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/Arguments
Applicant's amendment filed on 3/6/2026 has been entered.
Claims 1-2, 12, 14, and 16 have been amended.
Claims 3-11, 13, 15, 17-20 are as previously presented.
Claims 1-20 are still pending in this application, with claims 1, 14, and 16 being independent.
Applicant’s amendment to the specification overcomes the previously set-forth objection to the drawings [p. 8: “Without conceding the propriety of these objections, and in the interest of compact prosecution, paras. [0057] and [00100] of the filed specification has been amended herein to remove these reference symbols.”].
Applicant’s arguments regarding the previously set-forth objections to claims 14 as a duplicate to claim 1 is persuasive [e.g., pp. 9-10: “…an order of a Gaussian profile and a width of a Gaussian profile are different parameters of a Gaussian function that define a Gaussian curve…”] and thus the claim interpretation of “semi-super” has been updated below. However, in view of this updated interpretation of “semi-super” defining Gaussian profiles of “order 2 to order 2.4” and does not include a width of the profile, the objection to claim 15 as being a duplicate of claim 14 is maintained. In this case, claim 14 discloses that the minor axis of the output light has a semi-super Gaussian profile, and claim 15 restates that the Gaussian profile is of order 2 to order 2.4.
Applicant’s amendment overcomes the previously set-forth 112(b) rejection to claim 12 [pp. 10-11: “Nevertheless, without conceding the propriety of the 112(b) rejection to claim 12, and in the interest of compact prosecution, claim 12 has been amended herein according to the Examiner's helpful interpretation/suggestion”].
Applicant’s arguments regarding the claim interpretation of claims 1, 12, and 14 and the corresponding 112(a) and 112(b) rejections of the respective claims are persuasive [e.g., pp. 8-9: “…the term "laser irradiation" proceeding the term "part" and the terms "optical" and "lower optical" preceding the term "system" recited in the claims denote the kinds of structural device that have a generally understood meaning by a person having ordinary skill in the art.”; p. 10: “…denote the kinds of structural devices that have a generally understood meaning by a person having ordinary skill in the art”], and thus the claim interpretation of “laser irradiation part” and “optical system” has been updated below.
Applicant’s arguments, see Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. § 103 pp. 11-13, have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record [i.e., Kim (US 20200083449 A1) in view of Ahn (US 20180175323 A1)] for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. In this case, the independent claims have been amended to further require an energy intensity of the output light exceeds a threshold for breaking bonds to separate a display panel from a base substrate for processing, and an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold.
Claim Interpretation
Claims 1, 14, 15, and 16 recite the term “semi-super” with regards to a Gaussian profile of a minor axis of an output light, and where applicant acts as his or her own lexicographer to specifically define a term of a claim contrary to its ordinary meaning, the written description must clearly redefine the claim term and set forth the uncommon definition so as to put one reasonably skilled in the art on notice that the applicant intended to so redefine that claim term. Process Control Corp. v. HydReclaim Corp., 190 F.3d 1350, 1357, 52 USPQ2d 1029, 1033 (Fed. Cir. 1999). In this case, the term is used by the claims to respectively indicate that the minor axis has a Gaussian profile of order 2 to order 2.4 (claims 1, 15, and 16; para. 0007). Therefore, for the purposes of this office action, Examiner will interpret the term semi-super to indicate a super Gaussian profile of order 2 to 2.4.
Claims 1, 12, and 14: the terms “laser irradiation part” and “optical system” are being interpreted as the kinds of structural device that have a generally understood meaning by a person having ordinary skill in the art.
Claims 2, 5, 9, 13, 14, and 20 recite the term “about” and para. 0045 clearly redefines the term: “As used herein, the term "substantially," "about," and similar terms are used as terms of approximation and not as terms of degree, and are intended to account for the inherent variations in measured or calculated values that would be recognized by those of ordinary skill in the art.” Thus, Examiner will interpret the term to indicate recognized inherent variations (e.g., relating to tolerances).
