither discloses nor suggests emitting light in the order of the second light source 104 (corresponding to the first solid-state laser generator), the third light source 106 (corresponding to the second solid-state laser generator), and the first light source 102 (corresponding to the third solid-state laser generator), as recited in claim 1. Furthermore, Applicant respectfully notes that Stewart does not cure the
deficiencies of Chen noted above. More particularly, Applicant respectfully notes that Stewart does not disclose a laser crystallization device wherein the first solid-state laser, the second solid-state laser and the third solid-state laser are radiated with a nanosecond- range time difference. Rather, Stewart merely discloses a laser processing system for cutting or dicing materials, wherein temporally offset laser beams are used to improve cutting or ablation quality, while being silent as to a laser crystallization device comprising three solid-state laser generators which radiate first to third solid-state laser with a nanosecond-range time difference, where the first solid-state laser having the highest energy intensity is radiated first, as claimed.
In addition, Applicant respectfully notes that it would have not been obvious to modify Chen in view of Stewart. Specifically, Applicant respectfully notes that a person of ordinary skill in the art would have no motivation to modify the color-display frame generation system of Chen with the material-cutting teachings of Stewart to arrive at a laser crystallization device comprising three solid-state laser generators which radiate first to third solid-state laser with a nanosecond-range time difference. Because the cited combination relates to fundamentally different technical fields and objectives, i.e, optical color mixing and mechanical ablation, the combination of Chen and Stewart fails to suggest the structural and temporal configuration of the laser crystallization device as in claim 1. Furthermore, Chen does not disclose the feature of generating solid-state lasers with a time difference in order to increase the melting time and solidification time of amorphous silicon, as in the present application. Therefore, it would not have been
obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art to modify Chen to emit light in the order of the second light source 104, the third light source 106, and the first light source 102. As a result, neither Chen nor Stewart, either alone or in any combination thereof, disclose, teach or suggest "[a] laser crystallization device, comprising: a first solid-state laser generator which generates a first solid-state laser having a first energy intensity; a second solid-state laser generator which generates a second solid-state laser having a second energy intensity lower than the first energy intensity; and a third solid-state laser generator which generates a third solid-state laser having a third energy intensity lower than the first energy intensity, wherein the first solid- state laser, the second solid-state laser and the third solid-state laser are radiated with a nanosecond-range time difference, and wherein the first solid-state laser is radiated before the second solid-state laser, and the second solid-state laser is radiated before the third solid-state laser," as recited in independent claim 1” on pages 8-11 of remark.
In response, examiner respectfully disagrees because Chen et al. teaches a first solid-state laser generator, a second solid-state laser generator and a third solid-state laser generator. Stewart et al. teaches wherein “wherein the laser, the second laser and the third laser are radiated with a nanosecond-range time difference, and wherein the first solid-state laser is radiated before the second solid-state laser, and the second solid-state laser is radiated before the third solid-state laser.” (Col.6, all, in particular at lines 38-51 i.e., the temporal offset between the first laser beam pulse 262 and the second laser beam pulse 264 is about 2 nsec, the temporal offset between the second laser beam pulse 264 and the third laser beam pulse 266 is about 3 nsec. This suggest that first laser 262 is radiated 2nsec before the second laser 264 and the second laser 264 is radiated 3nsec before third laser 266. See fig.4A). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to modify Chen et al. with Stewart et al., by modifying Chen et al.’s beams characteristic according to Stewart et al.’s temporally offset beams, to optimize laser material interaction allowing for better efficiency in cutting (col.1 at lines 55-61) as taught by Stewart et al.
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JIMMY CHOU whose telephone number is (571)270-7107. The examiner can normally be reached Mon-Friday.
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, Edward Landrum can be reached at (571) 272-5567. 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.
/JIMMY CHOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights