Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention.
Claim 19 recites “between processed of emitting the laser beam from the module”. However, claims 16 and 19 do not recite that a process is taking place.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claim(s) 10-11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Lee et al (US 2021/0053159).
Regarding claim 10, Lee discloses, A laser etching method, comprising: loading a substrate in a laser etching apparatus (Fig 8 shows a substrate (SUB) being loaded into a laser etching apparatus); performing a first emission process by emitting a laser beam from a laser module toward the substrate (Fig 8 also shows a laser beam being emitted from a laser module LM toward the substrate); and moving a protection window between the substrate and the laser module, during the performing the first emission process (A window PW1 is moved between the substrate and the laser module, See Figs 8 and 10, See Paragraph [0109]-[0111]).
Regarding claim 11, Figs 8 and 10 show the window being moved in a first direction and in an opposite direction. Regarding claims 13-15, the beam would be stopped and the moving of the window would stop. However, the window continuing moving as it would be replaced with another window. Therefore, the window is stopped and subsequently moved in the same process.
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) 12 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2021/0053159).
The teachings of Lee have been discussed above. Lee fails to disclose, the specific distance is in a range of about 40-120 mm. It would have been obvious to move the window based on the distance required for etching or for moving the window enough so contamination does not affect the laser beam. 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 routine skill in the art.
Claim(s) 16-20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lee et al (US 2021/0053159) in view of Dickinson et al (US 4,994,639).
Regarding claim 16, Lee discloses, A laser etching apparatus, comprising: a laser etching chamber (CH1); a chuck disposed in the laser etching chamber (carrier includes a chuck, See Paragraph [0046]); a laser module which emits a laser beam toward the chuck (Laser module LM); a protection window between the chuck and the laser module (Protection Window PW1); a tray which supports the protection window (tray 500, See Fig 9, or transfer unit 300 which includes a tray, See Paragraph [0060], [0110]);); a linear motion unit which moves the tray in a first direction (transfer unit 300 includes an actuator and motor and moves in a linear direction as shown in Figures. See Paragraph [0060], [0110]); and
Lee fails to disclose a position sensor which senses a position of the protection window. However, Dickinson discloses a laser etching device having a position sensor for sensing the position of a mask 14. The mask 14 is analogous to the window in the sense the laser is directed through the window before hitting the target substrate. (See Column 2, Lines 49-66)
It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention to adapt Lee in view of Dickinson to provide the position sensor for ensuring the window is in the correct position. As the window is moved during processing, one would find it obvious to ensure the window is in the correct position before continuing the process.
Lee further discloses:
Regarding claim 17, Figs 4 and 9 show the laser (LM) positioned below the window.
Regarding claims 19 and 20 a controller is provided for controlling the movement and direction of movement of the window moving module 500. The window may be moved during processing (paragraph [0139], window is moved while the laser is being operated by the controller) or between processing. (Figs 12 and 13 show the window being moved between processes.)
Regarding claim 18, Lee fails to disclose the linear motion device comprises a steel belt. However, it would have been obvious to select the type of linear motion device which would work best for the application.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 1-9 are allowed.
The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: performing a third emission process by emitting a laser beam from the laser module after the moving the protection window in the opposite direction of the first direction by the second distance.
Any comments considered necessary by applicant must be submitted no later than the payment of the issue fee and, to avoid processing delays, should preferably accompany the issue fee. Such submissions should be clearly labeled “Comments on Statement of Reasons for Allowance.”
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BRIAN W JENNISON whose telephone number is (571)270-5930. The examiner can normally be reached M-Th 9-5.
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.
/BRIAN W JENNISON/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761 1/28/2026