Claim 6 recites the term “homogenizer” and in view of para. 0047 (“Unless otherwise defined, all terms (including technical and scientific terms) used herein have the same meaning as commonly understood by one of ordinary skill in the art to which the present disclosure belongs.”), the term will be interpreted as a beam homogenizer.
Claim Objections
Applicant is advised that should claim 14 be found allowable, claim 15 will be objected to under 37 CFR 1.75 as being a substantial duplicate thereof. When two claims in an application are duplicates or else are so close in content that they both cover the same thing, despite a slight difference in wording, it is proper after allowing one claim to object to the other as being a substantial duplicate of the allowed claim. See MPEP § 608.01(m). In this case, since claim 14 recites “…wherein a minor axis of the output light has a semi-super Gaussian profile” and claim 15 recites “wherein the semi-super Gaussian profile is of order 2 to order 2.4”, in view of the claim interpretation of the term “semi-super” above, it seems that claim 14 already requires an order of 2 to 2.4.
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.
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.
Claims 1-12 and 14-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200083449 A1) in view of Hatano (US 20120286312 A1).
Regarding claim 1,
Kim discloses:
A laser ablation device [fig. 1: laser ablation apparatus 10; para. 0002: “The present disclosure generally relates to a laser ablation apparatus using a solid-state laser and a method of manufacturing a display device.”] comprising:
a laser irradiation part configured to emit a plurality of solid-state laser beams [fig. 1: laser beam generator 100; para. 0048: “The laser beam generator 100 may generate laser beams LSR. For example, the laser beam generator 100 may generate the laser beams LSR using a solid-state laser.”; para. 0054: “Referring to FIG. 2, the laser beam generator 100 may include a first beam source 110, a second beam source 120, a third beam source 130, and a fourth beam source 140.”];
an optical system configured to convert the plurality of solid-state laser beams into output light [fig. 1: output beam generator 200; para. 0049: “The output beam generator 200 may generate an output beam LSRL using the laser beams LSR.”; para. 0063: “The output beam generator 200 may include a first mixer 210, a second mixer 220, and a photo molding machine.”; para. 0066: “In some embodiments, each of the first mixer 210 and the second mixer 220 may include at least one of a phase retarder, a polarizer, a lens, and a mirror.”]; and
a stage on which an irradiation target irradiated with the output light are disposed [fig. 1: substrate stage 300],
wherein
a minor axis of the output light [i.e., the output beam generator generates the output beam LSRL such that it has a rectangular shape having a minor axis length D2; fig. 4],
an energy intensity of the output light exceeds a threshold for breaking bonds to separate a display panel from a base substrate for processing [Kim describes the laser lift-off method; para. 0005: “The carrier substrate may be removed using various methods, and studies on a laser lift-off method using laser have been actively conducted.”; para. 0033: “FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a carrier substrate and a display device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.”], and
In this case, in view of Kim teaching a predetermined energy density to ablate a panel substrate from a carrier substrate [para. 0122: “In order for the panel substrate PST to be ablated from the carrier substrate CST, an output beam LSRL having a predetermined energy density may be incident onto the back of the carrier substrate CST.”], selecting a threshold for a given energy intensity per would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., according to material properties, environmental conditions, etc.
.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose:
the minor axis of the output light has a semi-super Gaussian profile of order 2 to order 2.4, and
an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold.
Hatano, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a laser irradiation part [laser beam 103 as a conventional gas/solid-state laser; para. 0124: “For the laser beam 103 used for irradiation, a gas laser typified by an excimer laser or a solid-state laser typified by a YAG laser can be used as a light source.”], wherein an output light [i.e.,. the conventional use of laser output light in an ablation process] has a super Gaussian profile [para. 0022: “Note that it is preferable that a beam profile of a laser beam along a cross section perpendicular to an optical axis of laser light delivered have a top flat shape in a focal position.”] and describes avoiding carbonization [i.e., the potential pyrolytic reaction of any organic materials (e.g., conventional resins, adhesives) during an ablation process; para. 0124: “…Because laser beam with low energy within an infrared region is used, the fixed portion 168 which is bonded with the first bonding layer 170 by welding without causing carbonization of the resin material and the like can be formed....”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Kim such that the minor axis of the output light has a super Gaussian profile and an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold, since Hatano teaches the altered shape as preferable [i.e., the output light is made uniform; see fig. 9A showing a uniform top flat shape; para. 0125].
Regarding the limitations directed towards the shape of the laser beam, specifically wherein the order of the super Gaussian profile be 2 to 2.4, and wherein an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold, in view of Hatano also teaching the generally understood structure controlling laser beam shape [para. 0125: “Note that it is preferable that a beam profile of a laser beam along a cross section perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam have a top flat shape in a focal position by adjustment of the optical system.”], selecting a shape or a particular order or arrangement of energy zone(s) would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, i.e., processing parameters of the laser ablation process, e.g., in order to avoid carbonization of any organic material [Kim para. 0122: “…For example, the thin film encapsulation layer TFE may have a structure in which a layer made of an inorganic material such as silicon oxide (SiOx) or silicon nitride (SiNx) and a layer made of an organic material such as epoxy or polyimide are alternately stacked...”].
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.).
Furthermore, it has been held that recognizing another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art [e.g., the reduction of carbonization] cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145(II.).
Regarding claim 2, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 1.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the energy intensity per unit area of the output light delivered to the irradiation target is about 130 mJ/cm2 to about 200 mJ/cm2.
In this case, in view of Kim teaching a predetermined energy density to ablate a panel substrate from a carrier substrate [para. 0122: “In order for the panel substrate PST to be ablated from the carrier substrate CST, an output beam LSRL having a predetermined energy density may be incident onto the back of the carrier substrate CST.”], selecting a given energy intensity per unit area of the output light would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select an energy density of 130 mJ/cm2 to 200 mJ/cm2 [e.g., in order to supply sufficient energy for ablation; paras. 0127-133: “A portion of the panel substrate PST, which is in contact with the carrier substrate CST, may absorb a beam having a predetermined energy density from the output beam LSRL… Thus, the panel substrate PST can be ablated from the carrier substrate CST.”].
Regarding claim 3, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 1.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the optical system comprises [para. 0076: “Referring to FIG. 4, the photo molding machine 230 may include a telescope lens set 231, a cylinder lens 232, a beam transfer system 233, a homogenizer 234, and a condenser 235.”]:
a first molded lens configured to change initial shapes of the plurality of solid-state laser beams into first shapes [fig. 4: telescope lens set 231; para. 0078: “The telescope lens set 231 may diffuse a first mixed laser beam CLSR1 and a second mixed laser beam CLSR2, which are supplied thereto.”]; and
a second molded lens configured to change the first shapes of the plurality of solid-state laser beams into second shapes different from the first shapes [fig. 4: cylinder lens 232; para. 0079: “The cylinder lens 232 may adjust a beam input from the telescope lens set 231. For example, the cylinder lens 232 may adjust the beam width of the input beam to have narrow width.”].
Regarding claim 4, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 3.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the optical system further comprises a shape rotation lens configured to rotate the second shapes of the plurality of solid-state laser beams passed through the second molded lens [fig. 4: beam transfer system 233; para. 0080: “The beam transfer system 233 may adjust a beam input from the cylinder lens 232. For example, the beam transfer system 233 may rotate the input beam to change a direction of the input beam.”].
Regarding claim 5, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 4.
Kim further teaches:
the laser ablation device of claim 4, wherein the shape rotation lens rotates, by about 90 degrees, the second shapes of the plurality of solid-state laser beams passed through the second molded lens.
In this case, in view of Kim teaching a predetermined energy density to ablate a panel substrate from a carrier substrate [para. 0122: “In order for the panel substrate PST to be ablated from the carrier substrate CST, an output beam LSRL having a predetermined energy density may be incident onto the back of the carrier substrate CST.”], selecting a particular value of adjustment (i.e., rotation) performed by the beam transfer system to the beam input would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a rotation of 90 degrees [e.g., in order to supply sufficient energy for ablation; paras. 0127-133: “A portion of the panel substrate PST, which is in contact with the carrier substrate CST, may absorb a beam having a predetermined energy density from the output beam LSRL… Thus, the panel substrate PST can be ablated from the carrier substrate CST.”].
Regarding claim 6, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 4.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the optical system further comprises a homogenizer configured to mix the plurality of solid-state laser beams passed through the shape rotation lens to output mixed light [fig. 4: homogenizer 234; para. 0081: “The homogenizer 234 may homogenize the diffused first and second mixed laser beams CLSR1 and CLSR2.”].
Regarding claim 7, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 6.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the optical system further comprises:
a third molded lens configured to change a shape of the mixed light to a third shape [fig. 4: condenser 235; para. 0083: “The condenser 235 may condense the homogenized first and second mixed laser beams CLSR1 and CLSR2 in a desired shape. Consequently, the condenser 235 may generate an output beam LSRL. The output beam LSRL may have a linear shape having a major axis length D1 and a minor axis length D2.”].
Kim further teaches:
a fourth molded lens configured to change the third shape of the mixed light passed through the third molded lens into a fourth shape different from the third shape.
In this case, in view of the first, second, and third molded lens disclosed by Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add any number of molded lenses also configured to provide further adjustment to change a shape of an incident input light into a different shape, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 8, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 7.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the second molded lens is a cylindrical lens [i.e., “cylinder” lens 232].
Kim further teaches:
wherein each of the first molded lens, the second molded lens, the third molded lens, and the fourth molded lens is a cylindrical lens.
In this case, although Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first molded lens, the third molded lens, and the fourth molded lens is also a cylindrical lens type, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first molded lens, third molded lens, and fourth molded lens also be a cylindrical lens type since a cylindrical lens is one of the many known types of lenses used in the laser ablation art, and the selection of any of these known equivalents to change a shape of an incident input light would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art.
Regarding claim 9, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 7.
Kim further teaches:
wherein a radius of curvature of the fourth molded lens is about 5200 mm to about 7000 mm.
In this case, in view of Kim teaching a predetermined energy density to ablate a panel substrate from a carrier substrate [para. 0122: “In order for the panel substrate PST to be ablated from the carrier substrate CST, an output beam LSRL having a predetermined energy density may be incident onto the back of the carrier substrate CST.”], selecting a given radius of curvature of the fourth molded lens, or of any dimension of any lenses in the optical system, would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Thus, it would have been an obvious matter of design choice to select a radius of curvature of 5200 mm to 7000 mm [e.g., in order to supply sufficient energy for ablation; paras. 0127-133: “A portion of the panel substrate PST, which is in contact with the carrier substrate CST, may absorb a beam having a predetermined energy density from the output beam LSRL… Thus, the panel substrate PST can be ablated from the carrier substrate CST.”].
Regarding claim 10, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 3.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the second shapes is an ellipse [i.e., a shape wherein the width is narrow; para. 0079: “For example, the cylinder lens 232 may adjust the beam width of the input beam to have narrow width.”].
Kim further teaches:
wherein each of the first shapes and the second shapes is an ellipse.
In this case, although Kim does not explicitly disclose wherein the first shapes is also an ellipse, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to have the first shapes also be an ellipse since an ellipse is one of the many known shapes used in the laser ablation art, and the selection of any of these known equivalents to would be within the level of ordinary skill in the art. Furthermore, in view of Kim teaching a predetermined energy density to ablate a panel substrate from a carrier substrate [para. 0122: “In order for the panel substrate PST to be ablated from the carrier substrate CST, an output beam LSRL having a predetermined energy density may be incident onto the back of the carrier substrate CST.”], selecting a given shape of the laser beams, to be effected by any lenses in the optical system, would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Thus, it would have also been an obvious matter of design choice to select an ellipse shape [e.g., in order to supply sufficient energy for ablation; paras. 0127-133: “A portion of the panel substrate PST, which is in contact with the carrier substrate CST, may absorb a beam having a predetermined energy density from the output beam LSRL… Thus, the panel substrate PST can be ablated from the carrier substrate CST.”].
Regarding claim 11, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 1.
Kim further discloses:
wherein initial shapes of the plurality of solid-state laser beams are circular, and a number of the plurality of solid-state laser beams is at least 4 [par. 0017: “The laser beam generator may include four beam sources.”; wherein, after passing through first mixer 210 and second mixer 220 (fig. 2), the four laser beams retain a circular shape; para. 0078: The first mixed laser beam CLSR1 and the second mixed laser beam CLSR2 may have a circular shape.].
Regarding claim 12, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 1.
Kim further discloses:
further comprising a lower optical system configured to combine the plurality of solid-state laser beams emitted by the laser irradiation part with one another, and provide the optical system with a combined plurality of solid-state laser beams having a number that is smaller than the number of the plurality of solid-state laser beams emitted by the laser irradiation part [fig. 2: first mixer 210, second mixer 220; para. 0064: “The first mixer 210 may generate a first mixed laser beam CLSR1 using the first laser beam LSR1 and the second laser beam LSR2. The second mixer 220 may generate a second mixed laser beam CLSR2 using the third laser beam LSR3 and the fourth laser beam LSR4.”].
Regarding claim 14,
Kim discloses:
A laser ablation device [fig. 1: laser ablation apparatus 10] comprising:
a laser irradiation part configured to emit a plurality of solid-state laser beams [fig. 1: laser beam generator 100; para. 0048: “The laser beam generator 100 may generate laser beams LSR. For example, the laser beam generator 100 may generate the laser beams LSR using a solid-state laser.”; para. 0054: “Referring to FIG. 2, the laser beam generator 100 may include a first beam source 110, a second beam source 120, a third beam source 130, and a fourth beam source 140.”];
an optical system configured to convert the plurality of solid-state laser beams into output light [fig. 1: output beam generator 200; para. 0049: “The output beam generator 200 may generate an output beam LSRL using the laser beams LSR.”; para. 0063: “The output beam generator 200 may include a first mixer 210, a second mixer 220, and a photo molding machine.”; para. 0066: “In some embodiments, each of the first mixer 210 and the second mixer 220 may include at least one of a phase retarder, a polarizer, a lens, and a mirror.”]; and
a stage on which an irradiation target irradiated with the output light are disposed [fig. 1: substrate stage 300],
wherein
a minor axis of the output light [i.e., the output beam generator generates the output beam LSRL such that it has a rectangular shape having a minor axis length D2; fig. 4],
,
an energy intensity of the output light exceeds a threshold for breaking bonds to separate a display panel from a base substrate for processing [Kim describes the laser lift-off method; para. 0005: “The carrier substrate may be removed using various methods, and studies on a laser lift-off method using laser have been actively conducted.”; para. 0033: “FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a carrier substrate and a display device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.”], and
In this case, in view of Kim teaching a predetermined energy density to ablate a panel substrate from a carrier substrate [para. 0122: “In order for the panel substrate PST to be ablated from the carrier substrate CST, an output beam LSRL having a predetermined energy density may be incident onto the back of the carrier substrate CST.”], selecting a threshold for a given energy intensity per would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., according to material properties, environmental conditions, etc.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose:
the minor axis of the output light has a semi-super Gaussian profile,
a width at about 90 % of a maximum of the semi-super Gaussian profile is about 18 micrometers to about 40 micrometers,
an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold.
Hatano, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a laser irradiation part [laser beam 103 as a conventional gas/solid-state laser; para. 0124: “For the laser beam 103 used for irradiation, a gas laser typified by an excimer laser or a solid-state laser typified by a YAG laser can be used as a light source.”], wherein an output light [i.e.,. the conventional use of laser output light in an ablation process] has a super Gaussian profile [para. 0022: “Note that it is preferable that a beam profile of a laser beam along a cross section perpendicular to an optical axis of laser light delivered have a top flat shape in a focal position.”] and describes avoiding carbonization [i.e., the potential pyrolytic reaction of any organic materials (e.g., conventional resins, adhesives) during an ablation process; para. 0124: “…Because laser beam with low energy within an infrared region is used, the fixed portion 168 which is bonded with the first bonding layer 170 by welding without causing carbonization of the resin material and the like can be formed....”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Kim such that the minor axis of the output light has a super Gaussian profile and an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold, since Hatano teaches the altered shape as preferable [i.e., the output light is made uniform; see fig. 9A showing a uniform top flat shape; para. 0125].
Regarding the limitations directed towards the shape of the laser beam, specifically wherein the order of the super Gaussian profile be semi-super, wherein an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold, and wherein a width at about 90 % of a maximum of the super Gaussian profile is about 18 micrometers to about 40 micrometers in view of Hatano also teaching the generally understood structure controlling laser beam shape [para. 0125: “Note that it is preferable that a beam profile of a laser beam along a cross section perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam have a top flat shape in a focal position by adjustment of the optical system.”], selecting a shape or a particular order or arrangement of energy zone(s) or width values would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, i.e., processing parameters of the laser ablation process, e.g., in order to avoid carbonization of any organic material [Kim para. 0122: “…For example, the thin film encapsulation layer TFE may have a structure in which a layer made of an inorganic material such as silicon oxide (SiOx) or silicon nitride (SiNx) and a layer made of an organic material such as epoxy or polyimide are alternately stacked...”].
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.).
Furthermore, it has been held that recognizing another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art [e.g., the reduction of carbonization] cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145(II.).
Regarding claim 15, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 14.
Kim as modified by Hatano discloses:
wherein the semi-super Gaussian profile is of order 2 to order 2.4.
Regarding the limitations directed towards the shape of the laser beam, specifically wherein the order of the super Gaussian profile be 2 to 2.4, in view of Hatano also teaching the generally understood structure controlling laser beam shape [para. 0125], selecting a particular order would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, i.e., processing parameters of the laser ablation process, e.g., in order to avoid carbonization of any organic material [Kim para. 0122: “…For example, the thin film encapsulation layer TFE may have a structure in which a layer made of an inorganic material such as silicon oxide (SiOx) or silicon nitride (SiNx) and a layer made of an organic material such as epoxy or polyimide are alternately stacked...”].
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.).
Regarding claim 16,
Kim discloses:
A display device manufacturing method [para. 0002: “The present disclosure generally relates to a laser ablation apparatus using a solid-state laser and a method of manufacturing a display device.”] comprising:
forming a display panel on a base substrate for processing [para. 0033: “FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a carrier substrate and a display device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.”]; and
emitting output light to separate the display panel from the base substrate for processing [Kim teaches the common practice of using a laser lift-off method; para. 0005: “The carrier substrate may be removed using various methods, and studies on a laser lift-off method using laser have been actively conducted.”],
wherein the emitting of the output light comprises:
converting a plurality of solid-state laser beams into the output light [fig. 1: output beam generator 200; para. 0049: “The output beam generator 200 may generate an output beam LSRL using the laser beams LSR.”; para. 0063: “The output beam generator 200 may include a first mixer 210, a second mixer 220, and a photo molding machine.”; para. 0066: “In some embodiments, each of the first mixer 210 and the second mixer 220 may include at least one of a phase retarder, a polarizer, a lens, and a mirror.”], and
emitting the output light in a direction from the base substrate for processing toward the display panel [para. 0012: “The output beam may be configured to incident onto the back of the carrier substrate.”],
wherein
a minor axis of the output light [i.e., the output beam generator generates the output beam LSRL such that it has a rectangular shape having a minor axis length D2; fig. 4],
an energy intensity of the output light exceeds a threshold for breaking bonds to separate a display panel from a base substrate for processing [Kim describes the laser lift-off method; para. 0005: “The carrier substrate may be removed using various methods, and studies on a laser lift-off method using laser have been actively conducted.”; para. 0033: “FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating a carrier substrate and a display device according to an embodiment of the present disclosure.”], and
In this case, in view of Kim teaching a predetermined energy density to ablate a panel substrate from a carrier substrate [para. 0122: “In order for the panel substrate PST to be ablated from the carrier substrate CST, an output beam LSRL having a predetermined energy density may be incident onto the back of the carrier substrate CST.”], selecting a threshold for a given energy intensity per would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, e.g., according to material properties, environmental conditions, etc.
.
However, Kim does not explicitly disclose:
the minor axis of the output light has a semi-super Gaussian profile of order 2 to order 2.4, and
an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold.
Hatano, in the same field of endeavor, teaches a laser irradiation part [laser beam 103 as a conventional gas/solid-state laser; para. 0124: “For the laser beam 103 used for irradiation, a gas laser typified by an excimer laser or a solid-state laser typified by a YAG laser can be used as a light source.”], wherein an output light [i.e.,. the conventional use of laser output light in an ablation process] has a super Gaussian profile [para. 0022: “Note that it is preferable that a beam profile of a laser beam along a cross section perpendicular to an optical axis of laser light delivered have a top flat shape in a focal position.”] and describes avoiding carbonization [i.e., the potential pyrolytic reaction of any organic materials (e.g., conventional resins, adhesives) during an ablation process; para. 0124: “…Because laser beam with low energy within an infrared region is used, the fixed portion 168 which is bonded with the first bonding layer 170 by welding without causing carbonization of the resin material and the like can be formed....”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the method of Kim such that the minor axis of the output light has a super Gaussian profile and an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold, since Hatano teaches the altered shape as preferable [i.e., the output light is made uniform; see fig. 9A showing a uniform top flat shape; para. 0125].
Regarding the limitations directed towards the shape of the laser beam, specifically wherein the order of the super Gaussian profile be 2 to 2.4, and wherein an energy zone of the output light in which carbonization occurs exceeds the threshold, in view of Hatano also teaching the generally understood structure controlling laser beam shape [para. 0125: “Note that it is preferable that a beam profile of a laser beam along a cross section perpendicular to an optical axis of the laser beam have a top flat shape in a focal position by adjustment of the optical system.”], selecting a shape or a particular order or arrangement of energy zone(s) would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application, i.e., processing parameters of the laser ablation process, e.g., in order to avoid carbonization of any organic material [Kim para. 0122: “…For example, the thin film encapsulation layer TFE may have a structure in which a layer made of an inorganic material such as silicon oxide (SiOx) or silicon nitride (SiNx) and a layer made of an organic material such as epoxy or polyimide are alternately stacked...”].
Furthermore, it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. See MPEP 2144.05(II.)(A.).
Furthermore, it has been held that recognizing another advantage which would flow naturally from following the suggestion of the prior art [e.g., the reduction of carbonization] cannot be the basis for patentability when the differences would otherwise be obvious. See MPEP 2145(II.).
Regarding claim 17, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the display device manufacturing method of claim 16.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the converting of the plurality of solid-state laser beams into the output light comprises:
changing shapes of the plurality of solid-state laser beams to first shapes [fig. 4: telescope lens set 231; para. 0078: “The telescope lens set 231 may diffuse a first mixed laser beam CLSR1 and a second mixed laser beam CLSR2, which are supplied thereto.”];
changing the first shapes of the plurality of solid-state laser beams into second shapes different from the first shapes [fig. 4: cylinder lens 232; para. 0079: “The cylinder lens 232 may adjust a beam input from the telescope lens set 231. For example, the cylinder lens 232 may adjust the beam width of the input beam to have narrow width.”];
rotating the second shapes of the plurality of solid-state laser beams [fig. 4: beam transfer system 233; para. 0080: “The beam transfer system 233 may adjust a beam input from the cylinder lens 232. For example, the beam transfer system 233 may rotate the input beam to change a direction of the input beam.”]; and
mixing the plurality of solid-state laser beams with one another to output mixed light [fig. 4: homogenizer 234; para. 0081: “The homogenizer 234 may homogenize the diffused first and second mixed laser beams CLSR1 and CLSR2.”].
Regarding claim 18, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the display device manufacturing method of claim 17.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the converting of the plurality of solid-state laser beams into the output light further comprises:
changing a shape of the mixed light to a third shape [fig. 4: condenser 235; para. 0083: “The condenser 235 may condense the homogenized first and second mixed laser beams CLSR1 and CLSR2 in a desired shape. Consequently, the condenser 235 may generate an output beam LSRL. The output beam LSRL may have a linear shape having a major axis length D1 and a minor axis length D2.”].
Kim further teaches:
changing the third shape of the plurality of solid-state laser beams into a fourth shape different from the third shape.
In this case, in view of the first, second, and third molded lens disclosed by Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was made to add any number of molded lens also configured to change a shape of an incident input light into a different shape, since it has been held that mere duplication of essential working parts of a device involves only routine skill in the art. St. Regis Paper Co. v. Bemis Co., 193 USPQ 8.
Regarding claim 19, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the display device manufacturing method of claim 16.
Kim further teaches:
wherein the display panel comprises a first area, and a second area adjacent to the first area, the second area having a lower transmittance than that of the first area.
The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., that the method is applied to a display panel comprising adjacent first and second areas, wherein the second area has a lower transmittance than that of the first area) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Kim discloses that the panel substrate PST may have a transmittance of 0% gradually increasing according to an increasing wavelength of the laser [para. 0136: “The light transmittance of the panel substrate PST is substantially 0% in a section in which the wavelength of the laser is 410 nm or less. The light transmittance of the panel substrate PST gradually increases in a section in which the wavelength of the laser exceeds 410 nm.”]. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply the method of Kim and Hatano to the display panel described in claim 19 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Regarding claim 20, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the display device manufacturing method of claim 16.
Kim further discloses:
wherein the display panel has a transmittance of about 79% to about 86%.
The recitation of the intended use of the claimed invention (i.e., that the method is applied to a display panel having a lower transmittance of 79% to 86%) must result in a structural difference between the claimed invention and the prior art in order to patentably distinguish the claimed invention from the prior art. If the prior art structure is capable of performing the intended use, then it meets the claim. In this case, Kim discloses that the panel substrate PST may have a transmittance of 0% gradually increasing according to an increasing wavelength of the laser [para. 0136: “The light transmittance of the panel substrate PST is substantially 0% in a section in which the wavelength of the laser is 410 nm or less. The light transmittance of the panel substrate PST gradually increases in a section in which the wavelength of the laser exceeds 410 nm.”]. Thus, it would have been obvious to apply the method of Kim and Hatano to the display panel described in claim 20 with a reasonable expectation of success.
Claim 13 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kim (US 20200083449 A1 ) in view of Hatano (US 20120286312 A1) as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Alexander (US 20210098255 A1).
Regarding claim 13, Kim in view of Hatano discloses the laser ablation device of claim 1.
However, Kim as modified by Hatano does not disclose:
wherein irradiation regions of the output light emitted toward the irradiation target overlap with each other by at least about 66.7%.
Alexander, in the same field of endeavor, teaches the common practice of overlapping irradiation regions of output light emitted toward an irradiation target [para. 0012: “The disclosed method eliminates stitching by providing the overlap between adjacent irradiated thin film areas, further referred to as columns, in the second direction X, whereas each column is formed by irradiating film areas in the first direction Y.”].
Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filing date of the invention, to modify the device of Kim and Hatano by overlapping irradiation regions of the output light emitted towards an irradiation target since Alexander teaches that this eliminates the need for subsequent stitching [para. 0010: “A need therefore exists for a method of processing large thin film areas on a substrate panel using a fiber laser line beam, which is much smaller than the thin film area Af, such that no stitching of adjacent beams is needed.”; para. 0015: “Hence the columns are overlapped in the second direction which eliminates the need for subsequent stitching of the adjacent columns.”].
Regarding the limitation that the irradiation regions of the output light emitted toward the irradiation target overlap with each other by at least about 66.7%, in view of Alexander teaching that the overlap is controllably varied [para. 0012: “By controllably varying a distance dx between the columns and a distance dy between the adjacent irradiated areas within each column, the desired cumulative exposure duration od/number of pulses per each irradiated location of the film area Af and temperature are achieved.”], selecting a given overlap percentage would have flown naturally to one of ordinary skill in the art as necessitated by the specific requirements of a given application. Furthermore, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only ordinary skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233.
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 THEODORE J EVANGELISTA whose telephone number is (571)272-6093. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday, 9am - 5pm EST.
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 F 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.
/THEODORE J EVANGELISTA/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /EDWARD F LANDRUM/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3761
Prosecution Insights